The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post Reply
jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:51 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
jamest wrote:
Why do people like you and LI claim to be mystics and then piss on this concept of the illusion of the self? Why do you need to make your own little subjective world something Godly and Great in the universe and refuse to acknowledge it's effervescence?
I'm not supposed to have a subjective world, am I? According to you lot, my thoughts and words are bi-products of my environment. I'm just a fucking puppet. It is not 'me' that speaks, but my world.
:dq: :console:
Puppets don't need consoling. You've watched too many Sooty shows.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:12 pm

Kenny Login wrote:I have to agree with jamest in the respect that other models - psychological, psychoanalytic, sociological etc etc are sometimes more informative and better at mapping the territory.
Yes, 'internal working models', for instance, are valid concepts in determining one's identity. That is, one's responses to his environment are very much dependent upon how he subjectively regards himself in relation to that environment. The process demands self-analysis - a singular review of BOTH the environment and oneself in relation to it. That is, brain states cannot simply be just responses to the environment. If our thoughts/words/actions have correlative brain states, then those states must also mirror the decisions that the individual has already made about himself and which affect the course of his proceeding thoughts/words/actions.

The difference between brain states that are responses to the environment and brain states that are subjectively affected responses to the environment, is the telling point of this discussion, since the latter obviously requires an internalised one to subjectively affect those responses.

Kenny Login
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:15 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Kenny Login » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:12 pm

GrahamH wrote:Perhaps I wan't sufficiently clear. I don't mean the subjective self is misunderstood by a real subjective observer, I mean there is no subjective observer, but there is non-subjective 'knowledge' of an 'I'. This non-subjective knowledge being brain states that influence brain behaviour such that the person ends up talking about hot it feels to see red. The 'fiction' is then information about something that doesn't actually exist distinct from the holder of the information.

This is probably confusing at the moment but I hope we can get back on topic soon and start discussing it.

The issue is not do I have experiences or am I a mind, it is what these things mean, what are experiences, is there actually a subjective entity having them and what makes a mind?
No, I think you were clear, I understand. I also find these things interesting, although if we begin to deviate from a strictly neurocognitive model in exploring such stuff we might run the risk of getting busted by the metaphysics police....

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:14 pm

jamest wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Did you read my posts about the brain? Did you grasp the significance of the individuality and the connectedness with our history and environment? Did you understand the potential for chaotic systems?

In a system this complex why would you not expect to see dynamic creativity?
Either brain states are responses to an external environment, or they are not. Make your mind up which you prefer, though I'm focussed upon Graham's choice right now. Any reference to 'creativity' implies that brain states are not purely responses to the environment.
Your density is astounding me. Why do I have to make up my mind when I'm telling you that BOTH FUCKING THINGS are causal!!!
:mob:
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:17 pm

Kenny Login wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Perhaps I wan't sufficiently clear. I don't mean the subjective self is misunderstood by a real subjective observer, I mean there is no subjective observer, but there is non-subjective 'knowledge' of an 'I'. This non-subjective knowledge being brain states that influence brain behaviour such that the person ends up talking about hot it feels to see red. The 'fiction' is then information about something that doesn't actually exist distinct from the holder of the information.

This is probably confusing at the moment but I hope we can get back on topic soon and start discussing it.

The issue is not do I have experiences or am I a mind, it is what these things mean, what are experiences, is there actually a subjective entity having them and what makes a mind?
No, I think you were clear, I understand. I also find these things interesting, although if we begin to deviate from a strictly neurocognitive model in exploring such stuff we might run the risk of getting busted by the metaphysics police....
Oh, the metaphysics police have been told to take a break until we establish the existence of a subjective observer. Oh, hold on, I think I just heard them stirring.

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by GrahamH » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:18 pm

I can see we will need to have a definition of what 'subjective observer' means in order to keep some focus (I thought it was obvious enough).

We humans 'have subjective experiences' where it seems 'I observe the world and my thoughts and experience qualia'.

We assume this is the case for all humans, regardless of beliefs, personality, self identity and other aspects of 'mind'.

LI pared 'mind' right back to this minimal, ego-less, identity-less 'I'.

Is this a definition we can agree on, regardless of whether it refers to anything real. I think this is the fundamental that objectors of brain = mind point to and say that a physical object cannot give rise to 'subjectivity'.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:20 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Did you read my posts about the brain? Did you grasp the significance of the individuality and the connectedness with our history and environment? Did you understand the potential for chaotic systems?

In a system this complex why would you not expect to see dynamic creativity?
Either brain states are responses to an external environment, or they are not. Make your mind up which you prefer, though I'm focussed upon Graham's choice right now. Any reference to 'creativity' implies that brain states are not purely responses to the environment.
Your density is astounding me. Why do I have to make up my mind when I'm telling you that BOTH FUCKING THINGS are causal!!!
:mob:
Because brain states that are PURELY responses to the environment, cannot - by logical default - exhibit 'creative' tendencies.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:21 pm

jamest wrote:The process demands self-analysis - a singular review of BOTH the environment and oneself in relation to it.
You talk about it like it's a stodgy old committee of old English bureaucrats. Normally the brain has 5-200 MILLI-FUCKING seconds to do this so called review.

You are hopelessly stuck on this dualist version of mind and your religious beliefs.

Wake UP!!!
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

Kenny Login
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:15 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Kenny Login » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:23 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:There is a tight relationship between Bat Shit Crazy and religious experiences.
Indeed there is.
SpeedOfSound wrote:There are areas in the temporal lobes and anterior cingulate that act as our gyroscopes and inform us about who and where we are. As we take on life's baggage we have higher order associations (beliefs, resentments, clinging, bias etc ) that get strongly attached to this gyro. Either a massive meltdown or the educational variety of spiritual awakening will allow a bit of rearrangement and jettison of the extra baggage.
Also interesting is the physical role of the pineal gland and the secretion of melatonin and regulating light. And it's parallel function in religious and esoteric practice, regulating 'other' types of light.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:23 pm

jamest wrote: Because brain states that are PURELY responses to the environment, cannot - by logical default - exhibit 'creative' tendencies.
Why? And who ever said "PURELY' other than you? 'Tis you that has this cartoon model of mind.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:24 pm

Kenny Login wrote: Also interesting is the physical role of the pineal gland and the secretion of melatonin and regulating light. And it's parallel function in religious and esoteric practice, regulating 'other' types of light.
That is interesting. What do you know about this? I don't have any info on this.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:27 pm

GrahamH wrote:I can see we will need to have a definition of what 'subjective observer' means in order to keep some focus (I thought it was obvious enough).

We humans 'have subjective experiences' where it seems 'I observe the world and my thoughts and experience qualia'.
Actually, it should be "I observe qualia and experience the world". Whether there IS a world beyond my experience of it, because of those qualia, is a metaphysical issue. Something that we probably want to avoid right now.

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:29 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote:The process demands self-analysis - a singular review of BOTH the environment and oneself in relation to it.
You talk about it like it's a stodgy old committee of old English bureaucrats. Normally the brain has 5-200 MILLI-FUCKING seconds to do this so called review.

You are hopelessly stuck on this dualist version of mind and your religious beliefs.

Wake UP!!!
Actually, I'm just entertaining Graham's theory. I don't even believe in the reality of brains, remember?

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:32 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote: Because brain states that are PURELY responses to the environment, cannot - by logical default - exhibit 'creative' tendencies.
Why? And who ever said "PURELY' other than you?
Graham did. Brain states are just responses to the environment, he said. But to exhibit 'creativity', they'd have to be something other than just that.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:34 pm

jamest wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote:The process demands self-analysis - a singular review of BOTH the environment and oneself in relation to it.
You talk about it like it's a stodgy old committee of old English bureaucrats. Normally the brain has 5-200 MILLI-FUCKING seconds to do this so called review.

You are hopelessly stuck on this dualist version of mind and your religious beliefs.

Wake UP!!!
Actually, I'm just entertaining Graham's theory. I don't even believe in the reality of brains, remember?
Sadly ignoring the fact that you need one to believe anything. But open minded dude that I am I will consider it possible that you lack one. There is some evidence. :Erasb:
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests