The subjective observer is a fictional character

[GrahamH]

we are observing perceptions of brains

I wonder what it means to observe a perception? How do we do that? We perceive, or observe (much the same thing). I don't think one can perceive perception, or observe observation. Observing perception is meaningless.

We can reflect on perceptions, Graham. We can recall them. I think that's what is indicated there. Reflections and memories are fascinating, of course, but one can easily pop down the rabbit-hole with them, and end up with the recto-cranial inversion.

Now, scientific reflections are of one kind, and metaphysical reflections are another. Guess which we can use to unbend a spoon.

Do you really think that's what James means? We can't observe brains, but we can reflect on perceptions of brains?
I think he is just so absorbed by his Cartesian thinking that he can not escape the idea that everything is observed by an inner observer. The homunculus watches the screen and sees the perceptions of a brain depicted there. (Pssst, it's only a movie )

[Surendra Darathy]

Do you really think that's what James means? We can't observe brains, but we can reflect on perceptions of brains?

I think he is just so absorbed by his Cartesian thinking that he can not escape the idea that everything is observed by an inner observer. The homunculus watches the screen and sees the perceptions of a brain depicted there. (Pssst, it's only a movie )

To paraphrase Marcellus Wallace, I'm pretty fucking far from caring what James means. James could be whisked off this planet in a rapture, and few but his Mom and his wife and kids would notice.

We can look at a brain with the unaided eye and see a folded up mass of grey protoplasm with the consistency of pudding. That's the "perception" of a brain, and using a microscope or tomography is somewhat "unnatural". Naturally. James might be a closet Luddite, though he much likes wibbling with a keyboard on the interwebbz.

If I were to hazard a guess, James would probably say we need not look any farther into it than that. Largely because, as is often pointed out, science is hard and wibbling is easy.

[jamest]

And the only reason we don't make the right choice is by virtue of fear, guilt, or selfishness.

I never used the word 'fear'. Actually, they were serious questions that I asked you - not schoolyard taunts. The issues of not wanting to believe because of contentedness with one's life as it is; or not being able to cope with believing, because of guilt, cannot be ignored. I recognise from personal experience that believing in God does come at a price for the ego. And so, probably, do you.

For what it's worth, there is no hell in my philosophy, where 'bad people' go to endure an eternity of pain and terror. So, I never would or could use such tactics to impel people such as yourself to 'believe'. You've just misread me.

We simply don't have access to real brains...

You don't think we have access to real anything, James.

We have access to 'ourselves'.

It's a kind of special pleading to focus so much on the unreality of brains. I mean, fear, guilt, and selfishness don't have any reality to them, either, in that case, and have no place in any of your rationalisations of anything. Unless you want to explain how they have more reality than, say, a tree.

Emotions emerge from oneself. They are very real in that they are how 'the one that exists' feels.

[SpeedOfSound]

And the only reason we don't make the right choice is by virtue of fear, guilt, or selfishness.

I never used the word 'fear'. Actually, they were serious questions that I asked you - not schoolyard taunts. The issues of not wanting to believe because of contentedness with one's life as it is; or not being able to cope with believing, because of guilt, cannot be ignored. I recognise from personal experience that believing in God does come at a price for the ego. And so, probably, do you.

Ans so is there a ego price to pay when you first understand that you are a physical splotch of goo. The ultimate ego trip is probably believing that our human mind is somehow godly in nature and that we have somehow personally found a metaphysical truth about god.

Jim Jones.

[jamest]

Ans so is there a ego price to pay when you first understand that you are a physical splotch of goo. The ultimate ego trip is probably believing that our human mind is somehow godly in nature and that we have somehow personally found a metaphysical truth about god.

I'm talking about the human ego. Belief in God comes at a price for the human ego, because ultimately, it must desist in order to know and be the divine.

[SpeedOfSound]

Ans so is there a ego price to pay when you first understand that you are a physical splotch of goo. The ultimate ego trip is probably believing that our human mind is somehow godly in nature and that we have somehow personally found a metaphysical truth about god.

I'm talking about the human ego. Belief in God comes at a price for the human ego, because ultimately, it must desist in order to know and be the divine.

Me too. Belief in reality comes at a price to your ego. It must desist in order to know and be a part of rather than apart from the universe.

All that you cosmic consciousness people do is cling to a belief system that will allow you to believe that part of your tiny little conscious existence will get to live after you croak. You have just moved the ego problem to a higher layer and made it deviously worse in the process.

The universe has very little to do with your mind and hence neither does god. You are Not-God. Deep realization of this, without obfuscation of belief systems, will make you One-With.

[jamest]

Belief in reality comes at a price to your ego. It must desist in order to know and be a part of rather than apart from the universe.

Why should the ego desist to become a part of the material universe?
Further, what would this entail? That is, what should the ego be striving to be like?

[SpeedOfSound]

Belief in reality comes at a price to your ego. It must desist in order to know and be a part of rather than apart from the universe.

Why should the ego desist to become a part of the material universe?
Further, what would this entail? That is, what should the ego be striving to be like?

Detached. Don't know what you mean by "desist to become a part of the material universe". You must meditate on your connectivity and integration with the universe. But that's only step one. Getting your mind right. Let go the belief in separation. Or any belief at all.

[SpeedOfSound]

If you believe in god then you think you know god. Then you are a fool who god laughs at.

[GrahamH]

And the only reason we don't make the right choice is by virtue of fear, guilt, or selfishness.

I never used the word 'fear'. Actually, they were serious questions that I asked you - not schoolyard taunts. The issues of not wanting to believe because of contentedness with one's life as it is; or not being able to cope with believing, because of guilt, cannot be ignored. I recognise from personal experience that believing in God does come at a price for the ego. And so, probably, do you.

For what it's worth, there is no hell in my philosophy, where 'bad people' go to endure an eternity of pain and terror. So, I never would or could use such tactics to impel people such as yourself to 'believe'. You've just misread me.

We simply don't have access to real brains...

You don't think we have access to real anything, James.

We have access to 'ourselves'.

And yet you agree that we do not know ourselves, in identity or nature, and you count as parts of 'ourselves' things that we do not have access to.
The only access we have is to our perceptions (experiences, if you prefer). To doubt them so totally as you do is to deny everything and make life a lie.

It's a kind of special pleading to focus so much on the unreality of brains. I mean, fear, guilt, and selfishness don't have any reality to them, either, in that case, and have no place in any of your rationalisations of anything. Unless you want to explain how they have more reality than, say, a tree.

Emotions emerge from oneself. They are very real in that they are how 'the one that exists' feels.

We have emotions, and they arise within ourselves. So? Emotions arise from one of those parts of us we have very little access to. It is surely some part that knowns things unconsciously. The model accounts for that.

Belief in reality comes at a price to your ego. It must desist in order to know and be a part of rather than apart from the universe.

Why should the ego desist to become a part of the material universe?
Further, what would this entail? That is, what should the ego be striving to be like?

What greater ego trip is there than believing you are god? Those that believe they are specialy loved by god come a distant second to that.
How can one be more apart from reality than to believe that he creates it for himself?

[jamest]

We have access to 'ourselves'.

And yet you agree that we do not know ourselves, in identity or nature,

Which is not to say that we cannot know ourselves.

The only access we have is to our perceptions (experiences, if you prefer). To doubt them so totally as you do is to deny everything and make life a lie.

If the underlying essence of 'us' is God, then it is God being us. How, therefore, could God not have access to itself? When one believes that one's reality is as 'human, in the world', it is hardly any wonder that said individual has no access to the reality of being God, is it?
Having access to God is to truly believe that one is essentially God. It's a profound state of mind, as opposed to another realm where one is free to move to.

The underlying problem is being lost in the world - immersed within the human ego.

Emotions emerge from oneself. They are very real in that they are how 'the one that exists' feels.

We have emotions, and they arise within ourselves. So? Emotions arise from one of those parts of us we have very little access to. It is surely some part that knowns things unconsciously. The model accounts for that.

Your model states that 'we' are fictional observers - nonentities, essentially. Yet, I know as a matter of fact that my emotional responses to the world are mine. I control them. I can change them. 'I' can be the master of my own emotions. Pray tell, how can a "fictional observer" have so much power to effect his own demeanour?

What greater ego trip is there than believing you are god?

The belief is that there is only God. And there is nothing in that for the human ego. Absolutely nothing.

Those that believe they are specialy loved by god come a distant second to that.

There is only God. There is no room in that realisation for favouritism.

How can one be more apart from reality than to believe that he creates it for himself?

How can one be more apart from reality than to believe that he is a puppet of it, having no essential existence in and of himself?

[Twiglet]

You are all Gods sockpuppets......

[Trolldor]

Psychology is fucked up.

No.

[GrahamH]

We have access to 'ourselves'.

And yet you agree that we do not know ourselves, in identity or nature,

Which is not to say that we cannot know ourselves.

The only access we have is to our perceptions (experiences, if you prefer). To doubt them so totally as you do is to deny everything and make life a lie.

If the underlying essence of 'us' is God, then it is God being us. How, therefore, could God not have access to itself? When one believes that one's reality is as 'human, in the world', it is hardly any wonder that said individual has no access to the reality of being God, is it?

If that were true we would be god not knowing itself, and life would be a epic lie. The only reason I can see to believe in such a tall tale is because it makes you feel good about yourself, because you are a GOD! How can you not see the ego inflation at work in such a belief?

Having access to God is to truly believe that one is essentially God. It's a profound state of mind, as opposed to another realm where one is free to move to.

It is not surprising to me that people can persuade themselves of these things, by ignoring the world. People often believe untrue stories. Those stories are often contradictory. I suggests that "a profound state of mind" is the recognition of a pattern/concept as <really important> even though there is no information about it. It is a what-if game taken seriously. What-if a huge powerful monster I can't see is about to eat me? That would produce a profound state of mind, if you weren't so attached to your visual perceptions and experiences of unreal patterns.
Recognition of TRUTH and PROFUNDITY, like all perceptions, might sometimes be false, but will still grab our attention and make us respond.

The underlying problem is being lost in the world - immersed within the human ego.

Or lost in the clouds, immersed within the human ego, unable to see what is all around you.

Emotions emerge from oneself. They are very real in that they are how 'the one that exists' feels.

We have emotions, and they arise within ourselves. So? Emotions arise from one of those parts of us we have very little access to. It is surely some part that knowns things unconsciously. The model accounts for that.

Your model states that 'we' are fictional observers - nonentities, essentially. Yet, I know as a matter of fact that my emotional responses to the world are mine. I control them. I can change them. 'I' can be the master of my own emotions. Pray tell, how can a "fictional observer" have so much power to effect his own demeanour?

How do you know it is you Subjective Observer that controls? If your brain has self-regulation then it can control its emotional responses by recognising that it is in such a state and taking appropriate action. It can recognise such events as <SO controlling emotions>, but SO has no causal power in itself, as it is not an entity within.

What greater ego trip is there than believing you are god?

The belief is that there is only God. And there is nothing in that for the human ego. Absolutely nothing.

Those that believe they are specially loved by god come a distant second to that.

There is only God. There is no room in that realisation for favouritism.

So say you, which makes you special, huh? EGO.

How can one be more apart from reality than to believe that he creates it for himself?

How can one be more apart from reality than to believe that he is a puppet of it, having no essential existence in and of himself?

Not a puppet, a part of a whole. Your conception casts us as puppets, blind to reality, locked in a theatre to watch a fantasy we have no choice but to watch.
If we are truly a part of the universe we have freedom to explore and learn something real. We generate our own meaning in our human interactions (what else is meaning than the self-assigned importance of ways in which we relate to the world?).

You mask ask how we can be free if we are physical brains unable to transcend deterministic physics. That depends what 'free' means.

We learn and invent from experience. We act to shape the world around us. There is no other mind controlling us, and none of what we do would occur except that we do it. You may be unsatisfied that your actions are determined to an infinitesimal degree by the ancient death of a supernova. You may rail against the idea that yesterday's weather and the level of your blood sugar might be any part of the choices you make. That is more egoism. I am a unique nexus of infinite causal chains that link in my brain to affect 'my choices'. My interactions with other people, and my experience of the world, define who I am and how I act. There is enough freedom and individuality in that.

[SpeedOfSound]

The belief is that there is only God. And there is nothing in that for the human ego. Absolutely nothing.
...
How can one be more apart from reality than to believe that he is a puppet of it, having no essential existence in and of himself?

You contradict yourself here.