kakapo

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I have already agreed to this.  I already understand this.  None of this has any bearing on what is happening outside the skull.  That's the whole point.

 

 

My question was not "how much is missing"  I asked "how much is incorrect.  See below:

 

 

And you never answered my question about the diagrams I sent you or the conversation we are having.  The reason this is important is because you seem to be assuming that nothing exists outside the mind even though there is abundant evidence for it.  This nullification of everything seems to be produced by beginning with doubt and skepticsm but then balloons into denial of everything without rational reasons.

 

So, I am asking:  where did the editted diagrams I produced come from?  How is it possible that you and I were able to reconcile the misunderstanding rapidly UNLESS we are both functionally seeing the same diagrams with the same content?  

 

So Daniel,

It's not my intention to be rude to you, so please don't take this the wrong way.

I've said everything I know to say about the topic, as many ways as I know how to say it.

At the moment it seems you still aren't grasping the core of what I am saying.

I'll be happy to continue talking to you about it, but at some point you have to acknowledge that the locals here on the forum will get annoyed by the same things being repeated over and over.

If you want to continue discussion, maybe we could continue the discussion in private?

Also please check out the Ted Talk above if you have time.

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

This sort of nullification, I'm sure would be very comforting for the drunk driver who has killed or hurt someone.  Or is comforting for anyone who has regrets.  "It's all a dream, it's all a dream, none of this is real..."   

 

Earlier I mentioned we are talking past each other without any real communication occurring.

They way I understand the words and they way you understand them seems to be different.

The fact is our experience is all a dream, and none of it is real, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't drive sober or be good people.

There may in fact be an external reality out there which our simulated dream like experience is a representation of, and operating under the assumption there is we should behavior morally, and ethically.

I am saying don't mistake a painting of a pipe for an actual pipe.

What you see and experience isn't the same thing that is happening outside of your skull.

It is something different from it.

Yet most people live their lives operating under the assumption it is actual reality.

It is a holographic simulation, and nothing more.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

I have already agreed to this.  I already understand this.  None of this has any bearing on what is happening outside the skull.  That's the whole point.

 

 

My question was not "how much is missing"  I asked "how much is incorrect.  See below:

 

 

And you never answered my question about the diagrams I sent you or the conversation we are having.  The reason this is important is because you seem to be assuming that nothing exists outside the mind even though there is abundant evidence for it.  This nullification of everything seems to be produced by beginning with doubt and skepticsm but then balloons into denial of everything without rational reasons.

 

So, I am asking:  where did the editted diagrams I produced come from?  How is it possible that you and I were able to reconcile the misunderstanding rapidly UNLESS we are both functionally seeing the same diagrams with the same content?  

 

"So, I am asking:  where did the editted diagrams I produced come from?  How is it possible that you and I were able to reconcile the misunderstanding rapidly UNLESS we are both functionally seeing the same diagrams with the same content?" 

Imagine you are in a tank, you see the outside world with a camera outside, and a television inside.

Now imagine that you had a crane on the outside of the tank you could use like a hand to interact with the environment.

Imagine you used the crane to write a message out in the dirt so another tank operator could read it, diagrams and all.

It's kind of a silly analogy, but it's the best one I can come up with.

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I have already agreed to this.  I already understand this.  None of this has any bearing on what is happening outside the skull.  That's the whole point.

 

 

My question was not "how much is missing"  I asked "how much is incorrect.  See below:

 

 

And you never answered my question about the diagrams I sent you or the conversation we are having.  The reason this is important is because you seem to be assuming that nothing exists outside the mind even though there is abundant evidence for it.  This nullification of everything seems to be produced by beginning with doubt and skepticsm but then balloons into denial of everything without rational reasons.

 

So, I am asking:  where did the editted diagrams I produced come from?  How is it possible that you and I were able to reconcile the misunderstanding rapidly UNLESS we are both functionally seeing the same diagrams with the same content?  

 

 "My question was not "how much is missing"  I asked "how much is incorrect.  See below:"

The video below has some wonderful views of our planets through a telescope. 

If we were on Mars and filming Earth with a similar telescope, you wouldn't see the trees, the people, you wouldn't understand the culture.

The same goes for your question about your arm.

There is too much you cannot see and know to say that your perception of it is anything more than a shadow on the wall.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

I have already agreed to this.  I already understand this.  None of this has any bearing on what is happening outside the skull.  That's the whole point.

 

 

My question was not "how much is missing"  I asked "how much is incorrect.  See below:

 

 

And you never answered my question about the diagrams I sent you or the conversation we are having.  The reason this is important is because you seem to be assuming that nothing exists outside the mind even though there is abundant evidence for it.  This nullification of everything seems to be produced by beginning with doubt and skepticsm but then balloons into denial of everything without rational reasons.

 

So, I am asking:  where did the editted diagrams I produced come from?  How is it possible that you and I were able to reconcile the misunderstanding rapidly UNLESS we are both functionally seeing the same diagrams with the same content?  

 

"you seem to be assuming that nothing exists outside the mind"

No that is most certainly not my position at all, not even a little bit.

You live in a simulated reality created by your brain as a useful fiction to help you navigate your environment.

It is exactly like the holodeck in star trek.

We hope that this useful fiction accurately simulates reality outside of ourselves, because if it doesn't that's going to create a whole lot of problems.

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

I was diagnosed with depersonalization at a very young age. Ime arguing intellectually will not cure it. 

~~~
Depersonalization-derealization disorder occurs when you always or often feel that you're seeing yourself from outside your body or you sense that things around you are not real — or both. Feelings of depersonalization and derealization can be very disturbing. You may feel like you're living in a dream. (Google)

 

Colbe,

What I am talking about is actually true, I posted a wonderful ted talk about it above, please check it out.

People can get diagnosed with Schizophrenia for quoting Edward Snowden or David Grush.

Pretty much you have to filter your behavior and your speech in public settings, and even in private to some degree.

People who lack the ability to behave normally in public, or filter their speech to normal topics are perceived as being mentally ill.

If you are screaming from the rooftops about anything that isn't something people normally encounter you will be diagnosed with some disorder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

The Rosenhan experiment was a famous study in the field of psychiatry, conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan in 1973. The study was designed to test the validity of psychiatric hospitals' ability to correctly diagnose mental illness.

The experiment had two parts:

Part One: Pseudo-patient Study: Eight "pseudo-patients" (including Rosenhan himself), none of whom had a history of mental illness, were instructed to go to various psychiatric hospitals around the United States. They claimed to be hearing voices that were unclear, but which seemed to utter the words "empty", "hollow", and "thud". These symptoms were chosen because they did not resemble any known symptoms of any mental illness. However, once admitted, the pseudo-patients acted completely normal and reported no more symptoms.

Part Two: Judgement of Sanity: After the first experiment, Rosenhan announced to a research and teaching hospital that over the next three months, one or more pseudo-patients would attempt to be admitted into the hospital. The staff were asked to rate every incoming patient on the likelihood that they were a pseudo-patient.

Findings:

First Part: All eight pseudo-patients were admitted to the hospitals, with seven diagnosed with schizophrenia and one with manic-depressive psychosis. They were all given antipsychotic medications (which they secretly discarded). Even though they acted normally after admission, they were kept in the hospitals for an average of 19 days (ranging from 7 to 52 days), and were all discharged with a diagnosis of their supposed mental illness "in remission".

Second Part: The staff at the hospital rated 193 patients. Forty-one were identified as potential pseudo-patients by at least one staff member, and 19 were suspected by at least one psychiatrist. In reality, Rosenhan had sent no pseudo-patients to the hospital.

Conclusion:

The Rosenhan experiment raised serious questions about the validity of psychiatric diagnoses and the implications of dehumanizing treatment in mental health institutions. It suggested that the diagnostic process in psychiatry was heavily influenced by the context and labels, rather than the patients' actual behavior or experiences. This landmark study played a key role in the movement towards deinstitutionalization and reform of mental health care.

Here is a wonderful documentary on the Rosenhan experiment:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt041e

https://www.anilseth.com/bio/

I am Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where I am also Director of the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science. I am also Co-Director of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) Program on Brain, Mind, and Consciousness, and of the Leverhulme Doctoral Scholarship Programme: From Sensation and Perception to Awareness. I was recently an Engagement Fellow with the Wellcome Trust.

I am Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience of Consciousness (Oxford University Press); I sit on the Editorial Board of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B and on the Advisory Committee for 1907 Research and for Chile’s Congreso Futuro. I was Conference Chair for the 16th Meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC16, 2012) and was an ASSC ‘member at large’ from 2014-2022.

My research has been supported by the EPSRC (Leadership Fellowship), the European Research Council (ERC, Advanced Investigator Grant), the Wellcome Trust, and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR).  Check out these profiles of me and my research in The Observer, The New Statesman, and Quanta.

24 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Even an estimate would be useful here.  The perception of my arm is... what?  75% correct?  80%?  99%?

Your arm contains so much data.

Imagine keeping track of the speed, and trajectory of every electron and subatomic particle in every atom.

If we turned every grain of sand on earth into a computer you couldn't do it.

I would say your perception at best captures:

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

of the data contained in the atoms of your arm.

21 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

But plato's analogy is an exaggeration to make a point.  It's exaggerated.  The shadows on the all ARE reality.  They are in a cave.  There are fires for light and warmth.  Why are you assuming the shadows are not real.

 

And why are you assuming there's a problem if I look at the TV and see some intruder picked on the security camera.  That's not a problem, that's a solution to a big problem.

 

 

I know it's not actually my arm, but it's a very-very good abstraction.  Super-duper good, much-much-much better than a 2-d picture on a TV.  A pipe I can put in my mouth and smoke is a very-very-very good likeness of a pipe.  Comparing it to a picture is, forgive me, silly.  Not even close.  

Daniel,

Imagine you are in a tank.

You have cameras outside the tank, and a television inside the tank.

This let's you drive the tank around and navigate your environment.

The output you see on the television screen while it may indeed represent reality outside of the tank, it itself is not that reality.

It is a representation of the reality outside.

What you see is a representation.

What you hear is a representation.

What you smell is a representation.

What you taste is a representation.

What you feel is is a representation.

Your eyeballs are biological cameras.

The reality you see and experience is occurring inside your skull.

The hangup here is that most people assume they are looking out into an external universe, and that is incorrect.

They are in fact looking into their own mind.

Most people just assume what they see is reality, but it is not.

A painting of a pipe not an actual pipe.

An experience of a pipe, is not an actual pipe.

No matter how real the experience feels.

Just now, Daniel said:

 

The problem again, is there seems to be an assumption being made that the inner experience is NOT accurate simply because it is not known to be perfect.

Pixels of light on a television, are not the same thing the camera is actually looking at.

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

The experience of something, is not that something itself.

The experience of something has no reality, at least no more reality than a shadow on a wall.

Just now, Daniel said:

 

I've heard these analogies before, they simply don't compare.  No one looks at a TV and then their own arm and imagines there are human arms inside the TV.  The shadows are real shadows.  No one looks at a shadow and confuses a shadow with a human being.  No one confuses a painting of pipe with a pipe.  No one goes to a resteraunt and literally EATS the menu.

When you look at your own arm, that is not your arm.

You only get to see an experience which occurs inside your mind.

The experience of the the thing, is not the thing itself.

Just as a painting of a pipe, is not a pipe.

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

I understand what you're saying, but that does not mean that none of those things ALSO exist outside of my brain.

 

 

OK.  Are we having this conversation?  Did you have any possible clue the way I was going to edit and update those diagrams to rapidly get us on the same page?  If not, then this experience between you and I is real.  I am not in your brain.  The experience of interacting with me is happening in your brain.  But those diagrams are not the product of some random neurochemical false perception that your brain conjured up.  Those editted diagrams came from outside your brain.  And we both looked at them and saw the same things.

 

That's pretty strong evidence of a shared objecive reality outside the mind, don't you think? 

You can connect a camera to a television, and put the camera outside your front door.

What you see on the TV may actually be happening outside of your home.

The problem becomes when you start confusing what you are seeing on TV for actual reality.

In Plato's republic men are chained to the wall and believe the shadows on the wall to be reality.

In actual reality almost all humans alive today are looking at the contents of their own minds, and believing what they are seeing is an external reality.

It is not external, it is just shadows on the cave wall.
 

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

The problem I have with this idea, is that there is an implication using the word "abstraction" that the representation is inaccurate or false.  I agree it's incomplete.  But, that doesn't mean that human sensory faculties are somehow distorting reality to the point where the existence of objects that are outside the brain are doubted.   That's a HUGE distortion.

 

And if the mechanisms of intoxicants can be studied and the neurochemical effects determined to be a corruption / disruption / impairment of the sensory faculties of the brain, then, the perception while intoxicated can be labeled as false.  The dead bodies resulting from drunk drivers confirms it.

We can dig into this really easy. 

You look at a television connected to a camera.

What you see is pixels of light.

Those pixels can be made to represent any thing you point the camera at.

It is possible to sit your entire life chained to a couch and believe what you are watching on television is actual reality.

It is possible be to chained to a wall and observe shadows on a cave wall and believe those to be actual reality.

In fact that is the actual truth for almost 100% of all humans.

If you are using a camera and a television to observe reality, you are looking at a representation.

A painting of a pipe is also a representation.

It does not matter if it is an accurate representation or not. 

Right now the computer screen you are looking at is not a computer screen at all.

It is literally a holographic experience your brain is creating to make sense of your environment.

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof;
Nirvana is, but no one is seeking it;
The Path there is, but none who travel it.

Just now, Daniel said:

 

That's just semantics, isn't it?  Once I define 'seeing' in terms of electro-magnetic waves of light, then that connects the outer object with the inner experience.  And I thought you brought a sciency article confirming this?

It's not semantics at all.

Just now, Daniel said:

 

Yes.  I am most familiar with these concepts as "simulation theory".

 

 

A perfectly fair statement.

 

 

But it's not the actual-observed.  Observed is a misnomer.  The 'observed' is an object outside the brain.  I think we, you and I, need to agree on a better word / phrase for this.  And, I think we, you and I, need to agree on a word / phrase for what exists outside the brain in behind the "question-mark".

 

Once e agree on those words, 80% of the struggle in our discussion is ended.

You are the image of the egg cooking.

You are the smell of the egg cooking.

You are the sound of the egg cooking.

You are the taste of the egg.

You are the feeling of the egg.

You are the memory of previous eggs.

You are the imagination of future eggs.

You are the emotion such an experience brings.

You are the entire experience itself.

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

OK... last diagram, and then I think I've explained myself enough.  And hopefully we can have a normal conversation.

 

The intoxicant effects the observer and what you're calling the observed.  It doesn't change the object at all.  Nothing changes about the eggs and the pan on the cooktop.  Agreed? That means that the hallucination is only changing the perception.  It doesn't say anything about whether or not actual reality can or cannot be seen.

 

Operating under the assumption an external reality exists, and an object exists outside the skull.

We do not actually ever see the object in this diagram,  we only ever see the screen in the mind. 

The hangup becomes that almost 100% of all people believe the screen in the mind is actual reality, and it is not actual reality it is an abstraction or representation of reality.

This is an important distinction to make.

It is no more reality than shadows on the wall of a cave.

Taking 20 dried grams of mushrooms, makes the screen go all crazy, but my assumption would be that the object that exists outside the skull would not be affected by this assuming it exists.

30 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I know.  This is what you're describing .  Notice, please, what you are calling the "observed" is just the "observation" on a screen. Not a literal screen, but it's still just perception.  Just observation.  The actual-observed-object could be eggs on a pan, or it could be flying monkeys. The actual-observed-objects are are things outside the brain.  And there's still 3 phenomena.  The stuff behind the question mark exists.  Agreed?

 

 

Using the 'observed' for what is in the brain makes this more cumbersome.  There's no good reason to use 'observed for what is happening in the brain.  If a person closes their eyes, they are not observing anything.  They might be imagining something.  Or dreaming something.  But they are NOT observing anything ith their eyes closed.  It's better to use the words 'obersavtion' or 'perception' or 'the-mind's-eye'.  But it's definitely not the observed.   I'm using the word 'observation' to try to sync up with you. 

There could be an external reality, that exists outside the skull.

I can't say for certain.

This could be a quantum computer simulation.

I could be a Boltzmann brain.

There are too many unknown, unknowns to say with certainty. 

For purposes of conversation, I will assume that an external reality does exist, but it isn't a position I actually hold or try to defend.

The item you have labeled with the question mark may exist, and my hope would be that it does exist, but I cannot say with certainty that it does.

The image of the egg in the frying pan you have labeled as observed, is also the observer.

It observes itself, you are the image of the egg in the pan, you are the smell of the cooking egg, you are the sound of the sizzle, you are the feeling of warmth from the stove, and you are the taste of the egg.

The little man should be removed from the picture. 

So the thing you label as observed, isn't actually being observed at all. 

An image of it is being replicated and displayed inside the brain, and that image inside the brain is what is being observed.

Here's where it gets weird.

There is no little man, he doesn't exist, and there is no screen or projector it doesn't exist either.

The film or movie that is playing is watching itself, and there is no one in the audience to watch it.

Yes I understand how absolute bat**** insane that sounds but that is what is actually happening.

45 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Ahhhhh.  Thank you.  That gag was getting uncomfy and it seemed odd that you would keep quoting me, but, I was not to reply.

 

 

I feel like I understand what you're saying perfectly.  Where we disagree is:

 

I am considering 3 different phenomena as reality:  observer, observation, and observed.

You are considering 2 different phenomena as reality:  observer, and observed.

 

Good so far?

If you have to use a camera to look at reality, then you aren't looking at reality but rather an abstraction of it.

For purposes of discussion an eyeball is a biological version of a camera.

Imagine if I connect a camera to a television, and point it at a tobacco pipe.

If I look at the screen and point to the pipe on the screen and ask "what is this?"

If you answer "that is a pipe" your answer would be incorrect.

The correct answer would be "that is a television, the pixels on the television are emitting light, and the light is creating a pattern which resembles the object the camera connected to it is pointed towards.

The television can only ever display a representation of something, but that representation can only ever be an abstraction of something else, and never the actual thing being displayed.

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe, and a holographic experience of reality is not reality. 

The confusion here happens when you don't understand you are looking at a television.

In allegory of the cave the men chained to the wall know of no other reality besides the shadows on the wall, and to them that is all there is.

What I am saying is the computer monitor you are reading these words on, exists only inside your mind as energy and information in your neural networks it has no reality to it, at least no more than shadows on a cave wall, or a painting of a pipe is real pipe.

On a television you see pixels of light, in your mind you see the energy and information exchanged between neurons.

Where the observer = the observed fits into all this is that you are the energy and information inside the neural networks, and it is set up so you observe the contents of your own awareness.

By bad analogy your little man is sitting on a couch watching a TV inside your brain.

Except there is no little man or tv,  just energy and information flowing between synapses.

I Am a Strange Loop" by cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter is a 2007 book that delves into consciousness, self-awareness, and the development of the self using the idea of a "strange loop." This loop is a self-referential feedback mechanism in the brain that generates self-awareness and subjective experiences. In essence, Hofstadter proposes that strange loops are hierarchical structures incorporating self-reference and feedback, which give rise to self-awareness by creating an abstract "I" that observes and examines itself.

48 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

No prob.  Seems like you're looking for an echo chamber.  Preaching to the choir.  I understand.  I see this is in the Buddhist forum.  It doesn't have anything to do with not understanding my words does it?  That was just a smoke screen.

 

Bye.

 

"It doesn't have anything to do with not understanding my words does it?  That was just a smoke screen."

I noticed your question and subsequent statement here.

No I sincerely didn't understand and still don't. 

I think probably you are reading my words and interpreting what I am saying differently than my intended meaning, and your responses don't make sense in context to me.

No smoke screen. 

Also I will be happy to talk to you but it seems apparent to me that what I am saying isn't making sense to you, and vice versa so we appear to be talking past each other with no real communication occurring. 

This sort of thing is generally frowned upon here, and after like page 500 of it usually the thread gets locked because it annoys other members.

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Hi Daniel,

I edited my post to help clear up any confusion.

What I meant was it is exactly the case that the observer is the observed.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

Thanks.

"observer =/= observed"

The observer observes only itself, and nothing more.

You can only ever see the contents of yourself, your own mind.

You can only ever see energy and information inside your own neural networks.

You can only ever observe yourself.

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Respectfully, did you read what I wrote previously about wavelengths?

 

 

Did you read what I said about the difference between qualia and experience?

 

 

You don't know what a drunk driver is?  You don't know that they kill people?  Meaning their perception is altered causing death.  Maybe you don't agree that it's a good analogy, or relevant, but... if you're telling me you don't understand what those words mean, I can excuse myself from your thread.

 

 

This doesn't follow for me.  I'm sorry.  It just doesn't.  The halucination is evidence of a change in brain chemistry which in turn produces impaired ( changed / altered ) perception.  This has nothing to do with reality.  It has everything to do with perception.  The test you're proposing ( If hallucinations exist then actual reality cannot be perceived ) is not testing reality.  It's testing perception.  Just re-read what you wrote:

 

"If it were possible to see actual reality, such a thing as a hallucination could not occur."  

 

"to see" means that your test is about perception, not reality.  The physical sense of "seeing" is being examined.  Not reality.  So.  All that can be said from this test is that perception can be altered.  But the test says nothing about the qualia, the attributes themself.  If the scientific method is desired to be employed, a different test needs to be developed for that.

 

 

The display on television is not the same as the garden.  The display on the camera is different.  Notice what you said.

 

"What you see and experience might be a representation of what is happening outside of your skull, but it is not required to be, as is evidenced by the fact you can hallucinate."

 

Right.  The events outside the skull is 'reality'.  The perception may or may not agree with what is happening outside the skull.  

 

Outside the skull = qualia = observed

Inside the skull = perception = observation

 

Inside the skull = observer

 

observer = observation

 

observer =/= observed

In the analogy I gave of a camera connected to a television,  you can unhook a camera and connect a video player and get a different output on your screen.

There is no law of the universe which requires a television to display any particular image.

The experience you are having can disagree with reality outside of you, we call this a hallucination.

This is because the reality you see and experience is an abstraction of the reality outside of yourself, in exactly the same way a television displaying the output of a camera is an abstraction.

The best possible case scenario you can hope for using a camera and a television is an abstraction of reality, but never can it be reality itself, it will always be an abstraction.

This is just like how a painting of a pipe, is not a pipe itself.

What I am trying to convey to you is you are mistaking a painting of a pipe for an actual pipe.

The same holds true for an experience on an object,  an experience of an object is not the object itself.

The computer monitor you are currently looking at, is in fact not a computer monitor at all, but rather an abstraction of one, created in your mind's holodeck.

Hope that helps.