Please Delete, Or Lock And Move To The Rabbit Hole

[kakapo]

Edit, I feel this thread has reached a threshold, it's been TUBAR,  Trolled Up Beyond All Recognition.

 

Please delete this thread, or lock it and move it to the rabbit hole.  

 

 

 

 

 

When I was a child I was told, you can't see your own brain.

 

What if that was a lie?

 

What if the ONLY thing you can see is your own brain?

 

J. Krishnamurti  said The Observer is The Observed, the experiencer is the experience, the thinker is the thought.

 

What if what we see around us is energy and information being exchanged inside the neural networks of our brain?

 

What if these neural networks were arranged such that they observed themself?

 

The idea of Cartesian theater there is a little man or homunculus which is watching a screen and projector of the world outside the skull.

 

What if brain's job was to create a holographic experience, a useful fiction to help us navigate reality, and then be aware of that experience?

 

An energetic and informatic feedback loop.

 

In essence when you think you are looking at a computer screen, you are looking at the inside of your own mind.

 

The map is not the territory, and a painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

 

It's an abstraction.

Edited September 24, 2023 by kakapo

[stirling]

Meditation is the tool for this: When the mind is quiet and empty one can witness thoughts as they arise and pass away in experience. If we can WATCH our thoughts arise, are they "us"? 

 

No.

 

What we see around is ultimately non-conceptually designated phenomena. Without your dialog about it, it is just sensation. The world you generate from your conceptual ideation is your karma, generated from your grasping and aversion... your story of the world as you understand it. 

 

It IS an abstraction. It IS dream like - illusory. So also are ALL conceptual ideas... AI, your brain, feedback loops, neural networks... the lot.

 

Now what?

[kakapo]

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.

[Cobie]

All good people have a sense of self. 
 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Cobie

[Ajay0]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:38 PM, Cobie said:

All good people have a sense of self. 
 

 

 

 Identities have functional utility. Beyond that, if they are seen as a source of selfhood through emotional attachment, they can be a potential source of conflict. 

 The terms Christian, Muslim, Jew, American, Russian, Chinese,Bosnian, Serb, male, female can have functional utility. But if an emotional self is attached to them, they can become a source of emotivity, conflict and violence.

 

Good people are those who can embrace these identities for their functional utility alone.

 

Those who lack self-knowledge are the ones who imbue their functional identities with emotional attachment so as to create an artificial sense of self to desperately hold on to.

[helpfuldemon]

On 3/23/2023 at 9:08 AM, kakapo said:

When I was a child I was told, you can't see your own brain.

 

What if that was a lie?

 

What if the ONLY thing you can see is your own brain?

 

J. Krishnamurti  said The Observer is The Observed, the experiencer is the experience, the thinker is the thought.

 

What if what we see around us is energy and information being exchanged inside the neural networks of our brain?

 

What if these neural networks were arranged such that they observed themself?

 

The idea of Cartesian theater there is a little man or homunculus which is watching a screen and projector of the world outside the skull.

 

What if brain's job was to create a holographic experience, a useful fiction to help us navigate reality, and then be aware of that experience?

 

An energetic and informatic feedback loop.

 

In essence when you think you are looking at a computer screen, you are looking at the inside of your own mind.

 

The map is not the territory, and a painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

 

It's an abstraction.

To what end?

[kakapo]

6 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

To what end?

 

I don't understand the meaning of your words, at least not in this context. 

 

Statement: The paint is red.

 

Question: To what end?

 

Answer: There is no end, it's just an observation of the color of the paint.

[silent thunder]

the paint is not red

 

red is in the mind

[Daniel]

the paint is not in the mind.

 

the observation is the observer.  the observer is not the observed.

 

the color is 'red' is just a label, a symbol in the mind which is bound to the neurochemical reaction when a specific range of wavelengths of elecrto-magnetic radition interacts with the retina.  Those wavelengths are not the mind, nor are the they the observer.

 

while it's an interesting thought experiment to consider objective compared to subjective phenomena, it seems foolish to me to apply this idea globally to the point of "everything is subjective, everything is in the mind" 

[kakapo]

5 hours ago, silent thunder said:

the paint is not red

 

red is in the mind

 

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

the paint is not in the mind.

 

the observation is the observer.  the observer is not the observed.

 

the color is 'red' is just a label, a symbol in the mind which is bound to the neurochemical reaction when a specific range of wavelengths of elecrto-magnetic radition interacts with the retina.  Those wavelengths are not the mind, nor are the they the observer.

 

while it's an interesting thought experiment to consider objective compared to subjective phenomena, it seems foolish to me to apply this idea globally to the point of "everything is subjective, everything is in the mind" 

 

In this context what I was attempting to do is explain why I didn't understand helpfuldemon's words, my example given wasn't intended to actually mean anything of significance, other than to show why this was non sequitur.

 

@silent thunder

 

I think we agree.

 

In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that. 

 

Such abstractions are only mental constructs and lack any inherent reality.

 

@Daniel

 

"everything is subjective, everything is in the mind"

 

That isn't my position.

 

Our experience and our qualia are simulations of the reality external to us.

 

Our brain takes sensory inputs and feeds it into a holodeck, which is what we see the virtual holodeck.

 

If you take a hallucinogens the simulation you experience is distorted.

 

If we were perceiving actual reality this wouldn't be possible.

 

It is not my position that some objective reality does not exist, but rather we see a very limited and crude simulation or interpretation of it.

 

In Plato's cave the men chained to the wall believed the shadows on the wall to be reality.

 

What if the cave was your skull?

 

[Daniel]

38 minutes ago, kakapo said:

That isn't my position.

 

I think I understand your position.  It's below:

 

38 minutes ago, kakapo said:

In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that. 

 

I simply disagree with this.

 

38 minutes ago, kakapo said:

Our experience and our qualia are simulations of the reality external to us.

 

This ^^ .  I agree with this.

 

My assertion from my previous post restated using these terms would be:

 

experience =/= qualia.  experience is a sensation which results from qualia.

 

38 minutes ago, kakapo said:

If you take a hallucinogens the simulation you experience is distorted.

 

If we were perceiving actual reality this wouldn't be possible.

 

If I am on DMT and somehow go walk around, I'm still going to be tripping over stuff and walking into walls even if I do not have any visual or physical sensations of their presence.  The intoxication fades; I will have bumps and bruises.

 

If what you're saying is true, there would be no deaths from drunk drivers.

 

38 minutes ago, kakapo said:

It is not my position that some objective reality does not exist, but rather we see a very limited and crude simulation or interpretation of it.

 

 

This ^^ .  I basically, mostly, agree with this.  But would replace crude with material.  Or maybe coarse.  Perhaps hollow.  And only if when you say 'see' you're describing what most consider the physical senses. 

 

If I understand, though, that would mean: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that." is false.

 

38 minutes ago, kakapo said:

In Plato's cave the men chained to the wall believed the shadows on the wall to be reality.

 

What if the cave was your skull?

 

Not the best analogy, imo.  The shadows are still shadows.  Nothing has changed about them.  They still exist in exactly the same way they did before.  And if they leave the cave, that's a totally different scenario.  No one is leaving our shared objective reality such that qualia are abstractions which are inherently unreal.  Maybe-maybe one could talk about dreams, and dreaming.  But the bed still exists even if the person is under full anesthesia just as it does when they are awake.  Nothing has changed about the bed during the dream state.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

48 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I think I understand your position.  It's below:

 

 

I simply disagree with this.

 

 

This ^^ .  I agree with this.

 

My assertion from my previous post restated using these terms would be:

 

experience =/= qualia.  experience is a sensation which results from qualia.

 

 

If I am on DMT and somehow go walk around, I'm still going to be tripping over stuff and walking into walls even if I do not have any visual or physical sensations of their presence.  The intoxication fades; I will have bumps and bruises.

 

If what you're saying is true, there would be no deaths from drunk drivers.

 

 

This ^^ .  I basically, mostly, agree with this.  But would replace crude with material.  Or maybe coarse.  Perhaps hollow.  And only if when you say 'see' you're describing what most consider the physical senses. 

 

If I understand, though, that would mean: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that." is false.

 

 

Not the best analogy, imo.  The shadows are still shadows.  Nothing has changed about them.  They still exist in exactly the same way they did before.  And if they leave the cave, that's a totally different scenario.  No one is leaving our shared objective reality such that qualia are abstractions which are inherently unreal.  Maybe-maybe one could talk about dreams, and dreaming.  But the bed still exists even if the person is under full anesthesia just as it does when they are awake.  Nothing has changed about the bed during the dream state.

 

 

kakapo said: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that. "

 

Daniel said: "I simply disagree with this."

 

Daniel said: "(In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that.)" is false. "

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/that-dress-isnt-blue-or-gold-because-color-doesnt-exist

 

“A color only exists in your head,” says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. “There’s such a thing as light. There’s such a thing as energy. There’s no such thing as color.”

https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/

 

Physicist: Colors exist in very much the same way that art and love exist.  They can be perceived, and other people will generally understand you if you talk about them, but they don’t really exist in an “out in the world” kind of way.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by kakapo

[kakapo]

35 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I think I understand your position.  It's below:

 

 

I simply disagree with this.

 

 

This ^^ .  I agree with this.

 

My assertion from my previous post restated using these terms would be:

 

experience =/= qualia.  experience is a sensation which results from qualia.

 

 

If I am on DMT and somehow go walk around, I'm still going to be tripping over stuff and walking into walls even if I do not have any visual or physical sensations of their presence.  The intoxication fades; I will have bumps and bruises.

 

If what you're saying is true, there would be no deaths from drunk drivers.

 

 

This ^^ .  I basically, mostly, agree with this.  But would replace crude with material.  Or maybe coarse.  Perhaps hollow.  And only if when you say 'see' you're describing what most consider the physical senses. 

 

If I understand, though, that would mean: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that." is false.

 

 

Not the best analogy, imo.  The shadows are still shadows.  Nothing has changed about them.  They still exist in exactly the same way they did before.  And if they leave the cave, that's a totally different scenario.  No one is leaving our shared objective reality such that qualia are abstractions which are inherently unreal.  Maybe-maybe one could talk about dreams, and dreaming.  But the bed still exists even if the person is under full anesthesia just as it does when they are awake.  Nothing has changed about the bed during the dream state.

 

 

 

"If I am on DMT and somehow go walk around, I'm still going to be tripping over stuff and walking into walls even if I do not have any visual or physical sensations of their presence.  The intoxication fades; I will have bumps and bruises.

 

If what you're saying is true, there would be no deaths from drunk drivers."

 

i am not sure I understand your words.

 

One time I took 20 dried grams of Psilocybin mushrooms, and I saw faces, arms, and hands coming out of my carpet,  all with the carpet texture on them. 

 

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

 

Let's say I have a camera outside my home, and a television connected to it inside my home.

 

Someone could unplug the camera outside, and connect a video player and play ""Never Gonna Give You Up", by Rick Astley", and in turn that is what I would see on my television.

 

If I was standing outside looking in the same direction of where the camera was pointed,  I would see a garden instead. 

 

The output displayed on the television might be a representation of actual reality outside my home, but it is not required to be.

 

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.

[kakapo]

"Not the best analogy, imo.  The shadows are still shadows.  Nothing has changed about them.  They still exist in exactly the same way they did before.  And if they leave the cave, that's a totally different scenario.  No one is leaving our shared objective reality such that qualia are abstractions which are inherently unreal.  Maybe-maybe one could talk about dreams, and dreaming.  But the bed still exists even if the person is under full anesthesia just as it does when they are awake.  Nothing has changed about the bed during the dream state. "

 

I think I explained my position with the television and camera analogy above.

 

What we see is not actual reality, but an abstraction of it.

 

If we viewed actual reality it would not be possible to have a hallucination. 

 

The reality we inhabit and actually see is a holodeck, and it may or may not represent what is actually happening outside of us.

 

In the image below a little man (homunculus) and he watches a projector inside a skull. 

 

Imagine there is no little man, but rather a feedback loop of neural networks which observe themselves and in doing so create a holodeck like virtual experience composed purely of energy and information, which is what you are currently experiencing.

 

[Daniel]

40 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

kakapo said: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that. "

 

Daniel said: "I simply disagree with this."

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/that-dress-isnt-blue-or-gold-because-color-doesnt-exist

 

“A color only exists in your head,” says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. “There’s such a thing as light. There’s such a thing as energy. There’s no such thing as color.”

 

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

 

Quote

https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/

 

Physicist: Colors exist in very much the same way that art and love exist.  They can be perceived, and other people will generally understand you if you talk about them, but they don’t really exist in an “out in the world” kind of way.

 

 

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

 

28 minutes ago, kakapo said:

i am not sure I understand your words.

 

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.

 

28 minutes ago, kakapo said:

One time I took 20 dried grams of Psilocybin mushrooms, and I saw faces, arms, and hands coming out of my carpet,  all with the carpet texture on them. 

 

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

 

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.

 

28 minutes ago, kakapo said:

Let's say I have a camera outside my home, and a television connected to it inside my home.

 

Someone could unplug the camera outside, and connect a video player and play ""Never Gonna Give You Up", by Rick Astley", and in turn that is what I would see on my television.

 

If I was standing outside looking in the same direction of where the camera was pointed,  I would see a garden instead. 

 

The output displayed on the television might be a representation of actual reality outside my home, but it is not required to be.

 

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.

 

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

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

1 minute 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 kno 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 hat 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 your 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

 

"I can excuse myself from your thread. "

 

Please do so.

[Daniel]

2 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

"I can excuse myself from your thread. "

 

Please do so.

 

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.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

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. 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

[kakapo]

"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.

Edited September 10, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

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.

[Daniel]

[kakapo]

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.

Edited September 10, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, kakapo said:

Also I will be happy to talk to you

 

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

 

3 minutes ago, kakapo said:

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.

 

 

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?