Who observes, that the brain observes ?

[Howard Is]

How exactly, my statement represents ‘No true Scotsman’? I did not define mysticism. My mistake was that I did not include ‘in my opinion’ or ‘most mystics’.

This ...

It is the universal experience of mystics that bodies and minds do not have awareness. The awareness has bodies and minds.

“It is the universal experience of mystics...” says that you are the true Scotsman. So, by inference, for any disagreement with that definition of mysticism “no true Scotsman” applies.

Do you consider yourself a mystic? Do you have experience of shunyata?

Yes

 

[atanu]

This ...

“It is the universal experience of mystics...” says that you are the true Scotsman. So, by inference, for any disagreement with that definition of mysticism “no true Scotsman” applies.

Yes

If mystics have experience ‘x’, does not mean that it defines mystics. It is not both necessary and essential. Probably you do not understand this.

What is your experience of shunyata? Brain controlled? Do you discern body/mind in shunyata? How do you discern shunyata.

 

[Howard Is]

If mystics have experience ‘x’, does not mean that it defines mystics. It is not both necessary and essential. Probably you do not understand this.

What is your experience of shunyata? Brain controlled? Do you discern body/mind in shunyata? How do you discern shunyata.

I don’t wish to define or debate the nature of shunyata.

The quote I presented says “It is the universal experience of mystics...” followed by an intellectual proposition.

 

[atanu]

I don’t wish to define or debate the nature of shunyata.

The quote I presented says “It is the universal experience of mystics...” followed by an intellectual proposition.

Well. That is your opinion too. So let us drop it. Namaste.

 

[Howard Is]

Well. That is your opinion too. So let us drop it. Namaste.

Actually your opinion was the subject, but whatever.

 

[atanu]

Actually your opinion was the subject, but whatever.

I acknowledged my hasty error of not adding ‘in my opinion’. Yet, even if all mystics were to experience ‘x’, it would not define a ’mystic’.

...

 

[blü 2]

True. It is like asking a mirror “Where did the image go?”

Try this.

When you're next talking to someone, pause at some point and ask yourself, Where was that sentence I just spoke, in the quarter-second before I spoke it since I certainly didn't compose it in my consciousness?

And there you have one part of your brain looking at what another part just did, this time consciously but usually seamlessly.

(That particular test calls to mind Auden's remark, "How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?")

Or perhaps you remember an occasion when you were about to say "He's a total fool" when you froze instead, perhaps because you suddenly realized you were talking to his daughter, or whatever. This self-censorship takes place continuously in the forebrain; if one gets a blow to the back of the head, then the interior ridges of one's eye-sockets can cause sheering of the forebrain tissues as the blow travels from back to front, and one may lose one's self-editing power. (My wife, who inter alia was a member of her hospital's brain injury team, had a story of a brain-injured 14-year-old by whose bed she was talking to his parents; his surgeon and his treating doctor walked in, and the lad introduced them to his parents: "This is Dr Filthy-Rich and this is Doctor Shallow.")

Anyway, as I said, the brain has its various service departments, and it's the job of some of them to monitor or coordinate what other departments do. So when you ask these questions, one part of your brain is wondering about other parts of your brain.

 

[atanu]

Try this.

When you're next talking to someone, pause at some point and ask yourself, Where was that sentence I just spoke, in the quarter-second before I spoke it since I certainly didn't compose it in my consciousness?

And there you have one part of your brain looking at what another part just did, this time consciously but usually seamlessly.

(That particular test calls to mind Auden's remark, "How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?")

Or perhaps you remember an occasion when you were about to say "He's a total fool" when you froze instead, perhaps because you suddenly realized you were talking to his daughter, or whatever. This self-censorship takes place continuously in the forebrain; if one gets a blow to the back of the head, then the interior ridges of one's eye-sockets can cause sheering of the forebrain tissues as the blow travels from back to front, and one may lose one's self-editing power. (My wife, who inter alia was a member of her hospital's brain injury team, had a story of a brain-injured 14-year-old by whose bed she was talking to his parents; his surgeon and his treating doctor walked in, and the lad introduced them to his parents: "This is Dr Filthy-Rich and this is Doctor Shallow.")

Anyway, as I said, the brain has its various service departments, and it's the job of some of them to monitor or coordinate what other departments do. So when you ask these questions, one part of your brain is wondering about other parts of your brain.

Brain does not look or say “I exist”.

 

[blü 2]

Brain does not look or say “I exist”.

Mine does. Perhaps you should change your mechanic?

 

[Howard Is]

Try this.

When you're next talking to someone, pause at some point and ask yourself, Where was that sentence I just spoke, in the quarter-second before I spoke it since I certainly didn't compose it in my consciousness?

And there you have one part of your brain looking at what another part just did, this time consciously but usually seamlessly.

(That particular test calls to mind Auden's remark, "How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?")

Or perhaps you remember an occasion when you were about to say "He's a total fool" when you froze instead, perhaps because you suddenly realized you were talking to his daughter, or whatever. This self-censorship takes place continuously in the forebrain; if one gets a blow to the back of the head, then the interior ridges of one's eye-sockets can cause sheering of the forebrain tissues as the blow travels from back to front, and one may lose one's self-editing power. (My wife, who inter alia was a member of her hospital's brain injury team, had a story of a brain-injured 14-year-old by whose bed she was talking to his parents; his surgeon and his treating doctor walked in, and the lad introduced them to his parents: "This is Dr Filthy-Rich and this is Doctor Shallow.")

Anyway, as I said, the brain has its various service departments, and it's the job of some of them to monitor or coordinate what other departments do. So when you ask these questions, one part of your brain is wondering about other parts of your brain.

It is an ongoing delightful surprise for me when I improvise on guitar.
Some days more so than others. Some days the brain delivers on the last few months of technique and/or theory work, and it is just effortless.

I’d never want to go anywhere or do anything without my brain.
We are our best friend.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your question seems nonsensical. Why does someone have to observe the brain to know that it is the thing that observes.
we know how the sensory system work.

Please explain, what you mean by know.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There's a general claim that its the brain who observes all the activities done by that human body. Fine.

If so, then at the very same moment who/what observes, that the brain observes ?

I think it has mostly been said, but one might like to ask what the effects of various drugs, alcohol, mystic experiences, brain outings (sleep - including dreaming, anaesthesia, or other unconsciousness) etc., have on our sense of being. And perhaps the answers lie in our subconscious, given that we don't tend to give this as much credit for our being than it possibly deserves. And as mentioned by some, the brain is not one coherent whole but rather an assembly of parts evolved to perform various functions - many apparently in opposition to others.

 

[Milton Platt]

Please explain, what you mean by know.

You can google articles on the nervous system. We understand, for instance, that to hear, waves traveling through the atmosphere strike the ear drum then the fluid in the eardrum affects tiny hairs inside the eardrum, which send signals along nerve pathways to the brain, which interprets the waves as sound, according to wavelengths.

I shouldn't have to go into detail about the entire nervous system for you to know this......

know
/nō/

verb

1. 
   be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
   "most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can google articles on the nervous system. We understand, for instance, that to hear, waves traveling through the atmosphere strike the ear drum then the fluid in the eardrum affects tiny hairs inside the eardrum, which send signals along nerve pathways to the brain, which interprets the waves as sound, according to wavelengths.

I shouldn't have to go into detail about the entire nervous system for you to know this......

know
/nō/

verb

1. 
   be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
   "most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer"

I don't know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer. If I believed it, it would be because I would believe the people, who claim they know. I do believe them BTW.
I don't believe you, unless you specify what you mean by know.

Let us say, I say I understand something. How would you know that I actually understand? How would you observe through external sensation that I understand? What kind of inquiry would you use and how would you know that it is correct? What is information not know through observation and can information not known through observation be correct?

We are playing science and I want to know how you understand this sentence only using observation as only external sensation? That is the end game. You can understand everything a human does by looking at that human's brain and only use external sensation! You can't use first person subjective non-observational understanding.

So do you understand that you only understand the subjective meaning of this sentence, because you subjectively understand it and you don't observe its meaning. In other words, you can't point to or see meaning in a brain that you are looking at!

Here is the joke. Empiricism comes in 2 forms.
1: Everything is known only through external sensation.
2: Not everything is known through external sensation.

You are defending 1 and I use 2.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer. If I believed it, it would be because I would believe the people, who claim they know. I do believe them BTW.
I don't believe you, unless you specify what you mean by know.

Let us say, I say I understand something. How would you know that I actually understand? How would you observe through external sensation that I understand? What kind of inquiry would you use and how would you know that it is correct? What is information not know through observation and can information not known through observation be correct?

We are playing science and I want to know how you understand this sentence only using observation as only external sensation? That is the end game. You can understand everything a human does by looking at that human's brain and only use external sensation! You can't use first person subjective non-observational understanding.

So do you understand that you only understand the subjective meaning of this sentence, because you subjectively understand it and you don't observe its meaning. In other words, you can't point to or see meaning in a brain that you are looking at!

Here is the joke. Empiricism comes in 2 forms.
1: Everything is known only through external sensation.
2: Not everything is known through external sensation.

You are defending 1 and I use 2.

Oh.......thanks for the clarification. Not sure If I fully understand, but I'm interested....help me out....

If I wanted to be sure you understood something, I might ask you to repeat your understanding back to me to see if it matches accepted reality. Observation would not be necessary (by sight). Why is that not enough?

We know the amount of time it takes for Pluto to orbit the sun, yet we have not known of it's existence long enough for it to have made a complete orbit. Should we wait for the full orbit before we can say we know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh.......thanks for the clarification. Not sure If I fully understand, but I'm interested....help me out....

If I wanted to be sure you understood something, I might ask you to repeat your understanding back to me to see if it matches accepted reality. Observation would not be necessary (by sight). Why is that not enough?

We know the amount of time it takes for Pluto to orbit the sun, yet we have not known of it's existence long enough for it to have made a complete orbit. Should we wait for the full orbit before we can say we know?

Okay, we are playing philosophy. So we need first to figure out how a word works.

• It has a meaning, you know that subjectively. If all humans disappeared, there would be no meaning and e.g. a sign with the words - No trespassing - would have no meaning. I.e. the meaning is not in the words as the physical words, but in the brain of humans. No brains no meaning. It means that there is no objective meaning of words in any sense of objective.
• Words themselves are placeholders for meaning. We assign meaning to the signs.Here is an example of a language, which is dead and without meaning: Linear A and Linear B | script
• Words are about something, they refer to something, but not all words have an objective referent, e.g. "hate".

This is a standard model for how words. But other models are possible. So I won't add more complexity unless we can agree on how words work. Hence I take it one step at time.
Now consider whether you agree, because it will have an effect on what reality is, when we add stuff, space, time and causality.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[tayla]

There's a general claim that its the brain who observes all the activities done by that human body. Fine.

If so, then at the very same moment who/what observes, that the brain observes ?

In my view, the brain generates consciousness. But the possibility for consciousness and mind exist as a property of the universe. Brain processes merely trigger these.

By its very nature, consciousness seems to exist in the first person, in the here and now.

 

[Milton Platt]

Okay, we are playing philosophy. So we need first to figure out how a word works.

• It has a meaning, you know that subjectively. If all humans disappeared, there would be no meaning and e.g. a sign with the words - No trespassing - would have no meaning. I.e. the meaning is not in the words as the physical words, but in the brain of humans. No brains no meaning. It means that there is no objective meaning of words in any sense of objective.
• Words themselves are placeholders for meaning. We assign meaning to the signs.Here is an example of a language, which is dead and without meaning: Linear A and Linear B | script
• Words are about something, they refer to something, but not all words have an objective referent, e.g. "hate".

This is a standard model for how words. But other models are possible. So I won't add more complexity unless we can agree on how words work. Hence I take it one step at time.
Now consider whether you agree, because it will have an effect on what reality is, when we add stuff, space, time and causality.

Regards
Mikkel

Okay, do you agree that you can demonstrate something might be possible with philosophy, but you cannot demonstrate that something is actually true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, do you agree that you can demonstrate something might be possible with philosophy, but you cannot demonstrate that something is actually true?

You can't actual demonstrate that something is actually true as having reality independent of mind as something being in itself and you know what that is as being in itself.
Example: If sighted and reading this on a monitor, you don't have access to knowledge of the monitor in itself.

Nobody have solved epistemological solipsism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Now I do believe that you exist, but I can't show that to be true. It only appears to work. Now for truth you get this:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

...
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

It means that in practice your claims of reality are unprovable and thus not true beliefs.

Truth is a cognitive and psychological state of mind, which only appears to work. It is a form of pragmatism, where you test your beliefs in regards to your experiences, but you don't have access to the true metaphysical and ontological status of objective reality in itself.

So if you claim that you know the actual truth of objective reality, I would like your reasoning. Not just claim it, but use rational justification.
BTW you also have to tackle Agrippa's Trilemma and Protagoras' "Man is the measure of...".

 

[Milton Platt]

You can't actual demonstrate that something is actually true as having reality independent of mind as something being in itself and you know what that is as being in itself.
Example: If sighted and reading this on a monitor, you don't have access to knowledge of the monitor in itself.

Nobody have solved epistemological solipsism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Now I do believe that you exist, but I can't show that to be true. It only appears to work. Now for truth you get this:


It means that in practice your claims of reality are unprovable and thus not true beliefs.

Truth is a cognitive and psychological state of mind, which only appears to work. It is a form of pragmatism, where you test your beliefs in regards to your experiences, but you don't have access to the true metaphysical and ontological status of objective reality in itself.

So if you claim that you know the actual truth of objective reality, I would like your reasoning. Not just claim it, but use rational justification.
BTW you also have to tackle Agrippa's Trilemma and Protagoras' "Man is the measure of...".

So what you are saying is that you don’t know if you are a actually having this conversation, and you can’t actually know if anything you just told me is true or not? Then why are you having the conversation?

Look, life is always lived on numerous assumptions. There is no way to do otherwise. So philosophical arguments such as yours are a curiosity, but have no real value.