Who observes, that the brain observes ?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Correct, the assumptions are nothing but unprovable beliefs. That holds for philosophical naturalism/physicalism/materialism, scientific/epistemological realism and philosophical idealism in regards to religious beliefs.

Now in practice most of us assume that we share some sort of everyday world, but that even has its limits. I have had debates with both non-religious and religious believers, who all claimed I was not a part of reality.
Now I do believe that you are a part of reality. I just don't believe that it is true. I believe it is a belief that appears to work.

So here is a test for you. Imagine you are looking at a stone; i.e. a geological kind of material.
Now you can see it, you can hold it. There are a lot of thing you can do in regards to evidence as per science and everyday interactions. Now do the same with actually true. Look at it trough sight and describe it. Do all the same with as you would with the stone.
But wait, you can't. Actually true is an idea in your mind. Do the same with real value as with the stone. You can't. It is an idea in your mind. Now do the same with your idea of reality. Again it is an idea.

I am just honest about it. I have been around atheists/non-religious people for a long time and they have beliefs about reality like us religious people.

So my assumptions/beliefs have value to me, but that has nothing to do with truth. Truth is an idea, I don't believe it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Correct, the assumptions are nothing but unprovable beliefs. That holds for philosophical naturalism/physicalism/materialism, scientific/epistemological realism and philosophical idealism in regards to religious beliefs.

Now in practice most of us assume that we share some sort of everyday world, but that even has its limits. I have had debates with both non-religious and religious believers, who all claimed I was not a part of reality.
Now I do believe that you are a part of reality. I just don't believe that it is true. I believe it is a belief that appears to work.

So here is a test for you. Imagine you are looking at a stone; i.e. a geological kind of material.
Now you can see it, you can hold it. There are a lot of thing you can do in regards to evidence as per science and everyday interactions. Now do the same with actually true. Look at it trough sight and describe it. Do all the same with as you would with the stone.
But wait, you can't. Actually true is an idea in your mind. Do the same with real value as with the stone. You can't. It is an idea in your mind. Now do the same with your idea of reality. Again it is an idea.

I am just honest about it. I have been around atheists/non-religious people for a long time and they have beliefs about reality like us religious people.

So my assumptions/beliefs have value to me, but that has nothing to do with truth. Truth is an idea, I don't believe it.

Truth is a value placed upon an observation or belief. That’s all you had to say in the first place. You went all the way around the barn to make a simple statement that most everyone agrees on anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth is a value placed upon an observation or belief. That’s all you had to say in the first place. You went all the way around the barn to make a simple statement that most everyone agrees on anyway.

Yeah, but what is the observation about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth is a value placed upon an observation or belief. That’s all you had to say in the first place. You went all the way around the barn to make a simple statement that most everyone agrees on anyway.

Take 2: A little bit longer.
Truth value is not the same as emotional value. I can't tell if you are conflating the 2.
So back to the first answer to your post. What is an observation or what do you assume an observation is?

 

[Milton Platt]

Yeah, but what is the observation about?

Don't understand the question

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't understand the question

What is an observation? Well, it is a certain form of experience. We can agree on that.

But the fun starts when we have to agree on what the experience is about. I.e. I see a cat. So what is the cat(ontology) if it exists independently of my experience(metaphysics) and how do we know that?

So back to value: Moral value and truth value are not the same as you use it apparently. Moral value is an inter-subjectively shared value for evaluating behavior where as truth is objective. I.e. the cat as the cat has objective existence, right?
I am trying to get if you accept that the claim the cat as the cat has objective existence is a belief in the end and can't be shown as true. It means that truth is also an subjective standard for evaluating subjective experiences and any positive claim about what reality really is, is a belief and nothing more.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 ?

metacognition (thinking about our thinking) is truly a wonder. however, it is simply our own mind doing yet more thinking. We are simply observing our own selves. It is a part of a significantly higher intelligence.

 

[Milton Platt]

What is an observation? Well, it is a certain form of experience. We can agree on that.

But the fun starts when we have to agree on what the experience is about. I.e. I see a cat. So what is the cat(ontology) if it exists independently of my experience(metaphysics) and how do we know that?

So back to value: Moral value and truth value are not the same as you use it apparently. Moral value is an inter-subjectively shared value for evaluating behavior where as truth is objective. I.e. the cat as the cat has objective existence, right?
I am trying to get if you accept that the claim the cat as the cat has objective existence is a belief in the end and can't be shown as true. It means that truth is also an subjective standard for evaluating subjective experiences and any positive claim about what reality really is, is a belief and nothing more.

Belief also has more than one definition. But we "believe" what we "know", or think we know. So if we think we know a cat exists, then we believe it.

 

[Jos]

The many cases of Near Death Experience recorded would tend to show a conscious awareness even when the body is not functioning. Some people report hovering above their body or even going into other rooms and when they awake they know what happened in the other rooms etc.

Can you please provide examples of these reports?