Who observes, that the brain observes ?

[chinu]

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 ?

 

[Father Heathen]

The brain is aware of itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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 observes, that the brain observes ?

Sounds like a "must be" fallacy, I'll call it. The brain doesn't observe it's the seat and control. We think the mind observes but it's just a result of the brains picking up on external and internal sensors and using language to interpret. All from the brain.

But how did you get a "who" though? Why not what?

 

[chinu]

The brain is aware of itself.

And tells this to whom ?

 

[chinu]

Sounds like a "must be" fallacy, I'll call it. The brain doesn't observe it's the seat and control. We think the mind observes but it's just a result of the brains picking up on external and internal sensors and using language to interpret. All from the brain.

Interpret whom, or what ?

But how did you get a "who" though? Why not what?

I missed to write this option.

 

[Father Heathen]

And tells this to whom ?

The milkman.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The brain is aware of itself.

Interesting take. What if one loses all senses and cellular/neural communications?

 

[Father Heathen]

Interesting take. What if one loses all senses and cellular/neural communications?

There's no awareness without conciousness, except maybe lucid dreaming?
Unless you're talking about brian death/vegetative state.

 

[stvdv]

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 observe that "my" brain observes "my" activities

 

[Howard Is]

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 ?

Speaking as a non-dualist, I would say that ‘the brain’ and ‘observation’ are two ways of referring to the same thing.

This is obvious to anyone who has been anaesthetised.

If there is a spiritual identity beyond the brain, it ceases to know itself when the brain is shut down.

There is no yogi who can remain in a state of ‘higher consciousness’ when anaesthetised, based on my experience, and based on zero reports of such an experience. With the exception of ketamine, which leaves the deep lizard brain active. Which, btw, seems transcendental...

So, it makes no difference whether you attribute consciousness to brain activity or spirit ... no brain activity equals no awareness of any kind.

Meaning that that if there is a ‘supernatural’ spiritual basis to our existence, it relies on a brain to know anything at all.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Did you know that not everyone is capable of having inner dialogue?

People Have Discovered That Not Everyone Has an Inner Monologue and It Has Sparked a Dialogue Online

Not everyone is capable of introspection. Not everyone is capable of imagination. Not everyone is capable of mental visualization.

Otherwise, a normal mind is capable of all of these things. People who are able to have the ability to that have inner dialogue are able to bounce ideas off of their own brain, and are able to understand internally when their body acts in a certain way. It's just the way we are wired (for the most part) as human beings.

For those who don't have inner dialogue, it's all just intuitive.

 

[Howard Is]

For those who don't have inner dialogue, it's all just intuitive.

For some time I have suspected that the mind has various options for bringing information from subconscious to conscious.
Visual imagery. Imaginary friends. Role play. Whispers in the wind.

Intrapersonal communication.

 

[chinu]

I observe that "my" brain observes "my" activities

"I"

What is this "I" ?

 

[SigurdReginson]

"I"

What is this "I" ?

Very interesting question, Chinu.

One concept you might find interesting is the idea of the Id, the Ego, and the Super Ego.

Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

The brain is aware of itself.

How?

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's no awareness without conciousness, except maybe lucid dreaming?
Unless you're talking about brian death/vegetative state.

Do you have evidence that consciousness is inherent in all senses and cellular/neural communications?

 

[Father Heathen]

How?

Either wizardry or sorcery. Not sure which.

 

[Father Heathen]

Do you have evidence that consciousness is inherent in all senses and cellular/neural communications?

Is that the claim I made?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Speaking as a non-dualist, I would say that ‘the brain’ and ‘observation’ are two ways of referring to the same thing.

This is obvious to anyone who has been anaesthetised.

If there is a spiritual identity beyond the brain, it ceases to know itself when the brain is shut down.

There is no yogi who can remain in a state of ‘higher consciousness’ when anaesthetised, based on my experience, and based on zero reports of such an experience. With the exception of ketamine, which leaves the deep lizard brain active. Which, btw, seems transcendental...

So, it makes no difference whether you attribute consciousness to brain activity or spirit ... no brain activity equals no awareness of any kind.

Meaning that that if there is a ‘supernatural’ spiritual basis to our existence, it relies on a brain to know anything at all.

Brain activity, when anesthetized, is similar to that of deep sleep. I've experienced both.

As I see it, these states are an experience of absence, not an absence of experience. There is still an underlying consciousness that is constant.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is that the claim I made?

In essence. You said...

There's no awareness without consciousness...

...in response to @Twilight Hue's post about the loss of all senses and cellular/neural communications. Did I misunderstand your meaning behind that?