The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post Reply
User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Surendra Darathy » Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:54 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote:for example, we cannot have brain models that depend upon brains making assumptions about a reality beyond their own internal states.

And neither can we have brain models that depend upon the brain giving external meaning to its own internal states.
He's talking about brains like they were something standing outside of themselves and interpreting themselves.
Well, that's an injection of metaphysics, I would say. It could be that some forms of theism are just poorly-encrypted versions of brain-in-a-vat solipsism.

Expositions of solipsism need their own threads, and should not be injected into threads exposing non-solipsist models.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:58 pm

I don't think there can be any rational discussion until we break him out of the Cartesian theater.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Surendra Darathy » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:08 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:I don't think there can be any rational discussion until we break him out of the Cartesian theater.
The Cartesian theatre is not really a concern of mine:
jamest wrote:for example, we cannot have brain models that depend upon brains making assumptions about a reality beyond their own internal states.

And neither can we have brain models that depend upon the brain giving external meaning to its own internal states.
What we cannot have is someone not running the forum taking it upon himself to dictate what kind of models we can have. That gambit is also known as a "conversation stopper".

The way models are tested is done somewhat differently to declaring a priori what kind of models are admissible.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:19 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:I don't think there can be any rational discussion until we break him out of the Cartesian theater.
The Cartesian theatre is not really a concern of mine:
jamest wrote:for example, we cannot have brain models that depend upon brains making assumptions about a reality beyond their own internal states.

And neither can we have brain models that depend upon the brain giving external meaning to its own internal states.
What we cannot have is someone not running the forum taking it upon himself to dictate what kind of models we can have. That gambit is also known as a "conversation stopper".

The way models are tested is done somewhat differently to declaring a priori what kind of models are admissible.
Well I get yelled at every time I point out that he is dictating the terms of the conversation. Without a rational argument against our position it doesn't leave me with much else to do.

Me bored. I want that other chew toy back now. That Little one.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Surendra Darathy » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:24 pm

GrahamH wrote:If we want to understand an optical illusion we do need to look at it and note the perceptual confusion. As with other illusions, we can compare reports with our own internal report. If we want to account for the 'subjective observer as fictional character' we need to check our account against the supposed fiction to see if the model fits the story.
Yes, I see how this one fits into the toolbox. Optical illusions are entirely another matter, because they involve examining objects that are not simply present introspectively in order to introspect on the confusion. I hope you catch my drift here.

A Necker cube is just a bit of graphics on a sheet of paper or a computer monitor. Unless the sheet of paper or the computer monitor are only present in the Cartesian theatre. I really cannot produce an optical illusion without looking at what I take to be a physical object using my vision apparatus. That's what "optical" means.

Discussing an entirely subjective moment like a sensus divinatus is unmoored unless you hook it to a CAT scan. Some people reject that, and say, "That can't be me in that photo. I'm much younger than I look in that photo."

Those blatant denials are empirical statements, unless someone is just talking to himself. Then there's nothing to talk about. Tell it to the Magistrate.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Surendra Darathy » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:31 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote: Well I get yelled at every time I point out that he is dictating the terms of the conversation.
He's not dictating anything. He can't unless you let him. That's my point. You can discuss whatever you want here, with the exception of personalising the discussion in the direction of who somebody "is" based on what we think he is "doing". I've fallen into that trap in this very thread, and I am not going to go there again.
SpeedOfSound wrote:Me bored.
We've been strongly cautioned against letting boredom get the better of us, if you know what I mean.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Tigger » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:08 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote: Well I get yelled at every time I point out that he is dictating the terms of the conversation.
He's not dictating anything. He can't unless you let him. That's my point. You can discuss whatever you want here, with the exception of personalising the discussion in the direction of who somebody "is" based on what we think he is "doing". I've fallen into that trap in this very thread, and I am not going to go there again.
SpeedOfSound wrote:Me bored.
We've been strongly cautioned against letting boredom get the better of us, if you know what I mean.
Don't worry about us, we're getting used to you. :tup:
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Surendra Darathy » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:31 pm

Tigger wrote: Don't worry about us, we're getting used to you. :tup:
That is not as if to get me to say "You love me. You really love me!"

Ah, well. Some people (present company excluded, of course) tend to get used to me the way a flagellant gets used to a swarm of bees inside his hairshirt.
:biggrin:
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

Bruce Burleson
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:46 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by Bruce Burleson » Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:51 pm

In his book The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doidge, M.D. gives a number of examples of stroke or brain injury victims learning to use different parts of their brains to compensate for the damaged parts. A stroke victim who has lost the use of his left arm would naturally use his right arm to do more tasks. Therapy techniques described by Doidge involve putting the good right arm in a sling or otherwise immobilizing it so that the patient is forced to use the arm affected by the stroke. By intense training and concentration, the patient is capable of changing the neuronal structure of his brain so that other parts take over the control of the affected arm. So the patient's consciousness is used as a tool to actually change the brain, which then affects consciousness - the patient has a different experience of movement in that arm than he previously had.

Brain plasticity continues into old age, and the more new learning tasks, such as learning a new language or playing a new musical instrument, that we engage in the more changes we effect in our brains. Each new task learned affects our own self-awareness - we become aware of things about the language or instrument that we did not know before, adding richness to our conscious experience. The quality of our conscious experience is grounded in the breadth of the brain's knowledge. Compare the conscious experience of a severely brain-damaged individual who sits and stares to that of a multi-talented genius with competence in a variety of fields. Consciousness is epiphenomenal to brain health and complexity. I'm not even sure how metaphysics enters into this discussion.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by colubridae » Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:18 pm

Check out jan 2006 scientific american


Mammalian mothers' brain restructuring, even without conscious effort.

Pregnancy hormones make mammalian mothers smarter, braver etc.

And the restructured brains stay smarter longer.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:06 pm

we cannot have brain models that depend upon brains making assumptions about a reality beyond their own internal states.
I feel the same way about that statement as I would feel if an adult asked me how santa got down the little chimney into the gas furnace.

More pseudo-science for us:

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/inf ... 00462.s001

Qualia Space is a theory about how NN's achieve meaning and differentiation in the functionality of the human brain in general and also specifically in subjective experience.

It should be noted that one must think of these things also as linked subspaces and that this achieves a sort of building block or modular ability in construction of our SE. However great care must be taken not to confuse that convenient way of thinking with the reality. These things are far too fuzzy to believe that they are like building blocks in actuality even though they have much of the functionality of a modular system.

Along those lines one must understand that in association areas of the brain that individual sub-spaces activate higher order spaces that represent a more abstract qualia.

A way to understand is to think of a red ball or cup and try to feel the quality of the red. Now if you are a driver and you think instead of a red stop sign or a red stop light you may notice that the red is deeper and richer. I have tired the experiemnt of looking at the red glasses I use for coffee until the image was well placed in my mind. I then close my eyes and try to maintain and imagining of the glass. It seems to fade rapidly and is quite washed out compared to looking at the actual object. Next I bring to mind a red stop light. This one seems much redder. Apples are less so but still much redder than the glass that I was just looking at and am now imagining.

The explanation that I give for this is that the traffic light red has a greater and richer qualia space that has been etched more deeply by the emotive factors present in risking life and limb in city traffic.

The theory has it that our entire inner experience is a complex of such etchings in our brain that have accumulated over a lifetime. All of our beliefs, sensations, concepts, and feelings are of this qualia space currency.

More than just a little stray theory this one has the support of everything that we know about nervous systems. Every Thing! It has zero evidence against it that I am aware of.

I am wading through this 100 page document. Taking notes and no prisoners.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:32 pm

Bruce Burleson wrote: Consciousness is epiphenomenal to brain health and complexity. I'm not even sure how metaphysics enters into this discussion.
Hello Bruce.
We're discussing - as per the thread-title - the prospects for an immaterial observer. And here, you make a claim about what consciousness is and what causes it. So, surely you must see that the thread is really about metaphysics and that you are making a metaphysical claim? That's how metaphysics comes into it.
In his book The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doidge, M.D. gives a number of examples of stroke or brain injury victims learning to use different parts of their brains to compensate for the damaged parts. A stroke victim who has lost the use of his left arm would naturally use his right arm to do more tasks. Therapy techniques described by Doidge involve putting the good right arm in a sling or otherwise immobilizing it so that the patient is forced to use the arm affected by the stroke. By intense training and concentration, the patient is capable of changing the neuronal structure of his brain so that other parts take over the control of the affected arm. So the patient's consciousness is used as a tool to actually change the brain, which then affects consciousness - the patient has a different experience of movement in that arm than he previously had.
Note that an idealist doesn't [necessarily] reject that there is correlation between the brain and behaviour, or even between the brain and thinking/feeling. Certainly, I don't. But correlation doesn't imply causality, Bruce. That's just a logical fallacy. Let me give you a brief overview of my idealistic perspective to show what I mean:

My philosophy is that 'the world' is reducible to ordered sensations/quale. This means that any experienced object is reducible to something else that isn't actually that object (Indeed, all brain models reduce experienced objects to something that aren't actually those objects, in that they reduce the experience of objects to NNs). This is a bit like saying that the entities depicted within a cartoon are reducible to the orderly application of inks upon paper, so that said entities are reducible to something else that isn't actually those entities. And yet, within any cartoon, there are behavioural correlations between apparent entities. For example, Jerry always runs when he sees Tom. But does this mean that Tom itself causes Jerry's behaviour? No, it doesn't, since what really causes Jerry's behaviour is 'the essence' behind the cartoon.

What we have here is a discussion about brains and the apparent correlations between those organs and human behaviour and thought/feeling. But unless those brains are real and are the 'essence' of behaviour/thought/feeling, then the situation becomes similar to Jerry running-away from Tom: that is, there is doubt about whether brains cause behaviour/thought/feeling, regardless of any apparent correlations.

This discussion has been focused upon finding a brain model that 'makes sense'. There are issues within the philosophy of mind about 'brain models' (and computer models), that any such model must address. As I've said, for instance, any model requiring that the brain should give external meaning to its own internal states when it cannot know that there is a reality external to those states, will fall short of 'making sense'. On the other hand, any model that might make sense of such metaphysical concerns, cannot avoid association with ontological/metaphysical claims. That's why such models have to be primarily philosophical, in that the subsequent science seeks to fit around a particular metaphysic. This is why I shake my head every time I see so-called sceptics/empiricists/relativists still trying to explain behaviour/thought/emotion in terms of brain causality. It's just impossible to have a 'purely scientific' opinion on this matter, since all models must be grounded within a specific ontology.

You simply cannot avoid metaphysics within this discussion, Bruce.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:44 pm

jamest wrote:As I've said, for instance, any model requiring that the brain should give external meaning to its own internal states when it cannot know that there is a reality external to those states, will fall short of 'making sense'.
That's why you have provided with ample information and evidence about how brains are organs that 'make sense'. Ignoring this is just making you look like a preacher.
jamest wrote:On the other hand, any model that might make sense of such metaphysical concerns, cannot avoid association with ontological/metaphysical claims. That's why such models have to be primarily philosophical, in that the subsequent science seeks to fit around a particular metaphysic. This is why I shake my head every time I see so-called sceptics/empiricists/relativists still trying to explain behaviour/thought/emotion in terms of brain causality. It's just impossible to have a 'purely scientific' opinion on this matter, since all models must be grounded within a specific ontology.
This metaphysics thing and your brushing away of science is your opinion and ill formed and unsupported. I hope you can see that. I would further suggest that the only hope for your philosophy is to convince people that they must ignore the facts along with you.

That isn't going to happen.

jamest wrote:But correlation doesn't imply causality, Bruce. That's just a logical fallacy.
Correlation is at the core of everything we know and believe. Except for woo-god. Woo-god beliefs rely on convincing people of silly things like evidence and correlation are logical fallacies.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by SpeedOfSound » Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:03 am

Correlation does not imply causation has become sort of a banner for the idealist or woofull. The actual usage is 'statistically correlation does not necessarily imply causation'. Meaning that in a complex system the cause may be in some other relationship than the relationships that were mapped with the statistic.

This is not proof that things don't have physical causes. It is simply a caution that the cause may need further ferreting out. In the matter of brains there has never been a shred of proof that anything beyond biochemistry is involved so correlation with the only things we have found is the most sensible bet we can make.

Along with that the evidence for causation and the models that have logical mechanisms is as high as a mountain.

The evidence of woo-brain is non-existent.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The subjective observer is a fictional character

Post by jamest » Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:25 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:
jamest wrote:As I've said, for instance, any model requiring that the brain should give external meaning to its own internal states when it cannot know that there is a reality external to those states, will fall short of 'making sense'.
That's why you have provided with ample information and evidence about how brains are organs that 'make sense'. Ignoring this is just making you look like a preacher.
You've certainly provided many links. But you yourself haven't confronted the rationale that demands confronting here. What I would like to see, from you, is a straightforward post - using your own words - that gives an overview of a brain model that fully makes sense of the issues that have been forthcoming. Certainly, links to whole books are of little use, here. Few readers of this thread, including myself, have the time to read whole books. And even links to snippets of information aren't that worthwhile, because they are limited in what they say and don't address the overall themes underpinning this thread. Imagine me, for instance, just providing you with a constant stream of idealistic links in response to questions that you may have posed about the irrationality of idealism. This isn't a book club... it's a discussion forum.
jamest wrote:On the other hand, any model that might make sense of such metaphysical concerns, cannot avoid association with ontological/metaphysical claims. That's why such models have to be primarily philosophical, in that the subsequent science seeks to fit around a particular metaphysic. This is why I shake my head every time I see so-called sceptics/empiricists/relativists still trying to explain behaviour/thought/emotion in terms of brain causality. It's just impossible to have a 'purely scientific' opinion on this matter, since all models must be grounded within a specific ontology.
This metaphysics thing and your brushing away of science is your opinion and ill formed and unsupported. I hope you can see that. I would further suggest that the only hope for your philosophy is to convince people that they must ignore the facts along with you.
Epistemology and metaphysics are at the heart of this discussion... and the utilisation of science to explain behaviour/thought/feeling in terms of 'the brain' being the cause of said phenomena, is indicative of an exact epistemology and metaphysic. Also, as I've just said to Bruce, any correlation between entities, or relational 'facts', does not imply causality of one upon another.
Science has no 'facts' about causality. Science only has facts about correlations. Just because Y follows X does not mean that X causes Y. It's a logical fallacy to presume so... and the conclusion is dependent upon assuming the reality of X.
jamest wrote:But correlation doesn't imply causality, Bruce. That's just a logical fallacy.
Correlation is at the core of everything we know and believe.
And? This is, ultimately, about metaphysics. If your correlations have provided you with false beliefs about what actually causes the events that you see, then you really need to review those beliefs.
Correlation is not synonymous with causality. This is a simple logical fact that you need to chew upon for a while.
Except for woo-god. Woo-god beliefs rely on convincing people of silly things like evidence and correlation are logical fallacies.
I object to the use of belittling language as 'argument'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests