The subjective observer is a fictional character

[SpeedOfSound]

Look, Graham's theory is that brain states are responses to the environment and that words/languages are just consequences or bi-products of these brain states. So, for the sake of argument - in order to explore the possibility of this theory being correct - I'm willing to accept this base premise... and ask him to explain how such a theory can account for emotions; beliefs; personality; etc..
Clearly, the precise structure of the brain isn't going to be the focus of such a discussion, because if I ask him to explain and incorporate emotions; beliefs; personality; etc., into his theory, then answers such as "this can be explained because region x of the brain is shaped like a banana", will not suffice. That is, unless Graham has a mechanism in mind so accurate that he can answer my questions purely in terms of physical dynamics - as if I asked him how a bike could move, or suchlike - then Graham is required to answer my questions beyond those parameters.

The questions that I have asked Graham to answer go right to the heart of the controversies of his theory (which seems to me to be on a par with eliminative materialism). So, for instance, if Graham says that human behaviour and language are just effects of brain states that themselves are responses/effects to/of the environment, then he needs to present a logical account of how such a process could yield beliefs; emotions; erroneous thoughts; etc.. It would certainly be useless if Graham's response to my questions was that "region x of the brain is shaped like a banana". That is, there is no controversy - as far as I'm concerned - with the shape or structure or mechanism of the brain that might produce such effects. The controversy - as far as I'm concerned - is inherent within the proposed process itself. That is, I don't see how the brain's response to its environment could EVER lead to beliefs; emotions; personality; etc.. For me, then, it doesn't matter what the internal structure of the brain is. My problem then, is not with the brain's structure, but with the ability of the proposed process to produce the aforementioned traits within humanity.

If you think that Graham's theory has included sufficient physical detail to answer my questions, then you're living in a land full of clouds and cuckoos. Therefore, we must concentrate on the proposed process, or we have nothing at all to consider.

This is probably my last attempt at trying to explain this to you, as I don't envisage that you will have anything new or interesting-enough to say that will motivate me to respond again to a post with similar content. If you don't understand the issues here, then that's a problem inherent within your own thinking - not mine.

Oh fuck me sideways. Having trouble lifting my hand over the keyboard. So weary of this kind of hand-waving ignorance.

[Trolldor]

beliefs; personality; etc.

Your ignorance is hilarious.

If direct changes to the brain's physical structure or chemical structure alter personality...

[jamest]

But it's relevant and something that you have to incorporate into your theory. I mean, how an organism - especially a human - responds to its environment, depends very much upon the traits inherent within their personality. Now, it is quite clear that the environment alone cannot be held responsible for the diversity of human personality and demeanour, yet your theory implies that it should be. So, you have some explaining to do. And you still haven't addressed the problem of beliefs, either.

In summary, different brain = different mind = different personality. Personality is how people respond to circumstances.

You're missing the point, Graham. That is, there's nothing inherent within the environment that would cause an emotional response to an environmental event. And yet, every human response (action or verbal) to an environmental event is determined by how an organism 'feels' with regards to that event. That is, our beliefs/emotions/desires fuel any specific response to the environment, so that the environment plays only a bit-part in the process. Certainly, the environment cannot itself impose specific beliefs/emotions/desires upon us. Therefore, our responses to that environment cannot be attributed to that environment. So, since the environment is not responsible for our responses to it, then we cannot simply attribute our brain states as mirrors of it.

Some differences are from the genetic inheritance lottery (shich chromosome mix you get from your parents) , some from gestation, some from life experience. I don't intend to attempt to explain details of personality in terms of neurology! That is a very different topic.

Whoa, Graham. Several hours-ago, you were attributing each (and every) of our actions and words to brain states that were naturalistic responses to the environment. But here, you mention "life experience". However, if there is no 'observer' or 'individual' that is integral to "the process", then nothing can be learnt from experience, since 'learning' would imply a consideration of both past and present circumstances/events. And that would imply the presence and function of 'an observer' - even if that observer was the brain itself, overlooking the totality of its data for singular purposes.

This brings us to another problem, inherent within your theory: if brain states are responses to environmental events, then how does the brain invoke a SINGULAR response to those events? For instance, my brain states must encompass a multitude of entities at any one time. That is, when I observe the world, I view numerous entities at any instant. Therefore, my response to any observation must depend upon what is considered to be the focus of that observation. Hence, how and why would the brain focus upon any specific object? Certainly, it would not do so because the world itself dictated that it should. Thus, there is an element of singularness always evident in how the brain deals with every situation - because decisions have to be made about what is important from those observations - which implies that INTERNAL reasons are apparent for the response to any external event. That is, the response to any external event is not a consequence of that event, but a consequence of the purpose/needs/desires of an entity in response to that event.

Consequently, your theory about the responses of an organism being directly effected by its environment, must be erroneous.

[SpeedOfSound]

...

I'll try and find to energy to give a good response to all of this. I truly hope that you will reconsider your banana theory while I'm out and fix this up yourself. It would give me hope.

[jamest]

Oh fuck me sideways. Having trouble lifting my hand over the keyboard. So weary of this kind of hand-waving ignorance.

There was no handwaving involved. If there was, I could have utilised 50 words, instead of [almost] 500. That is, I thoroughly explained the situation to you. If that's not good enough for you - and you certainly HAVEN'T ADDRESSED a single sentence within my post, then take a hike. I'm done with the bullshit that passes for 'philosophy' with certain posters here, including yourself.

At the end of the day, nobody can accuse me of not taking Graham's 'theory' seriously, nor of responding to him in a mature and respectful manner. You should therefore note the distinction evident here between an 'A-team' response to a 'J-team' claim and a J-team response to an A-team claim (which invariably leads to schoolyard taunts). I obviously don't agree with Graham - but you won't see me swearing or utilising phrases on a par with "woo head" in an attempt to belittle him or his position.

If I was you, I'd just take a back-seat and OBSERVE the proceedings.

[SpeedOfSound]

If I was you, I'd just take a back-seat and OBSERVE the proceedings.

The proceedings are probably not going to be worth observing so I'll just participate if that's okay with you. Or not.

Look, Graham's theory is that brain states are responses to the environment and that words/languages are just consequences or bi-products of these brain states.

It's not Graham's theory it's the theory of every real psychologist and neurologist for the last two hundred years.

So, for the sake of argument - in order to explore the possibility of this theory being correct - I'm willing to accept this base premise... and ask him to explain how such a theory can account for emotions; beliefs; personality; etc..

And he is responding.

Clearly, the precise structure of the brain isn't going to be the focus of such a discussion,

Oh! But you want him to respond the way you want and in accordance with your belief that the structure of the brain, environment of the organism, and history of that environment is not what the mind is. Begging the question.

then answers such as "this can be explained because region x of the brain is shaped like a banana", will not suffice.

I'm going to assume from your recent posts that this banana theory of the brain is the content and extent of your knowledge of brains. I wouldn't be so proud if I were you. (read my sig. )

That is, unless Graham has a mechanism in mind so accurate that he can answer my questions purely in terms of physical dynamics - as if I asked him how a bike could move, or suchlike - then Graham is required to answer my questions beyond those parameters.

You don't get to require the scope of the answers around here. In particular you don't get to tell us science is not applicable on a forum with a name such as this one.

If you think the brain is like a bike then I suggest you go read a book. At least one book about the brain.

So, for instance, if Graham says that human behaviour and language are just effects of brain states that themselves are responses/effects to/of the environment, then he needs to present a logical account of how such a process could yield beliefs; emotions; erroneous thoughts; etc..

Which is what he is trying to do but you keep wanting to equate the brain to a bannana or a bike.

It would certainly be useless if Graham's response to my questions was that "region x of the brain is shaped like a banana".

Agreed. It would be idiot talk to talk about the shape of the brain as a banana having anything to do with this discussion.

The controversy - as far as I'm concerned - is inherent within the proposed process itself.

Yes. You got it. The process is the processes of the brain. That's why when people have brain damage that their beliefs, emotions, actions, perceptions, and thinking are damaged specifically in correlation with certain pars of the brain. Read a book. Try the Wiki under agnosia.

That is, I don't see how the brain's response to its environment could EVER lead to beliefs; emotions; personality; etc.. For me, then, it doesn't matter what the internal structure of the brain is.

Right. That's why none of us here, barring Little Idiot agree with you. We are not believers in gods or magical forces. You have done this consistently in the considerable time I have known you. That is you have tried to steer the discussion to your preaching and refused to consider the ideas of others. If I am harsh to you than this is why. I don't like preaching and I don't like a believer telling me how I can think or respond.

If you think that Graham's theory has included sufficient physical detail to answer my questions, then you're living in a land full of clouds and cuckoos. Therefore, we must concentrate on the proposed process, or we have nothing at all to consider.

And here you go again. You are saying out loud that you will only consider the arguments that you want to hear.

This is probably my last attempt at trying to explain this to you, as I don't envisage that you will have anything new or interesting-enough to say that will motivate me to respond again to a post with similar content. If you don't understand the issues here, then that's a problem inherent within your own thinking - not mine.

Pot calling the kettle black.

That is, there's nothing inherent within the environment that would cause an emotional response to an environmental event.

Consider a charging 800 pound tiger as inherently causing an emotional response.

That is, our beliefs/emotions/desires fuel any specific response to the environment, so that the environment plays only a bit-part in the process. Certainly, the environment cannot itself impose specific beliefs/emotions/desires upon us. Therefore, our responses to that environment cannot be attributed to that environment.

Consider a rhino has his horn up your ass as a bit-part. Consider a nice ass as impinging some desire.

Be careful of Therefore's when you have not put forth a logical argument.

But here, you mention "life experience".
However, if there is no 'observer' or 'individual' that is integral to "the process", then nothing can be learnt from experience, since 'learning' would imply a consideration of both past and present circumstances/events.

I assume you are going to show reason why organisms with brains don't learn and produce the appropriate papers and evidence.

And that would imply the presence and function of 'an observer' - even if that observer was the brain itself, overlooking the totality of its data for singular purposes.

Show me the evidence for the observer in a fruit fly.

if brain states are responses to environmental events, then how does the brain invoke a SINGULAR response to those events?

It's called Attention and neurologists know a great deal about how it works. But it's not a banana.

Hence, how and why would the brain focus upon any specific object?

Psych 101. Read a book.

Thus, there is an element of singularness always evident in how the brain deals with every situation - because decisions have to be made about what is important from those observations - which implies that INTERNAL reasons are apparent for the response to any external event. That is, the response to any external event is not a consequence of that event, but a consequence of the purpose/needs/desires of an entity in response to that event.

Yes. Of course. This is the point of the thread. There are four things:

a. environment
b. history
c. state of the organism.
d. genetics

This is the simplest logical model of an organism that I can give you and if you continue to ignore any one of them in favor of your proposed god-mind I am going to keep dragging you back to it and rubbing your nose in it.

Consequently, your theory about the responses of an organism being directly effected by its environment, must be erroneous.

Listen to yourself!!!

[GrahamH]

But it's relevant and something that you have to incorporate into your theory. I mean, how an organism - especially a human - responds to its environment, depends very much upon the traits inherent within their personality. Now, it is quite clear that the environment alone cannot be held responsible for the diversity of human personality and demeanour, yet your theory implies that it should be. So, you have some explaining to do. And you still haven't addressed the problem of beliefs, either.

In summary, different brain = different mind = different personality. Personality is how people respond to circumstances.

You're missing the point, Graham. That is, there's nothing inherent within the environment that would cause an emotional response to an environmental event. And yet, every human response (action or verbal) to an environmental event is determined by how an organism 'feels' with regards to that event. That is, our beliefs/emotions/desires fuel any specific response to the environment, so that the environment plays only a bit-part in the process. Certainly, the environment cannot itself impose specific beliefs/emotions/desires upon us. Therefore, our responses to that environment cannot be attributed to that environment. So, since the environment is not responsible for our responses to it, then we cannot simply attribute our brain states as mirrors of it.

Some differences are from the genetic inheritance lottery (shich chromosome mix you get from your parents) , some from gestation, some from life experience. I don't intend to attempt to explain details of personality in terms of neurology! That is a very different topic.

Whoa, Graham. Several hours-ago, you were attributing each (and every) of our actions and words to brain states that were naturalistic responses to the environment. But here, you mention "life experience". However, if there is no 'observer' or 'individual' that is integral to "the process", then nothing can be learnt from experience, since 'learning' would imply a consideration of both past and present circumstances/events. And that would imply the presence and function of 'an observer' - even if that observer was the brain itself, overlooking the totality of its data for singular purposes.

This brings us to another problem, inherent within your theory: if brain states are responses to environmental events, then how does the brain invoke a SINGULAR response to those events? For instance, my brain states must encompass a multitude of entities at any one time. That is, when I observe the world, I view numerous entities at any instant. Therefore, my response to any observation must depend upon what is considered to be the focus of that observation. Hence, how and why would the brain focus upon any specific object? Certainly, it would not do so because the world itself dictated that it should. Thus, there is an element of singularness always evident in how the brain deals with every situation - because decisions have to be made about what is important from those observations - which implies that INTERNAL reasons are apparent for the response to any external event. That is, the response to any external event is not a consequence of that event, but a consequence of the purpose/needs/desires of an entity in response to that event.

Consequently, your theory about the responses of an organism being directly effected by its environment, must be erroneous.

I think you have failed to grasp anything I have written so far about life history shapes the continuous development of the brain.
I have to say that you have a remarkable naive view of what a brain is and does, as shown by your suggestion that everyone should respond identically if it was their brain that responds. This isn;t even that case for todays simple robots and AI systems, or even simpler machines.

I am not going to take your diversion into discussion of free will. This is about subjectivity, not personality or free will.

I don't have time to post much today.

[GrahamH]

At the end of the day, nobody can accuse me of not taking Graham's 'theory' seriously, nor of responding to him in a mature and respectful manner.

Mature and respectful yes, but I'm not sure you are taking this seriously by actually engaging with the ideas. We shall see.

[jamest]

I am not going to take your diversion into discussion of free will. This is about subjectivity, not personality or free will.

You have described brain states as direct responses to environmental events... and our words/actions as direct products of those brain states. However, this theory takes no account whatsoever of the fact that our responses to world events are not purely driven by those events. Our responses are determined by internalised beliefs and emotions that the world itself cannot be the cause of. How a sincere Christian responds to the world, for example, is determined as much by his beliefs and emotions, as by that world.

Becoming a Christian is a purely internalised process, as is becoming a vegetarian, or a relativist, or a communist. And the choices that we make for ourselves directly affect how we respond to the world. That is, what we say and do in the face of specific circumstances is largely dependent upon a state-of-mind enforced by oneself. So, it's not just a simple matter of brain states reflecting the environment and then our words being expressions of those brain states.

And so, the brain states of a sincere Christian, for example, would have to reflect his beliefs and emotions and intentions in the face of any external event. Therefore, his brain states are not just responses to that environment.

Further, the decision to become a Christian, or a vegetarian, or a communist, etc., certainly requires a singularness of mind to contemplate everything and to react accordingly. That is, I see the beliefs and emotions exhibited by a human being as evidence of a 'subjective observer'.

You seem to want to brush all of this under the rug, as though it had no relevance to your base theory. Well, I certainly cannot force you address these issues, but at least I've made my point.

[SpeedOfSound]

The brain is an amazing contradiction. It's structure at birth is highly similar in it's 1300 parts across almost all humans. Yet at the microscopic level of neurons and their exact connections it is like different galaxies.

The wiring at birth is the gross wiring of different areas and different sensory, motor, and internal modalities. This gross wiring diagram is what determines the overall shape of the qualia space after the system starts getting input and enacting the millions of different feels.

The cortex is like a big dinner napkin, all crinkled up, and only as thick as 6 business cards in a pile. It has (mostly) 6 layers and roughly fifty different overall genetically determined types of neurons.

There are dozens of kinds of neurons that involve over a hundred kinds of neurotransmitters. They have different shapes like bushy and granular that determine their interconnections. At birth there are 100's of quadrillions of possible connections waiting to wire the neruons together.

Again the great contradiction is that the overall form is nearly the same but the specific possible connections are far beyond astronomically combinatorial. The probability of any two humans being exactly the same given the same input is probably a fraction with 10's of thousands of zeros.

A child is born with about twice as many neruons as it will have at one year old. They start to interconnect and die off while still in the womb. Input to the brain through all of it's rich (greater than 5 ) types of sensory input starts making millions of connections daily.

Imagine a blank copper circuit board (anyone remember those?) that gets continually etched to make highly unique wiring diagrams. At the gross level they will all be the same. At the micro level they will all be vastly unique.

But! At the functional level these unique circuits will remarkably create the same overall results. This is how the 100 parts are wired up. So that they reliably do that almost all of the time. We will all run from bears yet we will all be able to say something about the bears that is completely unique. Chaotic systems have their little butterflies flapping the wings.

The next contradiction is that the environmental input is at once highly individuated and has very similar shaping effects. The brain is designed to filter out the common categorical shape of the environment and carve itself to interact with it.

Their are billions of bits of information daily encoded int he brain in the early years and these shape our behavior and qualia space. You cannot be conscious without the environmentally shaped QS.

Every time you see a tree the tree QS is changed and the entire history of your business with trees is intermingled with the tree you now see. The sensory avalanche from the actual tree fires of storms of representational neural groups and these feed back in tornado like loops with the sensory input. That is there is feedback and feedforward activity that sets up over the time of about 200 msecs from input to settled state. But it's never still. Never the same. And never will be the same twice in your life no matter how many trees you see.

The system of neurons is a balance between degeneracy and non-degeneracy (see The Mindful Brain Baars and Mountcastle) and is mathematically complex. It is this balance that gives it the contradictory nature of individuated uniqueness. To tap into someone else's qualia you would have to take the whole brain. Functionally we all see trees but no two of us with the same circuitry.

That is just the barest beginning. We could next talk about attentional awareness to answer some of Jamest's criticisms.

[SpeedOfSound]

I am not going to take your diversion into discussion of free will. This is about subjectivity, not personality or free will.

You have described brain states as direct responses to environmental events... and our words/actions as direct products of those brain states. However, this theory takes no account whatsoever of the fact that our responses to world events are not purely driven by those events. Our responses are determined by internalised beliefs and emotions that the world itself cannot be the cause of. How a sincere Christian responds to the world, for example, is determined as much by his beliefs and emotions, as by that world.

Becoming a Christian is a purely internalised process, as is becoming a vegetarian, or a relativist, or a communist. And the choices that we make for ourselves directly affect how we respond to the world. That is, what we say and do in the face of specific circumstances is largely dependent upon a state-of-mind enforced by oneself. So, it's not just a simple matter of brain states reflecting the environment and then our words being expressions of those brain states.

And so, the brain states of a sincere Christian, for example, would have to reflect his beliefs and emotions and intentions in the face of any external event. Therefore, his brain states are not just responses to that environment.

Further, the decision to become a Christian, or a vegetarian, or a communist, etc., certainly requires a singularness of mind to contemplate everything and to react accordingly. That is, I see the beliefs and emotions exhibited by a human being as evidence of a 'subjective observer'.

You seem to want to brush all of this under the rug, as though it had no relevance to your base theory. Well, I certainly cannot force you address these issues, but at least I've made my point.

Again!

There are four things:

a. environment
b. history
c. state of the organism.
d. genetics

There is no purely determined anything in the system. Current state = initial state + all history + current input! At every little fraction of a second.

Becoming a Christian is a purely internalised process, as is becoming a vegetarian, or a relativist, or a communist.

Are you suggesting that christians arise spontaneously in Muslim households or with children raised by packs of wolves?

[SpeedOfSound]

Further, the decision to become a Christian, or a vegetarian, or a communist, etc., certainly requires a singularness of mind to contemplate everything and to react accordingly. That is, I see the beliefs and emotions exhibited by a human being as evidence of a 'subjective observer'.

There is no static I/observer. No singularness. We are ever different.

We never contemplate everything. Only what our limited physical mechanism of consciousness allows us.

[Surendra Darathy]

You have described brain states as direct responses to environmental events... and our words/actions as direct products of those brain states. However, this theory takes no account whatsoever of the fact that our responses to world events are not purely driven by those events. Our responses are determined by internalised beliefs and emotions that the world itself cannot be the cause of. How a sincere Christian responds to the world, for example, is determined as much by his beliefs and emotions, as by that world.

The point of all that being what?

You've said something very general about "beliefs", a concept for which we have the word "beliefs", but which is never really very deeply articulated by those who "theorise" the way you do here.

What I take you to be recognising is that the "beliefs" that other people have affect the "beliefs" that we have. That much is certain, based on SoS's point about the appearance of Christians spontaneously in Muslim households. I thought that was a good one!

Think about it this way: Have you ever gotten really angry with your Pet Rock, or your pet paramecium? No matter how angry you get, they continue to behave the same way they always have. No brain, no pain. Now try this with your dog, or your kid. You can actually condition your dog or your kid's behavior by applying a conscientious program of daily brushing and regular professional care. Your kid or dog will have sparkling behavior, with no cavities! Don't forget to floss those beliefs, so they don't get undermined by Dumb Disease.

The issue here is deciding how much your beliefs affect the way the world responds to you. Certainly with paramecia, dogs, and kids, there are avenues of investigation. When you start getting the world to respond to you, e.g., by bending spoons with your beliefs, I'll applaud.


This is why we think the brain has something to do with "beliefs". This seems a simple enough problem to most people who don't bring a bunch of preconceptions to the issue. It's the conclusion, rather than the assumption. Consider why people with spongiform brain disease eventually stop interacting with us in meaningful ways. Oh, those cavities!

[SpeedOfSound]

The generation of 'I'ness is a complex interplay of observing other humans and our own motive control of our bodies and environment. Humans have extra circuits for mirroring other humans. We have a strong ability to watch others and fire up the same neurons as if we were doing what the other is doing. Along with this we have an excellent veto or free-won't ability to keep the neurons from activating muscles.

So the I is like this little ball of information that develops throughout life though never as furiously as it develops in the first three years. Every morning we reboot our system of self and then go about repainting it with everything that happens during the day.

[Surendra Darathy]

Humans have extra circuits for mirroring other humans.

The more I observe (there's that word again) other humans like James, the more confident I am in my decision to mirror my cat's behaviour in matters dealing with beliefs. My cat is so indifferent to my beliefs, it isn't funny to James.

And the choices that we make for ourselves directly affect how we respond to the world. That is, what we say and do in the face of specific circumstances is largely dependent upon a state-of-mind enforced by oneself. So, it's not just a simple matter of brain states reflecting the environment and then our words being expressions of those brain states.

And you know what, James? My cat could not give less of a fuck about all that. My cat knows how to have a good time. When he has nothing to do, like eating, shitting, playing, or fucking, he goes to sleep.

And so, the brain states of a sincere Christian, for example, would have to reflect his beliefs and emotions and intentions in the face of any external event. Therefore, his brain states are not just responses to that environment.

It's more than obvious that the brain state of "being a Christian" is a brain state response to the brain state of "being a Christian". It's very narcissistic.