The subjective observer is a fictional character

[GrahamH]

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.

Nonsense. How would you even know the name Jesus except from the world by experience? Religious ideas come into the mind via the senses. You read a book or look at the Sun or listen to a preacher. It is obviously not a purely internalised process. Such choices are obviously made in response to events in the world.

Is it that you are struggling to grasp the concepts, or are you deliberately trying to derail the topic? I am baffled how you could make the claim of 'pure internalisation' in good faith.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

You too?? Every time I go out in public now I glue a protective armor of cats to my body!

Over the tinfoil.

[GrahamH]

Becoming a Christian is a purely internalised process
...
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.

Blatant contradiction!
If it involves 'contemplating everything' is cannot be purely internalised.
If it is 'appropriate reaction' it is partly caused by that to which you are reacting.

Please try to think things through and stay on topic.

[Surendra Darathy]

You too?? Every time I go out in public now I glue a protective armor of cats to my body!

Not me, man. I've advanced beyond the Bohr model, and whirl the cats around me in various overlapping noble gas ground state orbitals. I use Schrödinger Cats, exclusively. Pauli-unsaturated cats.

[SpeedOfSound]

You too?? Every time I go out in public now I glue a protective armor of cats to my body!

Not me, man. I've advanced beyond the Bohr model, and whirl the cats around me in various overlapping noble gas ground state orbitals. I use Schrödinger Cats, exclusively. Pauli-unsaturated cats.

I tried that whirling cat thing but I got thrown out of the Mall of America.

[Surendra Darathy]

Is it that you are struggling to grasp the concepts, or are you deliberately trying to derail the topic? I am baffled how you could make the claim of 'pure internalisation' in good faith.

ISWYDT.

[jamest]

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.

What do you mean by 'history'?

I'm trying to argue that there is a subjective observer' - an individual that makes sense of everything that it knows and who formulates an identity in response to its contemplations. This identity is the primary influence in dictating what we do or say in response to any external event. So, when you say 'history', all you are doing is agreeing with me - that the cause of our actions and words is dependent upon an individual that has reviewed its experiences.

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?

That's a fair point. Yes, people are often brainwashed by the opinions of other people. But this shouldn't detract from our capacity to formulate our own beliefs. Indeed, the origins of all religions have their basis in someone's original thought.

[Surendra Darathy]

You too?? Every time I go out in public now I glue a protective armor of cats to my body!

Not me, man. I've advanced beyond the Bohr model, and whirl the cats around me in various overlapping noble gas ground state orbitals. I use Schrödinger Cats, exclusively. Pauli-unsaturated cats.

I tried that whirling cat thing but I got thrown out of the Mall of America.

Oh, they gave you the argument from incredulity?

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.

Indeed, the origins of all religions have their basis in someone's original thought.

Well, if question-begging and argument-from-incredulity fail, there's always just making the blatant ex recto assertion. Sometimes called "argumentum ad verulam".

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

What do you mean by 'history'?

I'm trying to argue that there is a subjective observer' - an individual that makes sense of everything that it knows and who formulates an identity in response to its contemplations. This identity is the primary influence in dictating what we do or say in response to any external event. So, when you say 'history', all you are doing is agreeing with me - that the cause of our actions and words is dependent upon an individual that has reviewed its experiences.

Your history is imprinted on your brain. You do not consciously review what gets incorporated into your belief system, in general. Most of this is automatic. C does strongly affect what gets remembered but you do not review things before they end up in the mix.

In general you can guide your conscious awareness and thinking but only in broad strokes. There are millions of bits of information that change you daily and most of this info would not be recognizable as any specific percept. Most of it is too fleeting to generate a conscious percept but it enters the mix nevertheless. See 'priming'.

That guiding bit is what confuses us the most about the nature of our minds. It's a complex feedback loop where Attention modifies C and C modifies Attention. This is why we can never introspect and know our own C. It changes as we try to observe. Everything does. The observer is the machine itself. There is no separable observer.

[SpeedOfSound]

Oh, they gave you the argument from incredulity?

Yes! That was it! The security people all had this look of incredulity on their faces. Very close minded lot I would say. Wouldn't listen to a thing I said.

[Surendra Darathy]

I'm trying to argue that there is a subjective observer' - an individual that makes sense of everything that it knows and who formulates an identity in response to its contemplations. This identity is the primary influence in dictating what we do or say in response to any external event.

Yes, but how are you trying to argue the point? With a rhetorical flourish, as above? Graham has already pointed out to you:

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.

Nonsense. How would you even know the name Jesus except from the world by experience? Religious ideas come into the mind via the senses. You read a book or look at the Sun or listen to a preacher. It is obviously not a purely internalised process. Such choices are obviously made in response to events in the world.

There may be a subjective observer, but you haven't done more than shove it as your unsupported opinion into this forum discussion. What is evident, James, is that there is a vigourous and vicious Xtian culture and a vigourous and vicious Muslim culture vigourously and viciously indoctrinating their children in their respective religions. And you want to cite the gullibility of children as the evidence for your "internal observer"? I would not be too proud of that one, if I were in your shoes.

And the reluctance of people to shed their beliefs when their thinking matures enough to think for themselves? What do they do but decline to think for themselves! I think you've spammed this thread quite enough with your personal beliefs about "internal observers", James. Go back to your books of cheesy apologetics find some new spam. Or bacon.

[jamest]

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.

Nonsense. How would you even know the name Jesus except from the world by experience? Religious ideas come into the mind via the senses. You read a book or look at the Sun or listen to a preacher. It is obviously not a purely internalised process. Such choices are obviously made in response to events in the world.

Okay, it might not be a "purely" internalised process. But the point is that the decision to become a Christian requires a singular review of the evidence. Likewise, you have your own reasons for not becoming a Christian. Or are you going to tell me that the reason you are not a Christian is because you've been brainwashed thus?

You're also discounting all original thought. The process by which an individual formulates a new idea. The theme behind your current discourse, is that there should never be any original thought - and that our minds should remain static... and what proceeds from my mouth should be exactly what was fed into my brain. Now, that simply isn't true.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

Nonsense. How would you even know the name Jesus except from the world by experience? Religious ideas come into the mind via the senses. You read a book or look at the Sun or listen to a preacher. It is obviously not a purely internalised process. Such choices are obviously made in response to events in the world.

Okay, it might not be a "purely" internalised process. But the point is that the decision to become a Christian requires a singular review of the evidence. Likewise, you have your own reasons for not becoming a Christian. Or are you going to tell me that the reason you are not a Christian is because you've been brainwashed thus?

You're also discounting all original thought. The process by which an individual formulates a new idea. The theme behind your current discourse, is that there should never be any original thought - and that our minds should remain static... and what proceeds from my mouth should be exactly what was fed into my brain. Now, that simply isn't true.

Did you read my posts about the brain? Did you grasp the significance of the individuality and the connectedness with our history and environment? Did you understand the potential for chaotic systems?

In a system this complex why would you not expect to see dynamic creativity?

all of what I posted about the brain is highly reminiscent of what the Buddhists have been saying about the self and brain for thousands of years.

Why do people like you and LI claim to be mystics and then piss on this concept of the illusion of the self? Why do you need to make your own little subjective world something Godly and Great in the universe and refuse to acknowledge it's effervescence?

[GrahamH]

You're also discounting all original thought. The process by which an individual formulates a new idea. The theme behind your current discourse, is that there should never be any original thought - and that our minds should remain static... and what proceeds from my mouth should be exactly what was fed into my brain. Now, that simply isn't true.

Are you playing games, James?

Are you making a point by ignoring what is written by others to show that what is written by you is 'purely internal'?

Plainly 'ideas' and not 'fed into the brain' The brain responds to the world, including its own responses, and those of other brains. This incredibly complex melding of sources is the formation of ideas, reactions, personality etc.

If you return again to this idiotic idea that all brains are identical and all brain responses should be identical unless a soul intervenes then I don't think we will be able to continue.

[SpeedOfSound]

I mentioned the strange balance between degenerate and non-degenerate neural nets ala Baars. I'm still trying to get my head around the math. But a completely non-D-system would recognize every set of inputs uniquely. A completely D-System would recognize everything as being similar. The balance of the brain and it's magic is that it works in a realm between the two extremes.