The subjective observer is a fictional character

[Surendra Darathy]

I think 'observer' is a good one to explore...

Kenny, please try to get used to the idea that if there is no report of an observation, there is no evidence of an observer.

After that, it's all over but the shouting over what is or is not a "spurious" report.

[Kenny Login]

Also interesting is the physical role of the pineal gland and the secretion of melatonin and regulating light. And it's parallel function in religious and esoteric practice, regulating 'other' types of light.

That is interesting. What do you know about this? I don't have any info on this.

Well the physical pineal gland is light sensitive and receives input from the eyes i.e. light from external sources. It secretes melotonin which regulates sleep/wake cycles and also supposedly the hormone DMT which has been referred to as the 'spirit molecule'. DMT crops up a lot in shamanistic/hallucinatory/religious experience.

It's also the location of the metaphysical third eye (I think in some animals this location still has the vestigial remnants of a physical eye). Descartes believed the pineal to be the 'seat of the soul'. Religious and esoteric experience recognises the importance that comes with this centre, specifically with opening up to 'spiritual' light (or non-externally sourced) and visionary experience. There are practices that work specifically with this centre, although for those prone to batshit crazy type experiences in the past, it might be best to proceed with extreme caution........

[Surendra Darathy]

Well the physical pineal gland is light sensitive and receives input from the eyes i.e. light from external sources. It secretes melotonin which regulates sleep/wake cycles and also supposedly the hormone DMT which has been referred to as the 'spirit molecule'. DMT crops up a lot in shamanistic/hallucinatory/religious experience.

It's also the location of the metaphysical third eye (I think in some animals this location still has the vestigial remnants of a physical eye). Descartes believed the pineal to be the 'seat of the soul'. Religious and esoteric experience recognises the importance that comes with this centre, specifically with opening up to spiritual light (non-externally sourced) and visionary experience. There are practices that work specifically with this centre, although for those prone to batshit crazy type experiences in the past, I would suggest proceeding with extreme caution.......

Cite your sources, Pineal Boi. Example: (1958) Journal of My Left Butt Cheek, v. 67, no. 12, pp. 10496-10497.

[jamest]

I don't think creativity necessarily requires more than vast experience of a hugely diverse world full of relations that work, evolved solutions, people undertaking trial and error adaptation on a vast scale and communicating the results to each other.

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique. The concept of a 'God', for instance, must have an absolute origin attributable to some individual that lived long ago, even if his notion of that concept was completely bizarre. That is, there must have been a time when the thoughts of an individual far-surpassed anything that had been inputted into his brain by his 'environment'. Such giant leaps in thought are admittedly rare and are only apparent when new and significant concepts or ideas are brought to our attention. But the occurence of such events must surely demonstrate that brain states are more than JUST direct responses to environmental input. In fact, I think that such occurences present clear evidence of 'an observer' at work, since ultimately it can be said that they are actively re-creating the environment for us. Enlightening us, where previously, we were in darkness about such notions.

This propensity to define (and redefine) the environment, is significant. Firstly, those definitions of our environment affect our responses to it. Secondly, it becomes clear that we don't respond to the environment at all - we respond to what we think it is.
Brain states aren't just responses to the external world. They must mirror what we think that world is, and they must also mirror the innate drives that we have in association with it. Fear and hunger, for instance, will have alot to say in how we behave. But so too will our beliefs about what the environment is.

So, a human response to its environment very-much depends upon its own review of that environment. And a review of the environment is a subjective analysis or belief about what it is. One cannot harbour subjective views about the world unless one subjectively analyses that world, or accepts the subjective opinions of others as the basis of his own actions.

This is why answers 'pop into our heads', they are not products of subjectivity or consciousness. 'conscious thought' is a process of arranging known concepts so that they keep getting fed into the permutations.

What is a "known concept", Graham? That is, how many of these known concepts are not products of subjective opinion?

Why did you suggest that I start this thread James? To give you another platform to spout your ideas?

I haven't spoke about my own philosophy at all. Clearly, I'm just attempting to deconstruct your own, whilst simultaneously trying to establish the existence of a "subjective observer" - which is the whole point of this thread.

[jamest]

Well the physical pineal gland is light sensitive and receives input from the eyes i.e. light from external sources. It secretes melotonin which regulates sleep/wake cycles and also supposedly the hormone DMT which has been referred to as the 'spirit molecule'.

In his latest book, Dan Brown refers to it as "manna from heaven".

[Surendra Darathy]

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique. The concept of a 'God', for instance, must have an absolute origin attributable to some individual that lived long ago, even if his notion of that concept was completely bizarre.

Well, we have a word for that, now. We call it "fiction". The really bizarre stuff, like H.P. Lovecraft, we call "imaginative fiction".

That is, there must have been a time when the thoughts of an individual far-surpassed anything that had been inputted into his brain by his 'environment'.

Yep. You've got a handle on "imaginative fiction". Tall tales.

Such giant leaps in thought are admittedly rare and are only apparent when new and significant concepts or ideas are brought to our attention.

Depends on what you have to compare it to. That's relativism, for ya.

But the occurence of such events must surely demonstrate that brain states are more than JUST direct responses to environmental input.

Oh, clearly, James. It's just that we use the term "fiction" for it now, because, unless we're solipsistic, we distinguish it from "fact".

In fact, I think that such occurences present clear evidence of 'an observer' at work, since ultimately it can be said that they are actively re-creating the environment for us. Enlightening us, where previously, we were in darkness about such notions.

Yes, we were, at one time, very much in the dark about the Cthulhu Mythos.

Secondly, it becomes clear that we don't respond to the environment at all - we respond to what we think it is.

That must be why certain individuals keep

Brain states aren't just responses to the external world. They must mirror what we think that world is, and they must also mirror the innate drives that we have in association with it. Fear and hunger, for instance, will have alot to say in how we behave. But so too will our beliefs about what the environment is.

Fact: You are an author of fictions.

So, a human response to its environment very-much depends upon its own review of that environment. And a review of the environment is a subjective analysis or belief about what it is. One cannot harbour subjective views about the world unless one subjectively analyses that world, or accepts the subjective opinions of others as the basis of his own actions.

Yeah, but if you don't check your facts, the result is

What is a "known concept", Graham? That is, how many of these known concepts are not products of subjective opinion?

It's just fecking fact-checking. That's where the empirical comes in, and, apparently, where you make your exit. I ain't ridin' shotgun on your buggy. Not in this life.

[GrahamH]

The concept of a 'God', for instance...

Please share your understanding of 'subjective observer' and say what you mean by 'observing qualia'

[Surendra Darathy]

Well the physical pineal gland is light sensitive and receives input from the eyes i.e. light from external sources. It secretes melotonin which regulates sleep/wake cycles and also supposedly the hormone DMT which has been referred to as the 'spirit molecule'.

In his latest book, Dan Brown refers to it as "manna from heaven".

And we all know that Dan Brown is a noted authority on "heaven", having been published ever-so-frequently in Journal of My Left Butt Cheek.

[GrahamH]

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique.

Give me an example of an entirely new idea.

A god concept is merely a person like us that we can't see, further embellished by removing human attributes (not knowing, limited strength etc). It is only a novel combination of things know from experience. Dog deep and give us a new , 'purely subjective' idea that cannot be formulated by mixing up existing concepts and experiences of the physical world.

[Surendra Darathy]

Dog deep and give us a new , 'purely subjective' idea that cannot be formulated by mixing up existing concepts and experiences of the physical world.

Even worse, that has not precisely been so-formulated. Yeah, that would be "scientific discoveries". Gamma rays have been killing people ever since they first stumbled across economically-viable deposits of uranium ore.

This was one of the hinges on which turned that monumental thread on "Relativism is Self Refuting" back at RDF.

That said, I'll need to "bone-up" a bit before I can "dog deep". But I'll do what I canine.

[jamest]

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique. The concept of a 'God', for instance, must have an absolute origin attributable to some individual that lived long ago, even if his notion of that concept was completely bizarre.

Well, we have a word for that, now. We call it "fiction". The really bizarre stuff, like H.P. Lovecraft, we call "imaginative fiction".

Whether the concept of 'God' is entirely fictional is clearly open to debate. Regardless, you miss the point - being that individuals have the capacity to think for themselves beyond that which has been inputted into them by their environment.

Depends on what you have to compare it to. That's relativism, for ya.

Speaking of fiction...

What is a "known concept", Graham? That is, how many of these known concepts are not products of subjective opinion?

It's just fecking fact-checking. That's where the empirical comes in, and, apparently, where you make your exit. I ain't ridin' shotgun on your buggy. Not in this life.

'The empirical'. Ah, now there's a notion for ya. The idea that - without implying any ontologies - one can explain everything therein, including human experience itself.

[Surendra Darathy]

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique. The concept of a 'God', for instance, must have an absolute origin attributable to some individual that lived long ago, even if his notion of that concept was completely bizarre.

Well, we have a word for that, now. We call it "fiction". The really bizarre stuff, like H.P. Lovecraft, we call "imaginative fiction".

Whether the concept of 'God' is entirely fictional is clearly open to debate. Regardless, you miss the point - being that individuals have the capacity to think for themselves beyond that which has been inputted into them by their environment.

Depends on what you have to compare it to. That's relativism, for ya.

Speaking of fiction...

What is a "known concept", Graham? That is, how many of these known concepts are not products of subjective opinion?

It's just fecking fact-checking. That's where the empirical comes in, and, apparently, where you make your exit. I ain't ridin' shotgun on your buggy. Not in this life.

'The empirical'. Ah, now there's a notion for ya. The idea that - without implying any ontologies - one can explain everything therein, including human experience itself.

James, honesty dictates that you not simply make up some shit when you don't have an answer for your why-question.

[jamest]

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique.

Give me an example of an entirely new idea.

A god concept is merely a person like us that we can't see, further embellished by removing human attributes (not knowing, limited strength etc). It is only a novel combination of things know from experience. Dog deep and give us a new , 'purely subjective' idea that cannot be formulated by mixing up existing concepts and experiences of the physical world.

The original notion of 'God' was clearly a creative construct of the individual himself, and not JUST a fact inputted into the brain by his environment. You're just whitewashing a credible point.

[GrahamH]

Well, in some instances at least, creativity must be indicative of originality. That is, some ideas must be entirely unique.

Give me an example of an entirely new idea.

A god concept is merely a person like us that we can't see, further embellished by removing human attributes (not knowing, limited strength etc). It is only a novel combination of things know from experience. Dog deep and give us a new , 'purely subjective' idea that cannot be formulated by mixing up existing concepts and experiences of the physical world.

The original notion of 'God' was clearly a creative construct of the individual himself, and not JUST a fact inputted into the brain by his environment. You're just whitewashing a credible point.

What is original about it? Did the individual have experience of intentional agents that judged his actions, wanted his respect and responded to bribes? Did he experience love before thinking up his god? I see nothing original in the concept beside the combination of known intentional agent and 'I can't see you' which are both straight from experience of the physical world.

Do you have anything better in the way of original ideas?

[jamest]

Give me an example of an entirely new idea.

How about the idea of solipsism? (At its conception, of course).

Now, this is an interesting one - certainly when associated with claims that the world doesn't really exist - since now, the solipsist IS the environment!!

Regardless, how would you attempt to whitewash this new idea?