The subjective observer is a fictional character

[Surendra Darathy]

You're just whitewashing a credible point.

Ah, you've been reading Ondrus P. Wigwatter's new monograph, Transflamping the Bronads: A Brief Social History of Borkthisselization.

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?

What? You mean there was no pre-existing notion of an "environment", such as an amoeba might use?

I think the theory you're propounding is that as soon as organisms started using words, the environment transmogrified from the empirical to the metaphysical. Is that it?

[jamest]

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

Why what? Why God created the experience of the world? Or why Sooty doesn't need consoling? I have answers for both, but they aren't relevant for this thread. Perhaps you've got something else in mind - it had better not be an original thought though, or I win the debate.

[Surendra Darathy]

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

Why what? Why God created the experience of the world? Or why Sooty doesn't need consoling? I have answers for both, but they aren't relevant for this thread. Perhaps you've got something else in mind - it had better not be an original thought though, or I win the debate.

What I don't understand is what "winning the debate" is going to do for you, unless you have very fragile ego-boundaries.

I think the issue is whether or not you want to engage in an exchange of ideas. Haven't seen any exchange from you, yet. An exchange of ideas involves your showing how your ideas relate to someone else's.

I'm not going to debate you, Jerry.

[GrahamH]

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?

I would suggest that solipsism in an extension of the experience of dreams, which are recapitulations of elements of world experience. The nascent solipsist notes that there can be a seeming reality to dreams and supposes they are unreal and made by something. The NS knows that he makes things, and some things he asks for he gets, so he simply connects experience A to experience B
I make...I experience.

It was perhaps a novel idea in the sense that it was a new combination of existing concepts. It is a common idea. I expect many children go through it when they get a stage of contemplating dreams.

Do you want another go, or shall we agree that creativity comes from life experience?

What do you mean by 'observe qualia'?

[jamest]

What? You mean there was no pre-existing notion of an "environment", such as an amoeba might use?

I think the theory you're propounding is that as soon as organisms started using words, the environment transmogrified from the empirical to the metaphysical. Is that it?

Actually, an amoeba's response to its environment also depends upon innate traits.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

Did you read my posts on brain this morning? Did you say where your arguments are refuted by the facts? A 4th grader would read that and maybe not see it. Are you a 4th grader?

"a fact inputted into the brain" is not a good showing of your analytical abilities here. Get some sleep and hit it again tomorrow.

[SpeedOfSound]

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?

I would suggest that solipsism in an extension of the experience of dreams, which are recapitulations of elements of world experience. The nascent solipsist notes that there can be a seeming reality to dreams and supposes they are unreal and made by something. The NS knows that he makes things, and some things he asks for he gets, so he simply connects experience A to experience B
I make...I experience.

It was perhaps a novel idea in the sense that it was a new combination of existing concepts. It is a common idea. I expect many children go through it when they get a stage of contemplating dreams.

Do you want another go, or shall we agree that creativity comes from life experience?

What do you mean by 'observe qualia'?

Slopsism is an idea that most children get when they first mature the ability to do abstract thinking. The Rama would correlate this with true consciousness. For me my solipsism lasted only four hours and ended when my dad hit me on the head with a board for not milking the cows. I didn't see that one coming!

[Surendra Darathy]

What? You mean there was no pre-existing notion of an "environment", such as an amoeba might use?

I think the theory you're propounding is that as soon as organisms started using words, the environment transmogrified from the empirical to the metaphysical. Is that it?

Actually, an amoeba's response to its environment also depends upon innate traits.

Yeah. Like "being alive". But science has sort of de-mystified the concept of "life", with concepts like "open-system thermodynamics" and "energetics of cell metabolism" and "self-replicating molecules".

a fact inputted into the brain by his environment

A brain-fact. Change one letter and it's a "brain fart".

For me my solipsism lasted only four hours and ended when my dad hit me on the head with a board for not milking the cows. I didn't see that one coming!

[SpeedOfSound]

Because brain states that are PURELY responses to the environment, cannot - by logical default - exhibit 'creative' tendencies.

Why? And who ever said "PURELY' other than you?

Graham did. Brain states are just responses to the environment, he said. But to exhibit 'creativity', they'd have to be something other than just that.

Either he misspoke or you took it out of context.

No, he must stick with that theory, or else he cannot say that an individual's response to the environment is JUST caused by that environment. That is, he'd have to concede that brain states were more than JUST responses to the environment... which kinda mucks up his theory.

Graham. You should clean this up up so we don't have to keep knocking down the little man stuffed with straw.

[GrahamH]

What? You mean there was no pre-existing notion of an "environment", such as an amoeba might use?

I think the theory you're propounding is that as soon as organisms started using words, the environment transmogrified from the empirical to the metaphysical. Is that it?

Actually, an amoeba's response to its environment also depends upon innate traits.

Having a uniquely configured brain is an innate trait.

[jamest]

What I don't understand is what "winning the debate" is going to do for you, unless you have very fragile ego-boundaries.

Establishing the existence of a subjective observer is hugely significant for progressive thought.

I think the issue is whether or not you want to engage in an exchange of ideas. Haven't seen any exchange from you, yet. An exchange of ideas involves your showing how your ideas relate to someone else's.

I have addressed the key points of Graham's theory. And since I don't agree with those points, it is clear that my reasoning will involve relating my opposing ideas to his and those of other like-minded people... especially in a thread about 'subjective observers'.

[SpeedOfSound]

Mouse brains wired for empathy? pp406 - 408
François Grenier and Andreas Lüthi
doi:10.1038/nn0410-406
A study in this issue reports that mice can be fear conditioned through observation of other mice receiving aversive stimuli and identifies some of the brain regions involved in this observational fear learning.

Nature Neuroscience Contents: April 2010 Volume 13 Number 4, pp 401 - 520

[jamest]

What? You mean there was no pre-existing notion of an "environment", such as an amoeba might use?

I think the theory you're propounding is that as soon as organisms started using words, the environment transmogrified from the empirical to the metaphysical. Is that it?

Actually, an amoeba's response to its environment also depends upon innate traits.

Having a uniquely configured brain is an innate trait.

Traits are characteristics and refer more to the way an entity behaves, or how it is driven to behave.

[Surendra Darathy]

What I don't understand is what "winning the debate" is going to do for you, unless you have very fragile ego-boundaries.

Establishing the existence of a subjective observer is hugely significant for progressive thought.

Does it mean ice-cream will be served in the dining tent after mess this evening? With special sauce?

The "subjective observer" is a recapitulation of the notion that human beings have special sauce on them.

Establishing the existence of a subjective observer is hugely significant for progressive thought.

Yes, this would be a boon for all mankind. And of course, the first thing that a person wants to do with a boon is to spend it.

Get it? Spend a boon? Bend a spoon?

Oh, I crack myself up, sometimes. And I need a straight-man to help me. Are you being straight with me? I wouldn't want my straight-man to go "poof" on me.

Traits are characteristics and refer more to the way an entity behaves, or how it is driven to behave.

Then we call them "behavioral traits" and don't play stupid word games, like you're doing right here. Do you know how to do anything besides equivocate the terms you yourself bring to the discussion?

[GrahamH]

Graham. You should clean this up up so we don't have to keep knocking down the little man stuffed with straw.

I call James on this. I don't think I wrote that at all. In fact I think it is an unoriginal derogative invention by James. Quote me James. Include a link and context.

I have referred several times to brains responding to their environment, which includes the activity and structure of the brain itself, and other people with brains. I don't call that 'just responding to the environment'.