The subjective observer is a fictional character

[GrahamH]

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

Having a brain is a trait

A biological trait may account for a behavioural trait.

[GrahamH]

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.

You cracked me up too
'Spend a boon '
Great spoonerism!

[Surendra Darathy]

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

Having a brain is a trait

A biological trait may account for a behavioural trait.

Yes, Graham, but the point James is trying to assert is that the biological trait of "having brain" does not "account" entirely for the trait of "having behavior". Yes, you and I see that this is just straw man.

James relies on the adage that "correlation is not causality", and the fact that metaphysics does not interface with science goes a long way toward understanding that James is not interested in engagement, but in publishing his belief system.

Some people are interested in a specific model of behavior. Others are interested in publishing their belief systems. Check with James and see what evidence he would accept to change his belief system. You will see that there is none he would accept, because there's no evidence he will cite to support his belief system. It's faith.
This is not news to anyone, and we are happy to oblige him. I have made the past mistake of taking him seriously. I won't do it again, any more than I will do so with Little Idiot.

[SpeedOfSound]

Continuing my brain roll from this morning.

As you move forward in the brain and thalamus and outward in the basal ganglia you find areas that are either new or very swollen in primates and further in humans. These are the areas implicated in Confabulation Theory (and others) to be responsible for manipulating abstract concepts instead of muscles. Like riding a bike it is behavior that is learned int he thalamo-cortical loops and passed off to the basal ganglia as automatic unconscious process.

This development happens in the years before puberty. It is no accident that the first (and stupidest) thought is solipsism. From there on we get all sorts of fucking ideas that seem real to us. One of those is the idea of the subjective observer. My old man should have hit me on the head when I got that one too.

By the time we are in college we have refined the technique of making shit up to the point where a philosophy major might seem like a brilliant move.

[jamest]

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'.

But if you define everything here as the environment, then brains ARE just responding to their environment.

Actually, what's your take on 'experience' itself? Are you an eliminative materialist, or more of a central state theorist? Or, perhaps, an epiphenomenalist? It appears as though we've extended the reach of the 'creativity' issue, so perhaps we can discuss aspects of the philosophy of the mind. I believe that I can expose more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

[SpeedOfSound]

I believe that I can expose more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

I believe that I can expose a moreflaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

I believe that I can exposemake up more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

I believe that I can pretend to expose more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

There!

[Surendra Darathy]

Actually, what's your take on 'experience' itself? Are you an eliminative materialist, or more of a central state theorist? Or, perhaps, an epiphenomenalist? It appears as though we've extended the reach of the 'creativity' issue, so perhaps we can discuss aspects of the philosophy of the mind. I believe that I can expose more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

James, have you ever heard of how a fox will try to chew off its own leg after having had the experience of it's getting caught in a trap? That's what you appear to be doing here.

You may want to refer to Egbert Chumley's monumental tome, Significant Differences Between Bavulated Grompsnatchers and Holobraptic Snarkfeazers, published in 1621 while Chumley was in exile in the Grand Duchy of Tudsnore, with a price on his head in his native England for the Crown offence of wibbling-without-portfolio.

[SpeedOfSound]

OffTop

Is this sweet or what?



I mean the monitors, not my Posse.

[Surendra Darathy]

I mean the monitors, not my Posse.

Did you ever take a look at the "Infinite Cat" project? It occurs to me to cite it as having some relevance to the notion of the "subjective observer".

[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'.

But if you define everything here as the environment, then brains ARE just responding to their environment.

Actually, what's your take on 'experience' itself? Are you an eliminative materialist, or more of a central state theorist? Or, perhaps, an epiphenomenalist? It appears as though we've extended the reach of the 'creativity' issue, so perhaps we can discuss aspects of the philosophy of the mind. I believe that I can expose more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

It is your phrase James, just your phrase, just your response to stimuli, just your mind.

It is very good of you to offer to critique my theory, but I think you should attempt to comprehend it before throwing any more rotten cabbages. No harm done so far.

Now, in the interest of communication, can you explain what you mean by 'observing qualia'?

[GrahamH]

I mean the monitors, not my Posse.

Did you ever take a look at the "Infinite Cat" project? It occurs to me to cite it as having some relevance to the notion of the "subjective observer".

How else could you explain the purrrsonal purrrspective? It must be an infinite regress.

[Surendra Darathy]

How else could you explain the purrrsonal purrrspective? It must be an infinite regress.

Purr-simony. Purr-severance.

And if you included a "cat door" it might amount to "infinite egress". Of course, all this nonsense about subjectivity boils down to trying to deal with that one egress with which everyone has to deal. I think Hamlet handled it pretty well. As in music, the rest is silence.

Life is like a maze of doors and they all
Open from the side you're on.
Just keep on pushin' hard, boy, try as you may
You're gonna wind up where you started from.

O hai! Iz in floss fur club naauuwww.

[jamest]

I mean the monitors, not my Posse.

Did you ever take a look at the "Infinite Cat" project? It occurs to me to cite it as having some relevance to the notion of the "subjective observer".

I love cats, though I don't currently have one. I was just wondering whether your lovely cat (I'm assuming that it's yours) was responsible for the bulk of your posts? That would explain alot, though it might mean that the cat is in dire need of a visit to the vet.

Actually, there appears to be a very-faint reflective-image of the photographer in the bottom-right corner, that initially reminded me of Peter Lorre. He too often played the bad guy.

[jamest]

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'.

But if you define everything here as the environment, then brains ARE just responding to their environment.

Actually, what's your take on 'experience' itself? Are you an eliminative materialist, or more of a central state theorist? Or, perhaps, an epiphenomenalist? It appears as though we've extended the reach of the 'creativity' issue, so perhaps we can discuss aspects of the philosophy of the mind. I believe that I can expose more flaws in your theory, if you're open to such discussion.

It is your phrase James, just your phrase, just your response to stimuli, just your mind.

What is? If there's no subjective observer involved in human interaction, why would 'you' mind if I rubbished your claims? That's a serious question btw - not a subtle way of rubbishing you.
It occurs to me that if there's no 'subjective observer', then wtf is 'the ego' about? I'd like a considered response to that.

It is very good of you to offer to critique my theory, but I think you should attempt to comprehend it before throwing any more rotten cabbages. No harm done so far.

I comprehend it plenty... and I have civilly entertained everything that you've said on the matter. If I didn't understand it, then I would have no basis for countering it. Also, please remember that this thread was instigated at my request - in the hope that you would defend, to the hilt - the materialistic rejection of a 'subjective observer'. Hence, I'm peturbed by your apparent avoidance of my pertinent questions. Why would you avoid specifying your particular materialistic bent? Could it be that you are aware of the criticisms that I will present in response to your beliefs? I see nothing other than negative reasons for your evasiveness. Perhaps you can put my mind at ease? Certainly, if this thread was started by me to positively promote my own philosophy, then I wouldn't be doing the tango every time somebody asked me a difficult question. The reason for that is that I would need to justify to myself that I could respond to any credible counters to my philosophy, or else I wouldn't have a philosophy of any worth.

Now, in the interest of communication, can you explain what you mean by 'observing qualia'?

I see this as a 'turning of the tables', Graham. An attempt, by you, to divert the progress of our enquiry onto my own beliefs. But if I wanted to discuss my own beliefs, then I would have started a thread about them. As stated, this thread is supposed to be about the reasons for rejecting the existence of a 'subjective observer'. It's not supposed to be about the reasons for rejecting anything else, including my own philosophy.

That is not to say that I won't be defending my own philosophy, at some future moment. However, I'm convinced that such an endeavour would be foolish, until after I have deconstructed certain obstacles that - for no reason - appear to muddy my own path.

[SpeedOfSound]

Hence, I'm peturbed by your apparent avoidance of my pertinent questions. Why would you avoid specifying your particular materialistic bent? Could it be that you are aware of the criticisms that I will present in response to your beliefs?

Damn. The irritation is going both ways. I flat out do not see where your questions have not been answered, each a half dozen different ways.

If you want to claim this then please put the exact questions in the post where you make the complaint. Fair?