:down:

My bad. Apologies from the :heart: I'll get back to you ASAP.

An action (seeing) can observe itself maybe but it isn't an entity (eye), it's a phenomenon/a process. When these two are confused, we have on our hands one big mess.
— Agent Smith

One big mess indeed. Far too convoluted.

Let's be concise - what can the entity itself - the subject, observe and what can't it observe?

Subject can observe an object.
Subject can observe an action or process(including it's own actions).
Subject can not observe subject (itself).

This is universally true for any subject/object relation. Any reflection of the subjection happens through another object.

the brain isn't capable of making itself the object of its own study like it can with other things
— Agent Smith

Indeed, this is logical. The subject can not observe itself.

Then however, we have this claim.
Metacognition: The mind forms and image of itself. This image, last I checked, is definitely not a brain.
— Agent Smith
Something ain't right about this. The subject observing itself is not logical.

It is not the mind that observes the mind. There's a far more logical explanation, which is simply that the brain observes the mind.

This way, our logic is not broken.
Subject (brain) observes object (mind)
Though even more accurately is
Subject (brain) observes process (thought)

Because the mind as an object is a concept and nothing more.
It doesn't exist as any form of entity. It is a process run by the brain and when the system shuts down, so does the mind.

Anyone can easily reproduce this by holding their breath for anywhere from approximately 2-5 minutes. Pass out and see what happens to your mind. Maybe don't actually try but if you've never passed out before, let me tell you the sensation is seriously fascinating.

To understand this fully, let's clarify that this kind of fainting I'm talking about is caused due to a lack of oxygen in the brain - other forms of fainting can and will be very different. At this point our brain triggers a form of emergency mechanism and shuts down all unnecessary function - including movement. The body collapses and goes on energy saving mode in an attempt to bring oxygen levels in the brain back to stable. This state is very unlike sleep, where we know the process of mind continues to some degree.

And a process it is; which becomes blatantly obvious when you experience this waking up after the brain shutting down due to lack of oxygen. You come to your senses and you have no idea what's going on. The processing of the brain works fine auditory and visualy, you can respond to people and all - but the mind is just dragging behind - as if it needs a bit to reboot and regather all it's data. Get enough perceptions until it can piece the picture back together - because the picture, along with the mind, have just been dumped in the bin by the brain. — Hermeticus

The brain doesn't see itself as a brain. That's fascinating for me. It sees itself as what people call a mind. In other words, the brain identifies itself as its function (mind). If cars could think, that's like the car believing itself to be, not the car, but driving.

Sorry about tl; dr. I have ADHD.

belief and truth are not the same
— Banno
Of course, as concepts! But they are closely connected: Isn't what I believe, true for me? — Alkis Piskas

Well, no, as those who do not believe in Covid are discovering en masse.

There are lots of things that do not care what you believe.

"If there's an objective reality, who is out there to tell?" — Alkis Piskas

We are.

I hope that this clears the difference between "subjective and objective" — Alkis Piskas

Repeating the confusion is not an improvement.

Well, no, as those who do not believe in Covid are discovering en masse — Banno

I don't know what exactly you mean by discovering en masse, i.e. what are they discovering, but whatever they are discovering doesn't change the fact that as long as they believe that Covid does not exist, it is true for them that Covid does not exist.

"If there's an objective reality, who is out there to tell?"
— Alkis Piskas
We are. — Banno

We, who?
Well, whoever is "we", isn't each of us a "subjective" entity with our own reality? If our realities/views about something coincide, i.e. if we agree on something, we can call this "common reality". Not "objective reality". There's no such a thing.

Repeating the confusion is not an improvement. — Banno

Sorry about that. I thought I explained my point clearly ...

***

So, here is the essence of my point --please coinsider it in a new unit of time: "Whatever I believe is true, it is true for me." . Do you agree? (If not, why?)

"Whatever I believe is true, it is true for me." — Alkis Piskas

...says no more than "what I believe, I believe".

Believing Covid doesn't exist does not prevent you from getting sick. That is, something that is "true-for-you" might not be true.

"Whatever I believe is true, it is true for me."
— Alkis Piskas
...says no more than "what I believe, I believe". — Banno

Nothing like that. It says that belief and truth are so closely connected that one implies the other.

You have maybe forgotten that all this discussion hase resulted from you stressing the point that "belief and truth are not the same" and I answered, yes, but only as concepts, not in essence.

You have no arguments. You just react.

Well, all that was a total wast of time. :angry: I'm out of here.

It says that belief and truth are so closely connected that one implies the other. — Alkis Piskas

Not so.

Folk believe things that are not true; hence belief does not imply truth. There are true things that folk do not believe; hence truth does not imply belief.

...all that was a total wast of time. — Alkis Piskas

No. You learned about truth and belief. You just haven't realised it yet.

Cheers.

I share your point of view, as I see Trivialism as a corollary of truth-conditional semantics, which can be the only scientifically respectable semantics from a causally objective point of view. But i am inclined to express that position by saying that beliefs are concepts defined by, and pertaining to, the social convention of language, as opposed to properties pertaining to the psychological states of individuals.

For example, society is unlikely to attribute false beliefs to Amazon Alexa if she said something or acted in a way that we call "untrue", because in her case society considers itself to have causal understanding of her stimulus-responses.

I think that you are talking about another kind of beliefs, since you involve society.
I'm talking simply about "belief" as a concept and referring to individuals: "an acceptance that something exists or is true". It is something very very, but very, simple. Too simple, and that's why maybe the discucussion with @Banno turned into a loopwhole. Some minds cannot recognize or handle or stand simplicity. That is, simple logic. Things can never be straight for them. They have to be curves or sigzags.

think that you are talking about another kind of beliefs, since you involve society. I'm talking simply about "belief" as a concept and referring to individuals: "an acceptance that something exists or is true". It is something very very, but very, simple. — Alkis Piskas

Sure. I am only suggesting to make things even simpler by dispensing altogether the idea that beliefs are properties of individuals, given as you say, that an individual's beliefs are merely what the individual considers to be true.

For logically we get

I believe(x) implies x is true, and
x is true implies I believe(x)

implying that belief predicates of the first-person are redundant in merely asserting what is the case.

Of course, the above analysis appears to be wrong to most people, with beliefs appearing to be indispensable, due to the fact that we say that previously held beliefs can be proven "wrong". But this is just a turn of phase in which we reinterpret the past as referring to the present for the sake of maintaining our linguistic conventions.

Nevertheless, it remains an intuitively useful fiction to externally predicate beliefs and goals on behalf of third-party agents when attempting to predict or control their behaviour, as for example in machine learning when informally analysing a reinforcement learning algorithm in terms of "goals" and "belief states"

Inseparable concepts.

Is there experience without awareness? Can a rock, for instance, experience anything? Also,is there awareness sans experience? Is this sentence :point: "Tell me you experiences in Paris?" appropriate for a block of wood or does it seem like one that should be asked of a being capable of awareness, like yourself for example? — Agent Smith

I don't see how any of this answers my questions in my previous post. I asked you a question and now you're answering it with questions. Remember, I'm asking you to clarify what you have said about your position, not mine.

dispensing altogether the idea that beliefs are properties of individuals — sime

Whose else beliefs are properties of? :smile: Even if you mean society's, doesn't a society consist of individuals? And even if we try to describe what the beliefs of a society are on a certain subject, wouldn't the same thing hold, that is, what a society believes about something, that would be true for that society? We get to the same point. We can expand this to the whole race and the whole planet (all humans). In all cases we get to the logical redunancy (or circular reasoning) that you are mentioning:

I believe(x) implies x is true, and
x is true implies I believe(x) — sime

And this is exatly what I tried to show @Banno, who in the beginning of his topic maintained that "belief and truth are not the same".

as for example in machine learning when informally analysing a reinforcement learning algorithm in terms of "goals" and "belief states" — sime

Nice! :up:

I believe(x) implies x is true, — sime

No it doesn't. It implies only that you think it true.

x is true implies I believe(x) — sime

If that were so, there would be no truths that you do not believe; are you omniscient?

We are. — Banno

Who is "we"?

Believing Covid doesn't exist does not prevent you from getting sick. — Banno

Ha! The placebo effect says it can.

Some of your posts are quite good.

But not that one.

Who is "we"?

You and I, for a start. Who else do you want?

You can't speak for me, nor can I speak for you. So who actually is "we"?

The question was, who decides what is real?

Now I'm happy to do it myself, if you like; but I had thought you might like to have a say. I do sometimes make mistakes, after all.

Do you have a point here?

There's no point to this discussion: my neural network (brain) is not aware that it is a neural network (brain). — Agent Smith

But the content of your brain, with which you are in direct contact internally, is. The content of your brain, structured electric charges running around continuously, from embryo to old man, can create an image of whatever physical structures, in qualia. The brain has the potential to create analogues of virtually infinite physical processes. A micro universe. The number of physically possible paths is mega giga astronomical: a 1 followed by 10exp35 zeroes!