There is still a problem even if I agree with your interpretation, that there is an "I". — bahman
Our brain in reality should simply feed "I" with what it perceives or process. The problem is how the brain could perceive "I" in order to feed "I" so "I" can watch "I" doing things. — bahman
Just a small point on English... Don't forget to put the article "the" in front nouns, such as the brain, the product, the instant, the content... Now, I wish I could think of one simple rule that would cover all the possible placements of "the", "a", and "an" in front of nouns, but I can not. — Bitter Crank
Not supplying the article where it belongs usually doesn't change meaning a great deal, but it is slightly jarring to read text where "the", "a", and "an" are missing. — Bitter Crank
There is someone (you, bahman) who is speaking as an "I". If there is no "I" speaking as bahman, then who is speaking? — Bitter Crank
Right. This is complicated. We could, as the expression goes, "quickly get lost in the weeds" with this. But... There is the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Both of them "are you" 100% but one function of the conscious mind is to project a person--"I"--to the rest of the world. The unconscious mind (not the Freudian unconscious, but the unconscious part of the brain that does the work) does not represent itself directly. It provides the "I" with a steady flow of organized data. The conscious mind doesn't see or hear "raw" sensory information, because it doesn't mean anything until it is processed by the hearing, vision, language, and memory centers, etc.
The problem in talking about "I" and "you" is that we just don't know where in the brain the "conscious representation of self" is located, or how it is created by the brain. — Bitter Crank
I think there should be first some definitions of the concept you've brought up! What is experience?
According to Britannica, "According to one modern version of the assumption, developed by the 17th-century philosopher René Descartes, all experience is subjective, an exclusively mental phenomenon that cannot provide evidence of the existence or the nature of the physical world, the “matter” of which is ultimately nothing more than changeless extension in motion." — phrzn
One can deduce anything from what's going on around.
I somehow agree with Bitter Crank. Yes, it's like observing oneself from above. Imagine you are talking with someone, and at the same time your attention goes to a higher level in a way you can see yourself and the other person from another perspective, so that it may help you in the way you respond and react.
And experiencing something inevitably puts in data in our memory, so that we can analyze it and point out something useful for future.. One can simultaneously experience something and also analyze its data. it depend on where the attention is focused. — phrzn
This is dualist picture when there is a separate substance--"I"--which is experiencer. In another picture, experience create by the brain activity is the only thing which is real. Experience is the first thing which attaches us to the reality. I can doubt "I" and say that it is byproduct of brain activity. But I cannot doubt experience. — bahman
You need to elaborate on this. What does experience being a product of brain activity make it hard to understand how we can be aware of our experiences?If experience is product of brain activity then how possibly we can experience experience? — bahman
Because we can talk about what we experience.What is the use of experiencing of experience? — bahman
Maybe other animals have some limited self-consciousness, but "it is thought by some people" that they don't have a lot, if they have any. Personally, I think some animals have at least a glimmer of self-consciousness. For instance, some animals (like elephants) pass the "self - mirror test". (An elephant is familiarized with its image in a mirror; later, a mark is applied to its forehead. Will the elephant notice the mark when it next looks into the mirror? Yes. Most animals don't.) — Bitter Crank
The mirror test tests self-recognition, not consciousness, and even that based solely on the visuality. A robot has been built that passed it, even. — BlueBanana
The mirror test tests self-recognition, not consciousness, and even that based solely on the visuality. — BlueBanana
Could the elephant succeed in the self-recognition test, if it had no self-consciousness? — Bitter Crank
Experience, memory, data and the whole idea of oneself all are the same. — phrzn
Experience exists for you as far as your brain processes the information and keeps the necessary parts in short-term or long-term memory due to its practicality! — phrzn
About materialism, I don't specifically believe in it, actually! — phrzn
Experience requires a division between what is self and what is world. To know where the world and its recalcitrant nature starts, the brain has to know where the body and its intentionality leaves off. So to experience the world requires the equally primary experience of the self.
My favourite example is chewing your dinner. Somehow you have to be very sure which bit is your tongue, lips and cheek, which bit is the grisly steak, as your teeth chomp away with savage abandon.
But as has been said, you seem to be talking more about self-consciousness rather than just conscious awareness.
All animals have a sense of self as part of their states of experience. In seeing the world, they see it from their own point of view - the view that includes themselves in the sense of an embodied intentionality that contrast with a world of external material possibilities.
But self-consciousness is a linguistically-structured and culturally-evolved learnt skill. It is not biological but social. We humans learn to objectify our being so as to be psychologically self-regulating. So the reason we are self-conscious is that society needs us to have that habit of attending introspectively - to be policing our own behaviour as socially-constrained creatures.
Biologically there is every reason to make a psychological self~world experiential distinction, but no particular way that this experiencing could be experienced as experiencing. Animals lack the meta-structure that language can provide.
Socially, you can't be a proper human unless you have mastered self-regulation through language. Objectifying your own psychological being is the central skill required to be part of a social order. — apokrisis
You need to elaborate on this. What does experience being a product of brain activity make it hard to understand how we can be aware of our experiences? — Purple Pond
Because we can talk about what we experience. — Purple Pond
Yes, somehow. I do still think that there are unknown parts we have no idea...Are you saying that these are all physical state resulted from neurons activity? I would agree with you in this sense otherwise you need to be more specific about what do you mean with same.
I don't actually see any difference between what we both said! Yep, it's conscious, selective and subjective process.No. I think experience exists when conscious mind gets involved.
Are you sure that experiences can't be physical. Many physical things are the result of physical activity. For example, the rotation of a fan blade produces something physical - wind.It seems absurd to me that brain can be aware of its internal states, experience, because a state is not physical but rather the result of physical activity. — bahman
Are you kidding me? How often did you tell someone "you've got to try this, it feels amazing"?And what is the practical use of this? — bahman
Are you sure that experiences can't be physical. Many physical things are the result of physical activity. For example, the rotation of a fan blade produces something physical - wind. — Purple Pond
Are you kidding me? How often did you tell someone "you got to try this, it felt amazing"? — Purple Pond
When I think of physical states I think of how matter is arranged such solid, liquid, and gas. I find it hard to conceptualize experience (i.e brain states) being a physical state, but then again I'm no brain scientist.Experience is a physical state so it cannot be experienced within materialism. — bahman
If everything goes in the dark then it would be impossible to communicate what is happening. We (humans) are a social species and we need experience in order to communicate what happens.The thing which feels amazing must have a good functioning in your body. The question is why it should come with an experience? Why things doesn't go in dark? This is hard problem of consciousness as far as I understand. — bahman
I am sure that we can agree on the fact that we can experience experience. I have two questions here: (1) If experience is product of brain activity then how possibly we can experience experience? and (2) What is the use of experiencing of experience?
Experience is a physical state so it cannot be experienced within materialism.
— bahman
When I think of physical states I think of how matter is arranged such solid, liquid, and gas. I find it hard to conceptualize experience (i.e brain states) being a physical state, but then again I'm no brain scientist. — Purple Pond
The thing which feels amazing must have a good functioning in your body. The question is why it should come with an experience? Why things doesn't go in dark? This is hard problem of consciousness as far as I understand.
— bahman
If everything goes in the dark then it would be impossible to communicate what is happening. We (humans) are a social species and we need experience in order to communicate what happens. — Purple Pond
What kind of physical state is? It's not solid, nor liquid, nor gas.Brain is physical therefore brain state is physical state. — bahman
I don't agree that the so called "hard problem" is harder than the "easy problem". I believe that they are the same problem.That as I mentioned is related to hard problem of consciousness. It is not clear to philosopher that why we need consciousness in order to communicate for example. — bahman
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.