:up:

I'm not satisfied with your replies. Have a good day. — Agent Smith

It wasn't replies, but questions that I asked that you need to answer for me to better understand your position. I'm not satisfied with your answers (or lack thereof). Have a good day.

It wasn't replies, but questions that I asked that you need to answer for me to better understand your position. I'm not satisfied with your answers (or lack thereof). Have a good day. — Harry Hindu

Ok. Let's start over.

Self-awareness: x sees x via an image of x that x is capable of generating.

Come to us, humans, now. When I engage in self-reflection, I don't see myself as a brain. Physicalists insist that the brain is the mind. Ergo, the brain is incapable of self-reflection (it doesn't see itself as it truly is, a mushy mass of meat). Consciousness is an illusion?

Self-awareness: x sees x via an image of x that x is capable of generating. — Agent Smith

I dont know what this means. I describe self-awareness as a sensory information feedback loop, like the visual or auditory feedback you get when pointing a camera at its monitor or a microphone to its speaker. When you think about your "self" (one problem that we need to resolve is what is a self and where is it relative to the mind, brain and body), you are creating an information feedback loop - of the mind minding itself.

Come to us, humans, now. When I engage in self-reflection, I don't see myself as a brain. Physicalists insist that the brain is the mind. Ergo, the brain is incapable of self-reflection (it doesn't see itself as it truly is, a mushy mass of meat). Consciousness is an illusion? — Agent Smith

Im not a physicalist (i dont even know what "phyisical" means), nor do i believe that consciousness is an illusion. I do agree that the distinction between mind and brain needs a good explanation. I think that the mind and brain are one and the same - just from different views, like photons can be both waves and particles, depending on the measuring device being used. The sensory-brain system (mind) is a measuring device. But be careful not to confuse the measurement with what is being measured.

If you don't see your brain as it truly is how can you say that you see other brains as they truly are? How is it that you have true sight of other people's brains but not of your own when you only have access to the image and not the thing itself? — Harry Hindu

The popular idea seems to be just that: that we can correctly see others "as they truly are".
It's why a formulation in the form of "You are x" isn't merely shorthand for "I think you are x".

If you are able to know about things by only accessing an image of those things, does it really matter that you don't have direct access to those things?

Yes, it matters. Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness?

Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness? — baker

Direct or indirect, the monster is still under the bed.

You fail to see my point.

If the mind = brain, then if the mind is capable of perceiving itself, is self-aware, the mind/brain should have, as an image of itself, a brain (network of neurons); that, for some odd reason, is false.

A monkey (brain) can't claim to be self-aware if the image it has of itself isn't a monkey (brain).

The popular idea seems to be just that: that we can correctly see others "as they truly are".
It's why a formulation in the form of "You are x" isn't merely shorthand for "I think you are x". — baker

It seems to me that only x can say what they are and everyone else can only see it - which means using the way light reflects off of x as a means of knowing what x is.

Yes, it matters. Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness? — baker

But are you not directly accessing your own mind and is your mind not part of the causality of the world? What would it be like to directly access something vs. indirectly.? Access is a term that implies indirectness, as something that is accessed by an accessor. How does the accessor access the accessed, if not indirectly - by accessing the effects x has on y (world on mind and mind on world)? Information takes time to travel from accessed to accessor.

It would seem that you have direct access to your mind with direct meaning that you are your mind, and indirect access to the world via light's effect on the eyes.

Again, you seem to be confusing the image of a brain with the brain. What I've been trying to tell you is that the mind is capable of perceiving itself - as a mind. An image of a mind would be a brain. Just as the word "mind" is not a mind but a word, an image of a mind is not a mind but a brain.

Again, you seem to be confusing the image of a brain with the brain. What I've been trying to tell you is that the mind is capable of perceiving itself - as a mind. An image of a mind would be a brain. Just as the word "mind" is not a mind but a word, an image of a mind is not a mind but a brain. — Harry Hindu

Suppose, arguendo, the mind = brain.

I'm now thinking about my mind. When I do, I don't see my brain. In other words my mind doesn't see itself as it truly is, assuming mind = brain.

Direct or indirect, the monster is still under the bed. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:groan: :fear:

It seems to me that only x can say what they are and everyone else can only see it - which means using the way light reflects off of x as a means of knowing what x is. — Harry Hindu

But because we know that on the inside of what we see is the same thing going on as inside of us we actually can understand how it feels to be them or that. Empathy.

If the mind = brain, then if the mind is capable of perceiving itself, is self-aware, the mind/brain should have, as an image of itself, a brain (network of neurons); that, for some odd reason, is false.

A monkey (brain) can't claim to be self-aware if the image it has of itself isn't a monkey (brain). — Agent Smith

The mind is not the brain. The mind is the conscious content of the brain. A monkey is self aware too, like all animals. A picture of their brain they have not. Only humans. But that is not the same as self awareness. It is only being aware of a specific part, the brain. It is questionable if the brain is even a part of you. It has come into existence, as a living thing, only after people started to actually take it out of people and started to do brain investigations. Nobody has actually seen a working living brain, except superficially.

:clap:

Word games, comes with the territory.

To borrow from Berkeley's anti-representationalist ontology, all concepts, including "mind" and "brain" are reducible to ideas, where "ideas" (or in modern parlance, "qualia"), share the grammar of indexicals likethis and that, i.e. "ideas" are the medium of empirical understanding, and in themselves are neither substances nor representations, in spite of the fact they are presented that way during communication. Perhaps we can say that "ideas" are the very conceptual material of what we call "substances", "relations" and "representations".

The problematic part of Berkley's ontology (as I interpret Berkeley) , are "spirits" that refer to subjects with respect to which ideas are relativized, a move which appears to translate the dualism between mind and matter into a dualism between minds and ideas, and Berkeley apparently didn't consider third-party subjects as being reducible to ideas of the mythical first person "subject", and i'm not sure as to why.

Suppose, arguendo, the mind = brain.

I'm now thinking about my mind. When I do, I don't see my brain. In other words my mind doesn't see itself as it truly is, assuming mind = brain. — Agent Smith

As I've been trying to show, mind and brain are the same, but appear different because you are observing from different viewpoints, or measurements. In one view point you are using reflected light to observe/measure minds/brains, from the other you are using qualia to observe/measure your mind/brain.

Why would the amount and type of light in the environment affect how you see brains if light was not part of the equation? So are you seeing the brain as it truly is when the lights are out?

There's no point to this discussion: my neural network (brain) is not aware that it is a neural network (brain). Case closed!

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

Then how is it that you can say that you have a neural network if youre not aware of it? You dont read other peoples posts and just keep repeating yourself.

Then how is it that you can say that you have a neural network if youre not aware of it? You dont read other peoples posts and just keep repeating yourself. — Harry Hindu

I learnt it later on, from biology books. Plus, a brain is more alien to me than my mind is. I feel as though, in physicalist terms, I'm a verb (thinking/thoughts) than a noun (brain).

So you can become aware of something by reading a book and not necessarily by experiencing "directly".

So you can become aware of something by reading a book and not necessarily by experiencing "directly". — Harry Hindu

Therein lies the rub. We don't experience ourselves directly as brains - we're told we're brains.

Therein lies the rub. We don't experience ourselves directly as brains - we're told we're brains. — Agent Smith

Then there is a difference between awareness and experience? What is the difference?

Then there is a difference between awareness and experience? What is the difference? — Harry Hindu

You came to that conclusion. You tell me.

You came to that conclusion. You tell me. — Agent Smith

No. It is what you implied. Let's recap.

You said:

neither single neurons nor neural networks see themselves as they truly are, neurons or neural networks — Agent Smith

and

my neural network (brain) is not aware that it is a neural network (brain). — Agent Smith

So you implied that being aware of something is seeing it as it truly is.

I asked you how you know the mind as it truly is - as a neural network - if you're not aware of it:

Then how is it that you can say that you have a neural network if youre not aware of it? — Harry Hindu

You replied:

I learnt it later on, from biology books. — Agent Smith

So I attempted point out that you can be aware of something and not see it as it truly is:

So you can become aware of something by reading a book and not necessarily by experiencing "directly". — Harry Hindu

A book is not a brain or a mind, yet you said that you can be aware of a brain or mind as it truly is by reading a book.

You then said:

Therein lies the rub. We don't experience ourselves directly as brains - we're told we're brains. — Agent Smith

You switched from using the term, "aware" to "experience". So what you seemed to have implied is that you can be aware of things as they truly are by reading a book, but not experience things as they truly are. So I'm asking you what the difference is.

How are you using "experience" as opposed to "awareness" if you can be aware of things as they truly are even if you experience them not as they truly are. Are you experiencing the book as it truly is, that you then become aware of how brains truly are by reading it?

You've been paying attention! :up:

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?

Subject: Observer (Eye)
Object: Observed (rainbow)
Subject - Object: Observation (seeing the rainbow)

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.

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.

tl; dr

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?

One can believe stuff that is not true — Banno

That is not true for whom? Based on what?

being true does not imply being believed — Banno

Again, being true for whom and based on what?

Certain statements are labeled subjective because they set out an individuals taste or feelings. In contrast, other statements are called objective, as they do not set out an individual's taste, feelings or opinions — Banno

I agree, but their difference is not exhausted in that. The problem is not with "subjective", which is clear enough. It is rather with "objective". It is used to signify the existence, quality, etc. of something does not depend on what you and I believe is true, but it exists by its own, it has its own truth, etc. It is what we call "actual" or "real". Here is where matters get perplexed. What does "actual" mean? Some dictionaries say "existing in fact, real". Well, we get immediately into a "circuitry", since "actual" and "real" are in a general sense synonymous! I would even call that a "empty" definition, since when we say "it's a fact", we mean "it's actual", "it's real", "it's true"!

So, inevitably we get into the subject of "reality" and the hot question, "Is there an objective reality?"
And my equally hot answer to that is (a counter-question): "If there's an objective reality, who is out there to tell?"

Does this get us to an impasse? Hopefully not. Because we can think of reality as an agreement that something exists (or happens or happened, is what it is, has certain qualities, etc.) It starts with what we ourselves agree about the existence of something and expands to a common reality, i.e. the agreement between two or more persons regarding the existence of something. This common agreement is the closest we can get to "objective" reality! The more people agree on something the more "objective" a reality is.

So, reality and truth are always subjective! "Subjective" is something absolute. "Objective", on the other hand, is something relative.

I hope that this clears the difference between "subjective and objective" in the given context and puts them in the right perspective. :smile: