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.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. — Harry Hindu
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.Self-awareness: x sees x via an image of x that x is capable of generating. — 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.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
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
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?
Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness? — 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.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
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.Yes, it matters. Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness? — baker
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
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
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
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.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
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.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. — Harry Hindu
So you can become aware of something by reading a book and not necessarily by experiencing "directly". — Harry Hindu
Then there is a difference between awareness and experience? What is the difference?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? — Harry Hindu
No. It is what you implied. Let's recap.You came to that conclusion. You tell me. — Agent Smith
andneither single neurons nor neural networks see themselves as they truly are, neurons or neural networks — Agent Smith
So you implied that being aware of something is seeing it as it truly is.my neural network (brain) is not aware that it is a neural network (brain). — Agent Smith
Then how is it that you can say that you have a neural network if youre not aware of it? — Harry Hindu
I learnt it later on, from biology books. — Agent Smith
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.So you can become aware of something by reading a book and not necessarily by experiencing "directly". — Harry Hindu
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.Therein lies the rub. We don't experience ourselves directly as brains - we're told we're brains. — Agent Smith
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
the brain isn't capable of making itself the object of its own study like it can with other things — Agent Smith
Something ain't right about this. The subject observing itself is not logical.Metacognition: The mind forms and image of itself. This image, last I checked, is definitely not a brain. — Agent Smith
Of course, as concepts! But they are closely connected: Isn't what I believe, true for me?belief and truth are not the same — Banno
That is not true for whom? Based on what?One can believe stuff that is not true — Banno
Again, being true for whom and based on what?being true does not imply being believed — 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"!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
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.