First Causes

Roy Jose Lorr mosestorah at worldnet.att.net
Sun Sep 19 13:55:11 EST 2004



Traveler wrote:

> In article <413dd321$0$62386$5fc3050 at dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, "JPL
> Verhey" <matterDELminds at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Traveler" <traveler at nospam.com> wrote in message ...
> >
> >>>Yet this notion is absolutely correct in the sense that any conscious
> >>>experience - from thoughts and emotions to objects seen around you in the
> >>>world "out there" including stars and galaxies - are all brain process -
> >>>out of convenience called mind - and occuring within your own skull.
> >>
> >> I thought that your own skull was also "out there." IOW, if nothing
> >> exists but what's in your mind, does your mind also exist within your
> >> mind? This is the sort of self-referential problems associated with
> >> extreme solipsism.
> >
> >I look at it a bit differently. When I look at the moon that orbits earth,
> >the moon I *see* is indeed (visual) brainprocess in my skull that is an
> >experiential interface 'superimposing' the image of the moon on the
> >experience-independent moon out there.
>
> Correct. This is the primary reason that the idea (advanced by GOFAI)
> that the brain creates a representation of the world is pure nonsense.
> The brain does not see the world. It only sees what is in the brain.
>
> > When I don't look at the moon, that
> >experience-independent moon is still there - this is the assumption science
> >works with and to which I subscribe as well.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. Although some QM thinkers will insist that
> reality is not independent of the mind. We often hear people seriously
> promote the nonsensical notion that the mind creates its own reality.
>
> >Similarly, my brain as I can *see* is a mental image 'superimposed' on the
> >brain that is also there independent of anyone, myself or a brainsurgeon
> >looking at it.
> >
> >I think this is the most accurate way of understanding "the problem" and it
> >actually resolves solipsism, without denying the obvious truth that whatever
> >you possibly experience "in your mind" are experiential brainprocesses or
> >states (as opposed to un- or preconscious brainprocesses) that occur
> >entirely in your own skull.
> >
> >Science, scientists do not escape the experiential interface, but it rightly
> >works with the assumption that independent of our experiential interface
> >there really is a world out there that can be studied. As you can really
> >move around in the world in a high-tec tank with only cameras and computers
> >screens inside. We are just cybernatic organisms with high-tec self-aware
> >auto-pilot functions, i.e. without needing a pilot/homunculus sitting in the
> >box.
>
> Well, I was with you up until the end, although I am not sure we
> disagree altogether. I, too, dismiss the homunculus concept but the
> hard logical fact is that nothing can be aware of itself. That would
> be like saying that opposites are equal. Conscious awareness requires
> two complementary opposite entities: the knower and the known. One can
> make three observations about them:
>
> 1. Neither can know itself.
> 2. The knower cannot be known.
> 3. The known cannot know.
>
> These things follow by logical definition: knower and known are
> opposites and nothing can be its own opposite. Does that mean there is
> a need for homunculus? No. It only means that conscious awareness
> requires a duality.

So, according to your "logical" assumptions, body and mind are
not only separate entities but are also in complete opposition....
hmm, seems a bit like 'guru psychology' to me.
--

The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list