A Case for a Non-physical Consciousness

[ryan]

Obviously a person can pass the mirror test to prove that she has a consciousness. It's interesting to me that she can realize this. She can observe herself observing herself, and it seems that she can do both simultaneously. If she is observing herself, then what is observing her observing herself?

This is essentially an example of an out-of-body experience that we take for granted everyday.

 

[DBT]

So how does this make a case for non physical consciousness?

 

[ryan]

So how does this make a case for non physical consciousness?

What is observing her observing herself?

 

[DBT]

So how does this make a case for non physical consciousness?

What is observing her observing herself?

A brain is constructing the perception of self observation. Including self identity...the brain being the sole generator of perception. Perceptual loops and all.

 

[ryan]

So how does this make a case for non physical consciousness?

What is observing her observing herself?

A brain is constructing the perception of self observation. Including self identity...the brain being the sole generator of perception. Perceptual loops and all.

When she observes herself, what is observing the brain observing? Don't say it's the left brain observing the right brain and the converse because then I'll ask what observes the brain as a whole.

If we are to assume that the whole exists (holism), then there is something observing the whole. There is a whole observing a whole; this shouldn't happen in a quantified universe. The only thing that makes sense to me mechanically is to implement quantum entanglement, but that still won't address our ability to observe the brain which means that there is something that observes outside of the brain.

 

[DBT]

So how does this make a case for non physical consciousness?

What is observing her observing herself?

A brain is constructing the perception of self observation. Including self identity...the brain being the sole generator of perception. Perceptual loops and all.

When she observes herself, what is observing the brain observing? Don't say it's the left brain observing the right brain and the converse because then I'll ask what observes the brain as a whole.

There is no independent 'she' as an observer. You are proposing the presence of an homunculus. The brain is forming conscious perception of both 'self' and self observation. There is no additional or independent self observing self. Certainly not a 'self' observing the brain.

If we are to assume that the whole exists (holism), then there is something observing the whole.

Why assume that? Perception requires information. The information content of consciousness includes self identity. Self identity, including self awareness, is an aspect of consciousness and not an independent observer of consciousness.

There is a whole observing a whole; this shouldn't happen in a quantified universe. The only thing that makes sense to me mechanically is to implement quantum entanglement, but that still won't address our ability to observe the brain which means that there is something that observes outside of the brain.

Information relating to self, self identity, self awareness - self being entirely memory based - cannot be separated from consciousness.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I agree with DBT

There is no independent 'she' as an observer. You are proposing the presence of an homunculus. The brain is forming conscious perception of both 'self' and self observation. There is no additional or independent self observing self. Certainly not a 'self' observing the brain.

Even if we had no idea who is watching the watcher, this doesn't automatically imply a dualistic consciousness or soul, only an unknown. It's the same classic error as when a theist brings up an unknown, "therefore god".

 

[Juma]

When she observes herself, what is observing the brain observing?

She is.

Don't say it's the left brain observing the right brain and the converse because then I'll ask what observes the brain as a whole.

You seem to have some strange misconception on what is observed. She is observing that she is observing. Nothing strange in that. That observation is actually a smaller observation than the original, it just contains information about how she observerves., nothing of the original observation.

If we are to assume that the whole exists (holism), then there is something observing the whole.

No, there isnt.

 

[ryan]

Everyone is making good points that I agree with, but I am trying to explain something else.

I am supposedly observing myself. Doesn't this mean that the observer is outside of myself? If solipsism is not true, then how the hell are we able to get outside of the brain?

 

[Perspicuo]

Everyone is making good points that I agree with, but I am trying to explain something else.

I am supposedly observing myself. Doesn't this mean that the observer is outside of myself? If solipsism is not true, then how the hell are we able to get outside of the brain?

You're not. You watch something outside you and recognize that, through learning, as your reflection. If you were really outside yourself, you'd be able to know what's going on in the yard right now without getting out of your seat.

I think you're letting yourself be carried away with language, and mistaking trope for reality.

 

[DBT]

Everyone is making good points that I agree with, but I am trying to explain something else.

I am supposedly observing myself. Doesn't this mean that the observer is outside of myself? If solipsism is not true, then how the hell are we able to get outside of the brain?

Whatever is being perceived/experienced, in this instance, you observing yourself, is the work of the brain and not something that your experience of you observing yourself is doing. Basically, ''self'' as an information feedback loop.

For example:
''In conclusion, it is argued that it may be possible to map the concept ‘self’ onto the regularities referred to in the event-control model, not in order to reify ‘the self’ as a causal mechanism, but to demonstrate its status as a useful concept that refers to regularities that are part of the natural order.''

 

[ryan]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

 

[DBT]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

What do you believe is outside of the physical world looking in?

When you talk about 'self' ''looking at the brain'' do you believe this self to be?

What is the nature of this 'self?'

 

[ryan]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

What do you believe is outside of the physical world looking in?

I only know that it's not particles.

When you talk about 'self' ''looking at the brain'' do you believe this self to be?

I only know that observing is not the same as what is being observed; it is a true duality.

What is the nature of this 'self?'

It is something that is not the same as what I observe. Observing and the observed are two different things. Observing is the "soul" (or whatever you want to call it); the observed are the particles.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Obviously a person can pass the mirror test to prove that she has a consciousness. It's interesting to me that she can realize this. She can observe herself observing herself, and it seems that she can do both simultaneously. If she is observing herself, then what is observing her observing herself?

This is essentially an example of an out-of-body experience that we take for granted everyday.

If one takes the view that there's only material things, then what is observed when you look into a mirror in front of you is not yourself but part of the surface of your material body. (I would be at a loss to further explain the subjective experience you may report having during this process but it's a different issue and fortunately I can ignore this issue just now.)

If one takes a subjective-experience view on this, it is unclear whether you have an actual physical body in the first place. In any case, you are not having a subjective experience of the subjective experience of your image in the mirror. You are just having the subjective experience of the impression that you are looking at yourself in the mirror. No difficulty here it seems to me.

One aspect is the iterative nature of the process as suggested by your post. Is consciousness iterative, or reflective at all, of recursive to use the word that Chomsky used in reference to the minimum requirement for language?

Well, Juma, I think, suggested an answer. From a materialist perspective, there will have to be a loss of information with each recursion (iteration, reflection etc). Think of two parallel mirrors facing each other, with you in the middle. The point is that you won't be able see an infinity of mirrors because the reflected images of the two mirrors go off on a tangent either left, or right, or are concealed by the first reflection of your own head. Ijntrospection delivers basically the same result. You can have a subjective experience of X and you can have the subjective experience of having this subjective experience but the more you pile up the more each bit is loosing definition, as if the whole experience was constrained by the physical limitation of the part of the brain that does all the work in the background.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I only know that observing is not the same as what is being observed

Strictly speaking, no, you don't know.

Strictly speaking, you believe you are observing something material which is not the same thing as the observation.
EB

 

[Juma]

Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model.

A talk about the whole is just refering a symbol representing the idea of the whole. It doesnt contain the whole as a proper part.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model.

A talk about the whole is just refering a symbol representing the idea of the whole. It doesnt contain the whole as a proper part.

That's right but particle physics would be at a loss to explain the contents of our subjective experience. If I have the subjective experience of a red square for example. It's extended (space-like) and two-dimensional. Since I know it as such it therefore exist as such. I don't mean that it is a mental representation of something that exists as a physical object, I mean that it exists as I know it, a red square, a whole red square. Well, where is it that particle physics, or general relativity, or quantum physics or string theory predicts the existence of a whole red square?
Take you time to offer an answer.
EB

 

[Perspicuo]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

I am not selling. If you want to believe in the spirit, that's fine with me.

On the other hand, behavioral and neuroscience researchers do fine without it. If it's a "very simple problem", they should have stumbled upon the unavoidable ghost in the machine ages ago. The fact that they haven't together with the fact many of them have a religion and most of them aren't precisely enemies of the spiritual realm, should give you food for thought.

But then again, no harm in believing it either, just don't go around saying this is "obvious" or "simple" because it isn't in the areas of scientific research where such entities would count.

In my honest opinion, if there is a spirit (or immaterial mind or whatever one may talk about it) it must be parallel and in no way in the way of mental processing, which is overwhelmingly shown to be physical. It is the only possibility IMV that doesn't do violence to the evidence.

 

[Perspicuo]

I don't know, Ryan, but you seem to me you're going around trying to find truth for something that is supposed to be invisible and intangible.