GrahamH wrote:Thoughts don't seem to have a location.

Fair enough. I accept you have an unusual defect. Apart from being pathetic generally I mean.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:He presented that as a model of the mind. Where did he state that he experienced a self inside his head? He might have done so, but if you want to cite him you should know just what he claimed about that and not rely on his abstract ideas about it.

He could not have been deriding the idea of a homunculus otherwise.

Of course he could. A model can be derided as a bad model. That says nothing about whether the model matches the experience.
But do you think Descarte derided the ide of an homunculus? He sort of invented it, but the little guy was the dualistic soul looking in via the pineal gland. That's about as literally inside the head as you can get as a model, but still it doesn't mean that being inside the head figures in one's experiences. After all we never experience pineal glands or brain tissue or the inner surface of the cranium. There is no screen. I don't think Descartes would have got far if he argued that he experienced being inside his head. Still he may have claimed that. Can you quote him?

"Does consciousness have a spatial "location" that can be scientifically investigated? Using a novel phenomenological method, when people are encouraged to explore the question introspectively they not only can make sense of the idea of their consciousness being "located," but will readily indicate its exact position inside the head. The method, based on Francisco J. Varela's work, involves a structured interview led by an expert mediator in which preliminary questions are asked of untrained volunteers about the location of objects and body parts, and then they are questioned about the location from which they are experiencing these objects. 83% of volunteers located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. ."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093595




Dig yourself out of that one. You've been spouting complete bollocks for about 6 pages. No need to stop now.

archibald wrote:"Nevertheless, the Cartesian theatre has a powerful precedent in the way in which we experience vision. Even though our retinas form two separate, two-dimensional, inverted images, each with a blind spot, what we perceive is a single, three-dimensional, up-right scene with no apparent gaps. Furthermore, we see this virtual, corrected, and fabricated image of outside reality as if we were indeed sitting inside our heads and viewing it—something that becomes unmistakably obvious in the case of visual illusions, which manifestly do not simply reproduce reality. Such scenes resemble something you might see on a screen or stage, and to that extent make the theatre analogy apt and compelling, along with the implication that we must be the viewer, just as the homuncular idea suggests. "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... s-forgiven

How much more needs to be posted before graham realises that it is common to experience an 'I', or a 'me' or a 'sense of self' or a' subjective self' or whate=ver, behind our eyes.

No wait. He's already agreed.

That's a discussion of a model. It doesn't say it feels like the author is inside his head, it says visual perception sort of works as if there was a CT. note "the implication that we must be the viewer" not "the experience of being the viewer inside the head."

i.e. the implications of an abstract model.

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:"Nevertheless, the Cartesian theatre has a powerful precedent in the way in which we experience vision. Even though our retinas form two separate, two-dimensional, inverted images, each with a blind spot, what we perceive is a single, three-dimensional, up-right scene with no apparent gaps. Furthermore, we see this virtual, corrected, and fabricated image of outside reality as if we were indeed sitting inside our heads and viewing it—something that becomes unmistakably obvious in the case of visual illusions, which manifestly do not simply reproduce reality. Such scenes resemble something you might see on a screen or stage, and to that extent make the theatre analogy apt and compelling, along with the implication that we must be the viewer, just as the homuncular idea suggests. "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... s-forgiven

How much more needs to be posted before graham realises that it is common to experience an 'I', or a 'me' or a 'sense of self' or a' subjective self' or whate=ver, behind our eyes.

No wait. He's already agreed.

That's a discussion of a model. It doesn't say it feels like the author is inside his head, it says visual perception sort of works as if there was a CT. note "the implication that we must be the viewer" not "the experience of being the viewer inside the head."

i.e. the implications of an abstract model.

Yeah right. The guy never said 'we see this as if we were sitting in our heads' No. I imagined that bit.

Keep clutching at straws, graham.

archibald wrote:"Does consciousness have a spatial "location" that can be scientifically investigated? Using a novel phenomenological method, when people are encouraged to explore the question introspectively they not only can make sense of the idea of their consciousness being "located," but will readily indicate its exact position inside the head. The method, based on Francisco J. Varela's work, involves a structured interview led by an expert mediator in which preliminary questions are asked of untrained volunteers about the location of objects and body parts, and then they are questioned about the location from which they are experiencing these objects. 83% of volunteers located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. ."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093595




Dig yourself out of that one. You've been spouting complete bollocks for about 6 pages. No need to stop now.

Again hat's the "If you were to locate your self where would you say it might be?" question, not the "Do you experience being inside your head and looking out?" question.

archibald wrote:'we see this as if we were sitting in our heads',

not "it feels like I am inside my head looking out"
Keep clutching at straws, graham.[/quote]

You are doing a bit better, but still nobody saying literally what you claimed, that you experience a self inside your head looking out. It's been implications of a model, "as if", not "it really feels like I'm inside my head."
Surely you can manage that, can't you?

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:"Does consciousness have a spatial "location" that can be scientifically investigated? Using a novel phenomenological method, when people are encouraged to explore the question introspectively they not only can make sense of the idea of their consciousness being "located," but will readily indicate its exact position inside the head. The method, based on Francisco J. Varela's work, involves a structured interview led by an expert mediator in which preliminary questions are asked of untrained volunteers about the location of objects and body parts, and then they are questioned about the location from which they are experiencing these objects. 83% of volunteers located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. ."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093595




Dig yourself out of that one. You've been spouting complete bollocks for about 6 pages. No need to stop now.

Again hat's the "If you were to locate your self where would you say it might be?" question, not the "Do you experience being inside your head and looking out?" question.

Pathetic squirming.

Try to remember what you said at the start. I said (uncontroversially I thought) that I experienced a me inside my head, and you queried it. You said, 'do you? Really?'

Forgot that did you?

GrahamH wrote:You are doing a bit better, but still nobody saying literally what you claimed, that you experience a self inside your head looking out. It's been implications of a model, "as if", not "it really feels like I'm inside my head."

I believe you started querying it long before I said anything about looking out. That was just part of the subsequent question to you about looking that you have so far declined to answer. In that question, I merely asked who seems to be looking and from where.

So. Where are we. I say that I experience a me inside my head and you query it. 83% of respondents in a study say it too. Where next?

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:"Does consciousness have a spatial "location" that can be scientifically investigated? Using a novel phenomenological method, when people are encouraged to explore the question introspectively they not only can make sense of the idea of their consciousness being "located," but will readily indicate its exact position inside the head. The method, based on Francisco J. Varela's work, involves a structured interview led by an expert mediator in which preliminary questions are asked of untrained volunteers about the location of objects and body parts, and then they are questioned about the location from which they are experiencing these objects. 83% of volunteers located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. ."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093595




Dig yourself out of that one. You've been spouting complete bollocks for about 6 pages. No need to stop now.

Again hat's the "If you were to locate your self where would you say it might be?" question, not the "Do you experience being inside your head and looking out?" question.

Pathetic squirming.

Try to remember what you said at the start. I said (uncontroversially I thought) that I experienced a me inside my head, and you queried it. You said, 'do you? Really?'

Forgot that did you?

You haven't found anyone but David saying that yet, but I have hopes for you yet. Somebody serious must have said they literally felt they were a little man in there watching TV.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:You are doing a bit better, but still nobody saying literally what you claimed, that you experience a self inside your head looking out. It's been implications of a model, "as if", not "it really feels like I'm inside my head."

I believe you started querying it long before I said anything about looking out. That was just part of the subsequent question to you about looking that you have so far declined to answer. In that question, I merely asked who seems to be looking and from where.

Ah, back-pedalling? I can say with considerable certainty that my feet are not inside my head and your are not inside your head. If you are inside and looking at your feet that re outside you must be looking out, no?
Or does it literally feel like you are watching your feet on a TV screen?

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:"Does consciousness have a spatial "location" that can be scientifically investigated? Using a novel phenomenological method, when people are encouraged to explore the question introspectively they not only can make sense of the idea of their consciousness being "located," but will readily indicate its exact position inside the head. The method, based on Francisco J. Varela's work, involves a structured interview led by an expert mediator in which preliminary questions are asked of untrained volunteers about the location of objects and body parts, and then they are questioned about the location from which they are experiencing these objects. 83% of volunteers located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. ."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093595




Dig yourself out of that one. You've been spouting complete bollocks for about 6 pages. No need to stop now.

Again hat's the "If you were to locate your self where would you say it might be?" question, not the "Do you experience being inside your head and looking out?" question.

Pathetic squirming.

Try to remember what you said at the start. I said (uncontroversially I thought) that I experienced a me inside my head, and you queried it. You said, 'do you? Really?'

Forgot that did you?

You haven't found anyone but David saying that yet, but I have hopes for you yet. Somebody serious must have said they literally felt they were a little man in there watching TV.

You are a dishonest little fucker graham. You keep moving the goalposts. Go back to where this conversation started. What you asked, my answer and your response. It had nothing to do with looking out initially.

I'm the one keeping the goalposts in place. you keep trying to move them.

GrahamH wrote:I'm the one keeping the goalposts in place. you keep trying to move them.

You're sad. Literally.

GrahamH wrote:You haven't found anyone but David saying that yet, but I have hopes for you yet.

You are joking. 83% of the respondents in that study said it.

"will readily indicate their conscious being in an exact position inside the head"

"located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. "

The I. Midway between the eyes. Could not be clearer.

GrahamH wrote:Can you tell me about your experience of free will?

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:

Sure. I feel as if there's a 'me' inside my head which gets to make free choices, so that I think I could do otherwise than I do in any given situation.

Do you really feel there's a "me inside my head"? Really? I don't think I experience such a disconnect. I'm me, this whole person. When I move my arm it doesn't seem there's a me inside my head commanding a body, it seems like my arm just moves and it's all me.

Hmm...

That's where this fiasco started graham. With you claiming no sense of a me in your head.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:You haven't found anyone but David saying that yet, but I have hopes for you yet.

You are joking. 83% of the respondents in that study said it.

"will readily indicate their conscious being in an exact position inside the head"

"located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. "

The I. Midway between the eyes. Could not be clearer.

Granted they can infer a position, we covered that already but do they experience literally being inside their heads?

Maybe you never meant that, despite saying you meant it literally.

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:You haven't found anyone but David saying that yet, but I have hopes for you yet.

You are joking. 83% of the respondents in that study said it.

"will readily indicate their conscious being in an exact position inside the head"

"located with confidence a precise position for the I-that-perceives in the temporal area of the head centred midway behind the eyes. "

The I. Midway between the eyes. Could not be clearer.

Granted they can infer a position, we covered that already but do they experience literally being inside their heads?

Maybe you never meant that, despite saying you meant it literally.

Fuck off spastic head. You've been a pathetic and eventually dishonest little weazel ever since you asked me that question and a brain fart or something made you query it then. Fucking go waste someone else's time with your idiocy.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Can you tell me about your experience of free will?

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:

Sure. I feel as if there's a 'me' inside my head which gets to make free choices, so that I think I could do otherwise than I do in any given situation.

Do you really feel there's a "me inside my head"? Really? I don't think I experience such a disconnect. I'm me, this whole person. When I move my arm it doesn't seem there's a me inside my head commanding a body, it seems like my arm just moves and it's all me.

Hmm...

That's where this fiasco started graham. With you claiming no sense of a me in your head.

Read the red bits again graham. What was your fucking problem, asshole?

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:

Sure. I feel as if there's a 'me' inside my head which gets to make free choices, so that I think I could do otherwise than I do in any given situation.

Do you really feel there's a "me inside my head"? Really? I don't think I experience such a disconnect. I'm me, this whole person. When I move my arm it doesn't seem there's a me inside my head commanding a body, it seems like my arm just moves and it's all me.

Hmm...

That's where this fiasco started graham. With you claiming no sense of a me in your head.

Good, back to basics.

Not quite got, have you? It was no "feel there's a me in side my head" and clarified that "me" is the whole me, not some bit inside my head.

Feel = experience. You claim to feel that you are literally inside your head. No inferring a location in the abstract.

Not "no sense of me". No literal feel of being inside my head. No such disconnect.

No wee man inside in control.