GrahamH wrote:

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.

Like I said, Go play wanking games with someone else.

If you are in the small minority of people who do not experience an I in their head, consider seeing a doctor. And if your arm moves without a me controlling it, don't work with small children. Other than that, you could make a living doing the rounds of the world's psychology labs, as a test subject.

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

They report experiencing their 'I' inside their heads. This is apparently tricky for you.

The real mystery here is why you are a free will sceptic, or claim to be, when you say you literally experience a self inside your head making what seem to you to be free will decisions. Weird.

GrahamH wrote:The real mystery here is why you are a free will sceptic, or claim to be, when you say you literally experience a self inside your head making what seem to you to be free will decisions. Weird.

OMG.

First of all, what does literally even mean when applied to saying that I experience an 'I'?

On second thoughts. Don't answer that. Please don't.

It's just another word you brought in in because you are on an eternal quest or something never to understand or resolve anything at all. You see 'mysteries' where there aren't any. I experience a me in my head. That's it. Lots of other people do too.



Second, and this may come as a shock to you graham, I consider that free will isn't possible even though it seems to be. I consider that 'self' is a user illusion and have often referred to it as such in this thread. There's nothing in saying that I experience something which means I take it that it's the actual state of affairs.

Incredible. You really reallv are stupid.

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.

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.

You left the bit about framing out. This amounts to "If you made up story about where your subjective self was located where would you say it was?"

If that's all you meant why didn't you say that? Why argue tooth and nail for all these pages over the claim of literal experience?

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.

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.

You left the bit about framing out. This amounts to "If you made up story about where your subjective self was located where would you say it was?"

If that's all you meant why didn't you say that? Why argue tooth and nail for all these pages over the claim of literal experience?

Stop being dishonest graham. Read the original point of departure and then fuck off.

archibald wrote:First of all, what does literally even mean when applied to saying that I experience an 'I'?

Good question. Don't you know? You must have had some damn good reason to insist on it all this time. But now you say you don't even know what it means? Weird.

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:First of all, what does literally even mean when applied to saying that I experience an 'I'?

Good question. Don't you know? You must have had some damn good reason to insist on it all this time. But now you say you don't even know what it means? Weird.

I tried to explain this to you way back. All along in fact, but you didn't get it. Quelle suprise.

I experience a 'me' in my head, as in a sense of self, an 'I', but not an actual homunculi, other self (whatever the hell that is) anything pulling levers or any of the other crap you shat out during your fevered imaginings.

I don't want to throw you even further, but I would also say that when I exercise what feels like agency, it's also in my head. The experience I mean. Ditto for my experience of consciousness, as it happens. Not necessarily all the time, but mostly.

Where do you seem to get those experiences, graham. Up your ass? Probably. Everything comes out of it.

Let me ask you, when you look down at your feet, do you see them from behind, with skin-coloured curvy, hairy things framing both sides of the view.

Graham, the only other person here, other than you, who referred to homunculi is David Mc and I clearly said to him that I didn't. And he clarified that it was only an analogy on his part. I even said to you in my very first response that you 'don't seem to have a sense of self'. And very quickly after you first used the word homunculus, I clarified that I was not talking about that.

Of course you didn't mention at that point that this sense of self was different from a subjective self because you didn't think of that meaningless distinction until much later.

So graham, the only mystery left here is how you are so thick.

Are you even able to feed yourself? I guess your arms do that without you feeling like you're controlling them or something.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:First of all, what does literally even mean when applied to saying that I experience an 'I'?

Good question. Don't you know? You must have had some damn good reason to insist on it all this time. But now you say you don't even know what it means? Weird.

I tried to explain this to you way back. All along in fact, but you didn't get it. Quelle suprise.

I asked if you meant to taken literally and you were adamant that you were. Literally experiencing a self inside your head when you looked at your feet. If you had said what those people in the paper said, that if asked to place an 'I' they could do it, there would have no controversy. What a Muppet you are.

archibald wrote:[I experience a 'me' in my head, as in a sense of self, an 'I', but not an actual homunculi, other self (whatever the hell that is) anything pulling levers or any of the other crap you shat out during your fevered imaginings.

You did say this self in your head was making your free will decision, i.e. 'pulling the levers. There was never a suggestion of literal levers, obviously. It means 'in control'.

archibald wrote:[I don't want to throw you even further, but I would also say that when I exercise what feels like agency, it's also in my head. The experience I mean. Ditto for my experience of consciousness, as it happens. Not necessarily all the time, but mostly.

Where do you seem to get those experiences, graham. Up your ass? Probably. Everything comes out of it.

[/quote]

Quite simply they don't seem to be located. Why would they be?

This thread feels under-moderated.

GrahamH wrote:Quite simply they don't seem to be located. Why would they be?

I don't know, but a lot of people do seem to experience a location. Go figure.

GrahamH wrote:You did say this self in your head was making your free will decision, i.e. 'pulling the levers. There was never a suggestion of literal levers, obviously. It means 'in control'.

There was never a suggestion of pulling levers until you mentioned it and I said that I was not thinking of that.

There was an implication of control, yes, by the 'me' I experienced in my head. Why this seemed controversial to you I don't know. It's the basis of the (imo false) idea of agency, ffs.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Quite simply they don't seem to be located. Why would they be?

I don't know, but a lot of people do seem to experience a location. Go figure.

Do they? Do you have another survey asking leading questions?

How about these?

"Were is the concept of home located?"
"What does yellow weigh?"
"Which is faster, happy or sad?"

GrahamH wrote:I asked if you meant to taken literally and you were adamant that you were. Literally experiencing a self inside your head when you looked at your feet.

Yes, I was literally (whatever that means, you brought it up) experiencing a sense of self.

Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?

GrahamH wrote:

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Quite simply they don't seem to be located. Why would they be?

I don't know, but a lot of people do seem to experience a location. Go figure.

Do they? Do you have another survey asking leading questions?

How about these?

"Were is the concept of home located?"
"What does yellow weigh?"
"Which is faster, happy or sad?"

Those weren't the questions graham, sadly for your little attempt to muddy the waters with straw men. The question was 'where do you locate your 'I'' and 83% said 'behind my eyes'.

I'm not saying anything about whether the people were liars or idiots, such as yourself, of course.

scott1328 wrote:Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?

They might do, in the windmills literally inside Archibald's head.

I think most people would probably say yellow was a light weight. So we can conclude it does literally have a weight.

GrahamH wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?

They might do, in the windmills literally inside Archibald's head.

Ha ha. Great that you can think up straw men questions. Try dealing with the actual ones.

"How big is your 'I'?

"Well it literally fits in my head, so I suppose it must be no bigger than that. Maybe between an orange and a melon in size."