Out of curiosity, I (despite being illusion) am little slow, what was the point?

tuco wrote:Out of curiosity, I (despite being illusion) am little slow, what was the point?

That the self as subject of experience, the unified centre, is an illusion, not that the person, the body, the behaviour and effects are illusory.

I see thanks. To me self is the person, the body, the behavior and effects. I see no illusion.

tuco wrote:I see thanks. To me self is the person, the body, the behavior and effects. I see no illusion.

Of all persistent objects my body is the most persistent. It's like a booger.

If it can be (sucessfully) argued that the programs currently running on my computer (including this browser) are illusions, then I will concede that the "self" is an illusion.

Until such time, I will call those who label the self as an illusion, mysterians.

Strawson claimed that self is even more an object than those thing we call objects.

scott1328 wrote:If it can be (sucessfully) argued that the programs currently running on my computer (including this browser) are illusions, then I will concede that the "self" is an illusion.

Until such time, I will call those who label the self as an illusion, mysterians.

Ah, but the illusion would be if your PC mistook a program for the thing doing the work.

Suppose your PC is in a robot with vision and motor control and one aspect of the program is a virtual agent, a little man in a control room apparently inside the robot head. Suppose that this system maps many of its functions onto this virtual homunculus as if it was in control, so that the robot behaves accordingly. That would be the illusion. An illusion of an inner space in control and doing the work, where the reality is the system as a whole, many sub-systems, is doing all the work, and none of thse sub-systems being 'in command' or 'conscious'.

Such a representation is not without value. It has real effects. For example it could condense the states of many sub-systems into a unified 'agent' that may be more predictable than the disparate complexity of the entire system. This would enable complex forward planning. Computing such a homunculus would be a self-referencing feedback loop in the control system. Working out what the homunculus would do, what it can perceive, what matters to it right now is all causal for the system as a whole. In this view consciousness certainly matters a great deal to the system and enables things a disparate collection of sub-systems could not do.

tuco wrote:I see thanks. To me self is the person, the body, the behavior and effects. I see no illusion.

Neither do I. When I refer to myself I refer to a human animal, and not to a ghostly self inside a human animal.

Teuton wrote:

tuco wrote:I see thanks. To me self is the person, the body, the behavior and effects. I see no illusion.

Neither do I. When I refer to myself I refer to a human animal, and not to a ghostly self inside a human animal.

I should think most of us do that, but when people reflect on their phenomenal consciousness they are considering something more than can be seen in a mirror, or on an MRI scanner display. It is foolish to suppose you can look at your mind by looking in a mirror, but you probably think you have a mind that has thoughts and experiences, will, memory etc. You probably think that your mind controls your body, that your intentions drive your actions and so on.

I suppose it is possible that you don't think you have a mind, that you make no distinction between thought and action, but that would be rather an unusual view.

tuco wrote:I am just illusion.

So, you think that your existence as a person is just an illusion? If so, who is having the illusion?

GrahamH wrote:

Religious types feel the same way. Pity the fool who hasn't experienced THIS.

Seeing is believing, but seeing isn't necessarily knowing The Truth. I dare say I, if I committed fully to some program of having extraordinary experiences I could would become programmed with some interpretation or other. I could be convinced. I could have my thinking changed. But is that to the good? I could well come away believing X, like the other guys, but is X something I should believe in? Is it valid? Is it to my benefit? Is acid a better bet than Ayahuasca or DMT or fasting and meditation? Why would any of these disruptions to normal brain function reveal anything significant about the reality of me, or the Universe? (granted you have retracted the 'actually work' claim for LSD).

A lobotomy would change how I think. Other neural interventions might give me experiences of bliss or cosmic oneness or self-realisation or whatever, but then they also might have me seeing things that aren't there.

If I understand your logic correctly, you are saying that an argument to test meditation for yourself and then judge the results is just the same as someone telling you to try drugs for yourself and then judge? In other words you consider all these things to be disruptions to ‘normal’ brain function and you want to have someone describe in theory how meditation would give a more profound insight into yourself, before you would consider trying it?

TMB wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Religious types feel the same way. Pity the fool who hasn't experienced THIS.

Seeing is believing, but seeing isn't necessarily knowing The Truth. I dare say I, if I committed fully to some program of having extraordinary experiences I could would become programmed with some interpretation or other. I could be convinced. I could have my thinking changed. But is that to the good? I could well come away believing X, like the other guys, but is X something I should believe in? Is it valid? Is it to my benefit? Is acid a better bet than Ayahuasca or DMT or fasting and meditation? Why would any of these disruptions to normal brain function reveal anything significant about the reality of me, or the Universe? (granted you have retracted the 'actually work' claim for LSD).

A lobotomy would change how I think. Other neural interventions might give me experiences of bliss or cosmic oneness or self-realisation or whatever, but then they also might have me seeing things that aren't there.

If I understand your logic correctly, you are saying that an argument to test meditation for yourself and then judge the results is just the same as someone telling you to try drugs for yourself and then judge? In other words you consider all these things to be disruptions to ‘normal’ brain function and you want to have someone describe in theory how meditation would give a more profound insight into yourself, before you would consider trying it?

It seems clear that some of these practices have significant effects on how people think. One can't just try this out for a day,it has lasting effects. Changing how you see the world then judging how you see the world cannot be an impartial judgement.

I see a similarity to faith here. Believers will say that you have to believe in order to see the truth of the belief. I think that is the case. To see the belief as true you have to believe it. That is not to say that you can fairly judge the truth of it. You can possibly change yourself so that it seems true to you.

It seems likely that having an experience of oneness with the universe would change one's thinking, so it seems that no impartial judgement of the veracity of that experience is possible after the event.

So I pose the philosophical question: is there any good reason to suppose that chemical modification of brain function is likely to literally connect one with the universe, or reveal deep truth abut reality, or open a hotline to god, or release one from one's body to travel the cosmos.

Seeing is often believing, but seeing is not necessarily accessing The Truth.

GrahamH wrote:
I see a similarity to faith here. Believers will say that you have to believe in order to see the truth of the belief. I think that is the case. To see the belief as true you have to believe it. That is not to say that you can fairly judge the truth of it. You can possibly change yourself so that it seems true to you.

We have beliefs about everything in life, the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is based upon induction as well as direct experience because it has risen every morning as far back as there was a sun. Getting exercise and its benefits requires faith to last longer than the initial discomfort in the belief you will indeed fell better and be healthier than a couch potato. Looking at how many people consciously eat unhealthy food and do no exercise shows just how many people either do not have the willpower or belief.

Just as we might say to someone that exercise will truly make them feel better, they can apply the exact argument you are using and say that their judgement could just be flawed, however the judgement of the non-exerciser could also be flawed. This position will leave a person stuck in limbo or on destructive pathways in every aspect of life, meditation is just one – do you apply this rationale to all aspects of your life or just to meditation?

GrahamH wrote:
It seems likely that having an experience of oneness with the universe would change one's thinking, so it seems that no impartial judgement of the veracity of that experience is possible after the event.

Once again, ‘impartial is not a good word choice, I would say ‘better informed’ fits better. A person who has been taught how to drive a car correctly and has relevant experience will often find people who are just learning to drive, are trying to say that they understand pretty much all one needs to know about driving. Those same learner drivers (if they survive) realise with experience how badly informed they were, and so the cycle continues, the ignorant mistake tier lack of knowledge for knowledge. Its difficult because there are many claims made and when it comes to something like diet, commercial drive and poor science can make it difficult to know what informed is. Once again only direct experience of meditation would show what it means to have a sharper focus on everything.

GrahamH wrote:
So I pose the philosophical question: is there any good reason to suppose that chemical modification of brain function is likely to literally connect one with the universe, or reveal deep truth about reality, or open a hotline to god, or release one from one's body to travel the cosmos.

You misunderstand the simplicity of meditation. We know that our bodies and brains are filled with chemicals and these are necessary for normal function, and many things can alter these. We also know that a reaction like panic can cause us to become dysfunctional in stressful situations, just as we know that people who can keep their heads at these times are better able to make valid judgments. Meditation simply moderates or removes the noise and clutter of things like panic or fear. Even things like deep breathing or focusing on one senses calms the mind for a short period. Its not rocket science that if you have jumbling and tumbling thoughts and distractions is your judgement of anything going to be better than if your thoughts are still and less intrusive?

Your idea that meditation will connect you to something metaphysical is optimistic stretch. Initial stages simply allow you to sleep better, lower stress levels, make better decisions and the like. Experienced practitioners will get profound clarity of this vision and get a different perspective on life. I am aware of guru claims that you will connect to something metaphysical, however most of these start off with the premise that there is something metaphysical to connect with. Either way, just as you are using your judgement to guide your current opinion of meditation, some experience of meditation would allow you a more informed opinion of where you might go with meditation.

GrahamH wrote:
Seeing is often believing, but seeing is not necessarily accessing The Truth.

Meditation is an experience thing, just as you might know from experience and inference that riding your bicycle off a cliff is not a good idea. I might argue that your opinion of this, despite your experience of seeing people fall off cliffs, and your knowledge of gravity and your time cycling, I as a non cyclist and might argue that your perception is no better than mine, and I don’t need experience to tell me otherwise. I have teenage kids who are certain that one can know everything and moe than I do without having the experience.

I see you have picked up the reference to meditation, but I only meant that in more extreme forms perhaps combined with fasting, perhaps achieving substatantial effects on EEG or fMRI.

Claims are made that such practices done to expert level give insights into the true nature of reality.

Is that a credible claim?

I have nothing against meditation in general. I don't doubt it can be beneficial.

My thoughts here relates only to these 'mind altering' practices as a route to deep insights into reality.

TMB wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
I see a similarity to faith here. Believers will say that you have to believe in order to see the truth of the belief. I think that is the case. To see the belief as true you have to believe it. That is not to say that you can fairly judge the truth of it. You can possibly change yourself so that it seems true to you.

We have beliefs about everything in life, the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is based upon induction as well as direct experience because it has risen every morning as far back as there was a sun. Getting exercise and its benefits requires faith to last longer than the initial discomfort in the belief you will indeed fell better and be healthier than a couch potato. Looking at how many people consciously eat unhealthy food and do no exercise shows just how many people either do not have the willpower or belief.

That is a good couter example. The benefits of exercise are clear. I don't have to train to extreme levels to find out. Most importantly I don't have to do something that affects my judgement to try out exercise.

I don't think I'd want to have my legs amputated to try out the experience of running with blades, which is not to say that experience is not a good one.

TMB wrote:Just as we might say to someone that exercise will truly make them feel better, they can apply the exact argument you are using and say that their judgement could just be flawed, however the judgement of the non-exerciser could also be flawed. This position will leave a person stuck in limbo or on destructive pathways in every aspect of life, meditation is just one – do you apply this rationale to all aspects of your life or just to meditation?

I have meditated BTW.
I have also exercised.

You miss my point, which is that some of these practices alter one's judgement, one's capacity to judge. That is simply not true for most experiences.

TMB wrote:
It seems likely that having an experience of oneness with the universe would change one's thinking, so it seems that no impartial judgement of the veracity of that experience is possible after the event.

Once again, ‘impartial is not a good word choice, I would say ‘better informed’ fits better. A person who has been taught how to drive a car correctly and has relevant experience will often find people who are just learning to drive, are trying to say that they understand pretty much all one needs to know about driving. Those same learner drivers (if they survive) realise with experience how badly informed they were, and so the cycle continues, the ignorant mistake tier lack of knowledge for knowledge. Its difficult because there are many claims made and when it comes to something like diet, commercial drive and poor science can make it difficult to know what informed is. Once again only direct experience of meditation would show what it means to have a sharper focus on everything.

GrahamH wrote:
So I pose the philosophical question: is there any good reason to suppose that chemical modification of brain function is likely to literally connect one with the universe, or reveal deep truth about reality, or open a hotline to god, or release one from one's body to travel the cosmos.

You misunderstand the simplicity of meditation. We know that our bodies and brains are filled with chemicals and these are necessary for normal function, and many things can alter these. We also know that a reaction like panic can cause us to become dysfunctional in stressful situations, just as we know that people who can keep their heads at these times are better able to make valid judgments. Meditation simply moderates or removes the noise and clutter of things like panic or fear. Even things like deep breathing or focusing on one senses calms the mind for a short period. Its not rocket science that if you have jumbling and tumbling thoughts and distractions is your judgement of anything going to be better than if your thoughts are still and less intrusive?

Your idea that meditation will connect you to something metaphysical is optimistic stretch. Initial stages simply allow you to sleep better, lower stress levels, make better decisions and the like. Experienced practitioners will get profound clarity of this vision and get a different perspective on life. I am aware of guru claims that you will connect to something metaphysical, however most of these start off with the premise that there is something metaphysical to connect with. Either way, just as you are using your judgement to guide your current opinion of meditation, some experience of meditation would allow you a more informed opinion of where you might go with meditation.

GrahamH wrote:
Seeing is often believing, but seeing is not necessarily accessing The Truth.

Meditation is an experience thing, just as you might know from experience and inference that riding your bicycle off a cliff is not a good idea. I might argue that your opinion of this, despite your experience of seeing people fall off cliffs, and your knowledge of gravity and your time cycling, I as a non cyclist and might argue that your perception is no better than mine, and I don’t need experience to tell me otherwise. I have teenage kids who are certain that one can know everything and moe than I do without having the experience.[/quote]


Unfortunately I find nothing in your replies to address my questions. Is there any good reason to think that such 'mind altering' practices' actually reveal anything about 'the true nature of reality'?
Is it more likely that they change you one thinks so that one acquires a belief in profundity that lack veracity or substance?

Should you dedicate some years of your life to Scientology to see if it will open you up to Truth?
Should you spend 40 days in the dessert to have a revelation?
Should you take psychotropic drugs to see deeper?

GrahamH wrote:

scott1328 wrote:If it can be (sucessfully) argued that the programs currently running on my computer (including this browser) are illusions, then I will concede that the "self" is an illusion.

Until such time, I will call those who label the self as an illusion, mysterians.

Ah, but the illusion would be if your PC mistook a program for the thing doing the work.

Suppose your PC is in a robot with vision and motor control and one aspect of the program is a virtual agent, a little man in a control room apparently inside the robot head. Suppose that this system maps many of its functions onto this virtual homunculus as if it was in control, so that the robot behaves accordingly. That would be the illusion. An illusion of an inner space in control and doing the work, where the reality is the system as a whole, many sub-systems, is doing all the work, and none of thse sub-systems being 'in command' or 'conscious'.

Such a representation is not without value. It has real effects. For example it could condense the states of many sub-systems into a unified 'agent' that may be more predictable than the disparate complexity of the entire system. This would enable complex forward planning. Computing such a homunculus would be a self-referencing feedback loop in the control system. Working out what the homunculus would do, what it can perceive, what matters to it right now is all causal for the system as a whole. In this view consciousness certainly matters a great deal to the system and enables things a disparate collection of sub-systems could not do.

The homonculus is the illusion. The cartesian theatre is an illusion.

The self is not a homonuculus, and it is not the cartesian theatre.

If it has real effects, it is not illusory.

scott1328 wrote:If it can be (sucessfully) argued that the programs currently running on my computer (including this browser) are illusions, then I will concede that the "self" is an illusion.

Until such time, I will call those who label the self as an illusion, mysterians.

For once, I agree!

Teuton wrote:

tuco wrote:I see thanks. To me self is the person, the body, the behavior and effects. I see no illusion.

Neither do I. When I refer to myself I refer to a human animal, and not to a ghostly self inside a human animal.

"Ghostly self"? So, you don't have any of those awful, "ghostly" things called "thoughts" that sometimes (though far from always!) underly behaviour?

scott1328 wrote:

The homonculus is the illusion. The cartesian theatre is an illusion.

The self is not a homonuculus, and it is not the cartesian theatre.

If it has real effects, it is not illusory.

If the brain reacts to it's creation of a virtual self as if it were real then the self itself has no effects, but the creatiom of the appearance, being a real physical process, can certainly have effects.

Did you follow the robot metaphor? A robot vehicle can represent itself in a virtual world and navigate relative to virtual objects to influence its real world route planning. The virtual vehicle isn't real, but generating it is real and generating can have real effects. I think consciousness is a bit like that. A bit like virtual world simulation software on a robot computer system linked into the motor control.

The illusion is to mistake the virtual model for the thing itself, which the thing itself could indeed do.

What do you think the self is? You alluded to software earlier. Do you think it's a concious program?

DavidMcC wrote:

Teuton wrote:When I refer to myself I refer to a human animal, and not to a ghostly self inside a human animal.

"Ghostly self"? So, you don't have any of those awful, "ghostly" things called "thoughts" that sometimes (though far from always!) underly behaviour?

I do have thoughts, but thoughts aren't selves.