Experience & Your Unreliable Consciousness

[O'nus]

Intro You probably consider this thread as a joke. You'll say, "why would anyone doubt my ability to experience things?". You live, you have senses, you know when you are able to sense sight, smell, sound, feel, and taste. Who am I to challenge your ability to do so? Too many people put too much trust into their senses. Is this a reliable thing to do? Even the most sturdiest of buildings and foundations require criticism ever now and then because of how foundational they are. What better foundation than your own senses? Primary Inspiration: TED Talks - Dan Dennett: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/d...ciousness.html Your Senses This is Meyer's loop. Objectively speaking, your eyes receive light from the outside world and bring them in to collect in your brain for interpretation. The greatest person to attack your senses was Descartes. This image was drawn by Descartes to show the mechanistic way of which our body works. We see light, it enters our mind, our mind interprets, and we react. Now, of course, the problem is that it is not until your interpret the images that you are able to distinguish what they are, where they are, etc. Example 1 Look at the moon or far away object X. You know what X is, what it may do or looks like, etc. However, if you lift your hand, you can "hold" it in your sight. But you know the moon is bigger than the inch between your finger and thumb. This is because you know of dimensions and distance, depth, etc. Your eyes can only process so much and this is the direct light given from this object that gives you that perception. In addition, your senses have fooled you numerous times. You have seen images in your dreams that felt real, look real, etc. but they are not real, are they? Of course, Descartes acknowledged the extrapolation of this to questioning reality, but we're not looking at that. We're just looking at the unreliability of our senses. You have seen things that are not part of this reality. Also, you may see a certain person wearing a hat when on second glance you discover they really were not wearing a hat. How many times did you not take the second glance to realize this? The examples are endless. You cannot explore every potential mistake in perceptual judgment, it just happens. Example 2 Furthermore, there is a blind spot in your eye. Given the right demonstration, you can see how there is actually a blind spot in your eye that your mind compensates for. See here: http://serviceworksconsulting.com/bl...lind_spot.html Furthermore, how many times have you had fruit punch that actually contained no fruit? There are artificial flavors out there that taste like fruits, but are they truly fruits? To test the idea of surveying responses, people will go out and ask "is this coke or diet coke" when, in fact, they are both coke. However, there is still a 50/50 split response rate (just the same as coin flipping) that some taste coke and some taste diet coke. The point here is that you have tasted things that were not actually what you thought they were. Example 3 Also, your audio ability is very susceptible to mistakes. Firstly, how many times have you heard the mistaking of lyrics in a song? Secondly, consider the McGurk Effect: http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html In this, we pay attention to both the actual sound we are seeing and considering how the person is forming the word and yet we make severe mistakes. Why is this? The point here is that you have made many audio mistakes. The list goes on. I think I have proven my point in this aspect. Your Consciousness But what about your deep internal thoughts? Can they be wrong? Well we know that our senses are not reliable, so what is left? What is left is our interaction with our body and our existence. As Dan Dennett's demonstration shows, there are many instances in which we are consciously sure of something. However, we can easily be wrong in almost any case even in our thoughts of experiencing something. Furthermore, there are countless cases demonstrating the importance of your brain to experience. Without your brain, you are unable to properly perceive and experience many things. Let us go through some examples: Agnosia: - Being unable to recognize familiar objects + Watch for him reaching for nothing! Prosopagnosia: - Unable to recognize faces (including their own!) Visual Agnosia Example: - Unable to recognize visual distinctions + The point here is to see whether or not you can see the difference. Many are incapable of this. The point in all of the above videos is to demonstrate that even when you are positive you experienced something, it is not always 100% true. Your consciousness and your experience are not entirely reliable. What do you think...? ~

[Xei]

There are three doors. One has a pot of gold behind it, whilst the other two have nothing behind them. You choose a door to be opened. Before it is opened, one of the doors that you did not choose is opened to show that there is nothing behind it. There are now two doors, one with the pot of gold behind, and one with nothing behind. You are given the choice of swapping from your original choice to the other door. Should you take this choice, and why?

[Cyclic13]

Don't ask me... Ask yourself...

[Howie]

Wow Where to start with such a thread? Nice sources O’nus Ever since I have began to lucid dream I have learned to question reality more. In turn I have found out it is so evasive, such an illusion. Things I see, what people have said, what I have done, or what I am doing are all, when examined, simulated bogus perceptions of truth. This sounds a bit exaggerated but I don't believe it to be. Of coarse every ones awareness is at a different level. Which brings me to what I think is really fascinating. What is the inevitable addition of other people into the equation. As we begin to realize that our own fabrication of reality is so obscure how do we even begin to postulate reality from our own assumptions? Just like a snowball that gets rolling as we misinterpret one thing, it manifests greater into something even more less of an actuality…. wouldn’t it?

[Bonsay]

There are three doors. One has a pot of gold behind it, whilst the other two have nothing behind them. You choose a door to be opened. Before it is opened, one of the doors that you did not choose is opened to show that there is nothing behind it. There are now two doors, one with the pot of gold behind, and one with nothing behind. You are given the choice of swapping from your original choice to the other door. Should you take this choice, and why? Yes you should switch, it's statistically more likely you win if you do.

[O'nus]

Don't ask me... Ask yourself... I see you are still a complete moron when it comes to discussion. You are not addressing who you are speaking to so, just in case you are referencing me I have to reply. Firstly, the video and your comments are completely irrelevant. There is actually nothing being said besides, "You are you, ask yourself what's right and wrong, not me." That's nice, however, completely irrelevant. Do you also want to discuss pig shit? Stop doing drugs and pay attention. I am coming to the conclusion that you are addicted to LSD because you are acting like one - convinced you are one with the world and changing every damn topic to that and completely ignoring what everyone has to say. Ever since I have began to lucid dream I have learned to question reality more. In turn I have found out it is so evasive, such an illusion. Things I see, what people have said, what I have done, or what I am doing are all, when examined, simulated bogus perceptions of truth. This sounds a bit exaggerated but I don't believe it to be. Of coarse every ones awareness is at a different level. Which brings me to what I think is really fascinating. What is the inevitable addition of other people into the equation. As we begin to realize that our own fabrication of reality is so obscure how do we even begin to postulate reality from our own assumptions? Just like a snowball that gets rolling as we misinterpret one thing, it manifests greater into something even more less of an actuality…. wouldn’t it? Other people believing things is more often to incline us to a mass scale false "truth". Many will say this to be something like God but let's use a more practical example. At first, Mary's death was never described in the Bible. However, many just simply believed she ascended to heaven. This became tradition, many people believed it, and now it seems to be "true". ~

[Howie]

Other people believing things is more often to incline us to a mass scale false "truth". Many will say this to be something like God but let's use a more practical example. At first, Mary's death was never described in the Bible. However, many just simply believed she ascended to heaven. This became tradition, many people believed it, and now it seems to be "true". I hadn't thought of that on such a grand scale. I was referring more to day to day activity. Activity in ones everyday life. But that is a great point you make. If the present often shows itself as such a mystery then the past would just be a reflection of that and then exaggerated over time. A mass scale will always perpetuate events. As much as I like to engage in debatable discussion I really seem to agree with you on all front here O'nus. So one who is enlightened is supposedly one who perceives without duality. One with no hindrance of perception. Isn't that merely a false perception in itself? If nothing more than to having account for our own human faults and behaviors. Let's face it, as humans we have a lot of short comings and we certainly have a long way to go to perceive "truth" in its purist form. If that's possible. One who claims to be enlightened would be in effect claiming THEY are god like.

[DuB]

As much as I like to engage in debatable discussion I really seem to agree with you on all front here O'nus. I'm kind of in the same place as Howie. It's an interesting topic, but to a certain extent I feel like most of this is somewhat like common knowledge. Oh and Xei, that probability puzzle was discussed in the recent movie "21," so I think a lot of members here are familiar with it . Unless there was some underlying point you were trying to make...?

[Xei]

Ew... Yeah, I was basically trying to make the point that human intuition is often wrong. But then when we express things logically (mathematically) we see the truth infallibly.

[Cyclic13]

What needs addressing? The mechanist view paradoxically attempts to gloss over an inexplicable mechanism with the mechanics of every mechanism but the mechanism that matters most and cannot be mechanized. Confusing people with pictures does nothing to explain consciousness. I laugh. Continually convincing yourself of this and that. Jumping from assumptions to conclusions without anything but a flimsy opinion bridging the gap. Subliminally setting bars for others that dissolve when grasped for. Casting condescension and judgement on those not playing up to par when one's idea of par is a mind's arbitration. Balancing on a tightrope of misinformation and self-proclaimed truth. Afraid to fall or admit their equality in their misunderstanding of the situation. Fortifying false dharma and illusions as one's path bottlenecks. I ask again... Can you reduce the reducer?

[O'nus]

What needs addressing? WHO YOU WERE TALKING TO. I have concluded to stop being aggressive towards you because you are obviously mentally challenged. I apologize, but I am aware of this now and will take it into consideration. The mechanist view paradoxically attempts to gloss over an inexplicable mechanism with the mechanics of every mechanism but the mechanism that matters most and cannot be mechanized. Tautological. You are actually offering nothing here, just a vague argument trying to sound important. When you actually have something to say, then let's hear it. Confusing people with pictures does nothing to explain consciousness. lol and your random videos are not confusing and irrelevant..? This is the most hillarious thing you've ever said. I laugh. Not as hard as me. Jumping from assumptions to conclusions without anything but a flimsy opinion bridging the gap. Subliminally setting bars for others that dissolve when grasped for. Casting condescension and judgement on those not playing up to par when one's idea of par is a mind's arbitration. Balancing on a tightrope of misinformation and self-proclaimed truth. Afraid to fall or admit their equality in their misunderstanding of the situation. You are significantly mistaken - my point is in showing how you cannot be 100% sure in your subjective truth. Can you please actually argue with what I am saying rather than spew vague nonsense? Fortifying false dharma and illusions as one's path bottlenecks. That's what you are doing - not me. I ask again... Can you reduce the reducer? Yes, yes you can. You, you are not. Maybe you can stick to the topic and actually offer some opinion of something that I said and not you. And please do not say I need to look inward, you are being selfish turning everything into your own opinion and then offering nothing substantial besides "personal revelation is the best" when my argument here is that it is not always reliable. ~

[really]

And please do not say I need to look inward, you are being selfish turning everything into your own opinion and then offering nothing substantial besides "personal revelation is the best" when my argument here is that it is not always reliable. ~ I think you have to define "personal revelation", as you use it here, as I see many discrepancies already. Unless your argument is about external revelations; to do with the objective world, it has nothing against spiritual, internal matters - which do not rely on the senses, but in fact transcend them.

[O'nus]

I think you have to define "personal revelation", as you use it here, as I see many discrepancies already. Unless your argument is about external revelations; to do with the objective world, it has nothing against spiritual, internal matters - which do not rely on the senses, but in fact transcend them. Essentially my point is that those things that you think and see are not always true. That's really it. ~

[really]

Essentially my point is that those things that you think and see are not always true. That's really it. ~ I thought so. lol, I think Cyclic's point is that to find the truth, look within. Otherwise, how do you know something is true? Do you only believe in facts?

[O'nus]

I thought so. lol, I think Cyclic's point is that to find the truth, look within. Otherwise, how do you know something is true? Do you only believe in facts? I'd say you have to take everything into consideration and that "personal revelation" is not the only way to attain knowledge. Looking "inward" is not always the best idea. How else do people know to be "good"? (Socially, etc.) ~

[ClouD]

Not inwards - not outwards. Not truth - not lies. Not good - not bad. All of the above. --- O'nus can you please explain to me why cells survive, interact and respond, for months onwards after enucleation, only dying from wear in the cytoplasm? Edit: And this is sure a fun one: http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.php

[O'nus]

Not inwards - not outwards. Not truth - not lies. Not good - not bad. All of the above. Yet again we have someone attacking everything and making vague reference to nothing. Thank you for the empty comments. O'nus can you please explain to me why cells survive, interact and respond, for months onwards after enucleation, only dying from wear in the cytoplasm? Uhm... why? Edit: And this is sure a fun one: http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.php Relevance...?? ~

[ClouD]

Yet again we have someone attacking everything and making vague reference to nothing. Thank you for the empty comments. Not attacking. Open to interpretation, but the "All of the above" meant to contradict the statements. The word truth implies that any particular fact can be verified. Truth is existence - that which is, nothing can be wrong or not wrong or anything anything and vice versa, which was what was meant to be portrayed. Thank you for the empty comments. Uhm... why? I was asking sincerely, I thought you might know more on the subject. Relevance...?? ~ Viewing the first post, it looks like you're implying that consciousness doesn't exist outside of the brain, which was why I thought it may be relevant. (Not obvious?)

[Original Poster]

Or as death cab for cutie said: "When I first see you I really see you upsidedown But my brain knows better, it picks you up and turns you around, tuuuuuurns you around, turns you aro-ound"

[Howie]

So goes another thread.

[DeathCell]

Than nothing is fully possible to prove, because how do we know we O'nus and all his scientist buddies aren't having one massive hallucination seeing what they want to? Maybe their senses are lying to them also.

[Abra]

I've actually been thinking about propopagnosia lately. All this time on the internet might atrophy that part of the brain (unless we all wear masks with our avatars). So one who is enlightened is supposedly one who perceives without duality. One with no hindrance of perception. Isn't that merely a false perception in itself? "No hindrance of perception." Doesn't mean "no perception." We have evolved the senses for survival. Today, we do not need our senses to live (granted, that would almost always imply a vegetative state, but the discussion as to whether or not that is "living," is irrelevant). Without any instant threat to survival, we are free to pick which senses to focus on... But, that freedom is at birth, and we are helpless. That's not wrong, it is natural. There is then a process of learning (from everyone. Parents, friends, etc.). We learn everything that is practical, making associations between everything. Pink soft thing gives food. This process of learning must accelerate to be competitive. Scratches on paper are symbols, and symbols mean ______. Learning becomes automatic and unconscious, as we leave the world of senses and dive into the world of words. Your thoughts are in words. (Don't take my use of "words" too literally. It also means "social construct" and "automatic associations.") All too often, we question the words instead of the senses. Or worse, we accept the words without taking note of the senses. That's how we make our false schema, I think. It is prejudice in simplest form. If you hide all of the words (all words of the past) and leave only the senses, you have that freedom again. There are faults with the eye's design, I suppose, from seeing an objective truth, but at least this "truth" is without collective bias. This doesn't really relate to O'nus's optical illusions, but more to the subjective truth (the "virgin Mary went to heaven" example). If nothing more than to having account for our own human faults and behaviors. Let's face it, as humans we have a lot of short comings and we certainly have a long way to go to perceive "truth" in its purist form. If that's possible. I don't think we can perceive an objective truth. We can choose put faith in the collective truth, personal truth (this is the madness, delusions), or unhindered subjective truth (choosing for ourselves what is true, but without final judgment). I like the last one.

[O'nus]

Not attacking. Open to interpretation, but the "All of the above" meant to contradict the statements. The word truth implies that any particular fact can be verified. Truth is existence - that which is, nothing can be wrong or not wrong or anything anything and vice versa, which was what was meant to be portrayed. Thank you for the empty comments. I don't think you realize that we are not in disagreement. I am, in fact, saying that everything can be objectively seen on an objective scale. This goes hand-in-hand with what you are saying. I say that truth is nothing more than either: A) Realizing something that was not know before B) Realizing a deception or lie I was asking sincerely, I thought you might know more on the subject. I might be able to answer, but I am curious as to why and maybe if you can elaborate on the question..? Microbiology is not my specialty. Viewing the first post, it looks like you're implying that consciousness doesn't exist outside of the brain, which was why I thought it may be relevant. (Not obvious?) I still do not see the importance of this. The mind does not exist outside the brain. Does neuroscience not demonstrate this? Without certain parts of the brain, the mind cannot do things. This is simple causation. The most you can hope for is to say that there is a little "intangible thing" in the body that can assert things as this or that. But this is a judgment process, and many people, such as retards, are incapable of doing this even though they ought to have an equal mind as us if the brain is not the host of our mind. No? Than nothing is fully possible to prove, because how do we know we O'nus and all his scientist buddies aren't having one massive hallucination seeing what they want to? Maybe their senses are lying to them also. Exactly - nothing is fully possible to prove. However, you can statistically be at 98% certainty. This is the most I can ever hope to achieve and always give lee-way to being wrong and falsifiable. Furthermore, realize that science takes into account objective facts, not subjective. The fact is that there is a blindspot in your eye and it can be proven to you and not me through the experiment above. There has not been a single human to have not had a blindspot as of yet. Therefore, it is with 98% certainty that we say all humans are born with a blindspot in there eye, but there is a 2% chance that there will be one with a blindspot or that we are wrong and it is another phenomena that we are seeing. Why do you generalize me with all of science? That is really desperate to say that all of science is having a hallucination. I expect better from you. Come on now. ~

[Carôusoul]

Than nothing is fully possible to prove, because how do we know we O'nus and all his scientist buddies aren't having one massive hallucination seeing what they want to? Maybe their senses are lying to them also. I don't think "O'nus and all his scientist buddies" would entirely deny that possibility; they have to accept it. But they work on probability and practicality. Some people may choose to reserve themselves to the small possibility of it all being naught but a hallucination. Others explore this hallucination. Either way. Although I'd disagree that nothing is impossible to prove, at least to oneself. I'm experiencing the colour blue right now, this experience is occuring, this is certainly real. It may be a hallucination or I might only exist for this moment. But in this moment Blue is being experienced. Foundational belief there. Its all in the moment.

[really]

I'd say you have to take everything into consideration and that "personal revelation" is not the only way to attain knowledge. Looking "inward" is not always the best idea. How else do people know to be "good"? (Socially, etc.) ~ I don't follow what you mean, please expand this. Do you think all people know what is truly good? I also asked, do you only believe in facts? So one who is enlightened is supposedly one who perceives without duality. One with no hindrance of perception. Isn't that merely a false perception in itself? Why would it be? At that level, it is not a perception, it's a knowing. Perception is dualistic. (Overall an enormous amount of perception/tendency is transcended, may not be completely.) One who claims to be enlightened would be in effect claiming THEY are god like. It depends on the integrity of the guru (E.g. claimed gurus, "higher than Jesus", who are false and manipulating). A false guru could claim to be God-like and demand worship, money, sex, etc. Naive, one may not see this is not God-like at all. They target naive seekers. If they really "are enlightened", they are God like, though not in a condescending personal way, but a way that they are loving, and radiate grace to all life. They are Self-Realized, as they are no different than our True Self. The persona is not God. I don't think you realize that we are not in disagreement. I am, in fact, saying that everything can be objectively seen on an objective scale. This goes hand-in-hand with what you are saying. I say that truth is nothing more than either: A) Realizing something that was not know before B) Realizing a deception or lie What is this relationship here? You cannot speak or write the truth, only allude and conceptualize. The truth cannot be written, it simply Is. It Is, a priori to all rationalization and demonstration. How can you objectively demonstrate what is behind these: 1. "Not inwards - not outwards. Not truth - not lies. Not good - not bad. All of the above." or further, 2. "I." 3. "Existence" 4. "Infinite" Proof doesn't reach here. The above are contexts. You can only demonstrate or prove limited, linear "things". That excludes you from demonstrating non-linear existence, except through abstraction. I still do not see the importance of this. The mind does not exist outside the brain. Does neuroscience not demonstrate this? Without certain parts of the brain, the mind cannot do things. This is simple causation. The most you can hope for is to say that there is a little "intangible thing" in the body that can assert things as this or that. But this is a judgment process, and many people, such as retards, are incapable of doing this even though they ought to have an equal mind as us if the brain is not the host of our mind. No? The "little intangible thing", I think you're referring to is Consciousness. Consciousness is not the mind, nor is it a product of brain activity or an agent of special judgment. "Retards" have consciousness, they are living and conscious as the rest of us. Otherwise, I think you are referring to a different consciousness, such as a specific awareness in a particular mental function.