Where is the First-Person Perspective?
Joseph Polanik
>SWM wrote:
>>My position: There is nothing about the existence of a subjective
>>perspective, the first-person point of view, in the universe, that
>>implies any obstacle(s) for the scientific study of how that
>>perspective comes to be and what it consists of or amounts to.
>The error here lies with the belief that the first-person point of
>view is "in" the universe -- this is putting the cart before the horse.
>The first-person point of view may or may not be "in" something
>greater, but that isn't something that can be known. Rather whatever is
>known is "in" the first-person point of view.
the question of where experiences are located is very important to the
mind-brain identity theory. brain processes have a spatial location; so,
unless the correlated experience (if any) had the same location, there
was a difference in the properties of an experience and its correlated
brain state. a difference in properties would mean that MBI would fail
the test of strict identity: satisfying the Law of Indiscernibility of
Identicals, LII.
MBI eventually 'solved' this problem by adopting the convention that an
experience is said to occur at the location at which the corresponding
brain process occurs.
clearly, then, while there undoubtedly is a first-person perspective,
the first-person perspective is considered 'in' the world by assumption,
definition or convention.
consequently, it is possible to say "I am in this world".
the challenge for materialists is whether science can prove that one may
also say "I am of this world" or whether this must also be assumed or
made a matter of definition or convention.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
mec...@sbcglobal.net
Cayuse wrote:
>SWM wrote:
>>My position: There is nothing about the existence of a subjective
>>perspective, the first-person point of view, in the universe, that
>>implies any obstacle(s) for the scientific study of how that
>>perspective comes to be and what it consists of or amounts to.
The 'movement' of self-reflection, as well as the postulation of the thought
of the 'thinker' are both "pre-scientific" inasmuch as they are both prior
to and underlie the scientific method, which is based upon other thoughts or
assumptions (the arrow of time going only in one direction, logic, evidence,
experimental design, etc.) 'thought' by that 'thinker'.
>The error here lies with the belief that the first-person point of
>view is "in" the universe -- this is putting the cart before the horse.
>The first-person point of view may or may not be "in" something
>greater, but that isn't something that can be known. Rather whatever is
>known is "in" the first-person point of view.
fact, another dimension of consciousness (which has a different kind of
knowledge) prior to and 'outside' of the consciousness (and knowledge) of
the 'thinker': the "observing consciousness".
The 'movement' of self-reflection creates the actual space within which the
universe is perceived/understood (or misunderstood) at all. It is more
accurate to say that the brain (and the entire universe) is within the "I"
than it is to say that the "I" is within the universe. Without the "I",
there would be no universe at all in the first place because there would be
no space within which it could exist to be perceived/understood. (And it is
the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker' which maintains the
existence of this universe from one moment of 'time' to the next.) Thus,
when the Revelations of the monotheistic religious speak of the "end of
time" or the "time of the end", what they are referring to is the absolute
collapse of the consciousness based upon self-reflection and the postulation
of the thought of the 'thinker'; that is, the 'fallen' consciousness which
emerges out of the non-spatial and non-temporal "observing consciousness"
Created 'by and in the image of the Creator'; the collapse of which 'fallen
consciousness' results in, eventually (after a traumatic experience of
transient psychosis), the emergence of that "observing consciousness" itself
(see, for example, Jungian psychology).
The world we live in is now completely upside down; with good being
considered evil (and vice versa); delusion, pretense, and unsupported
assumptions (for example, a nuclear weapons program in Iran) now being
considered as the Absolute and Undeniable Truth; ignorance being considered
strength, etc. etc. (as evidenced by the recent recipient of the Nobel
'Peace' Prize); all of which can be traced to this placing of 'the cart
before the horse' in terms of a fundamental *misperception* of the origin
and reality of human consciousness.
Joseph Polanik wrote:
the question of where experiences are located is very important to the
mind-brain identity theory. brain processes have a spatial location; so,
unless the correlated experience (if any) had the same location, there
was a difference in the properties of an experience and its correlated
brain state. a difference in properties would mean that MBI would fail
the test of strict identity: satisfying the Law of Indiscernibility of
Identicals, LII.
MBI eventually 'solved' this problem by adopting the convention that an
experience is said to occur at the location at which the corresponding
brain process occurs.
clearly, then, while there undoubtedly is a first-person perspective,
the first-person perspective is considered 'in' the world by assumption,
definition or convention.
consequently, it is possible to say "I am in this world".
the challenge for materialists is whether science can prove that one may
also say "I am of this world" or whether this must also be assumed or
made a matter of definition or convention.
Joe
"I" am not in this world". Rather, "The world is in or within this "I" ".
Any contrary assumptions are, not surprisingly, exclusively for the purpose
of preserving the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker' in the first
place. (That is, the 'thinker' "has a dog in the fight" in determining the
structure of reality; it is *not* an objective observer.) They cannot be
proven, merely assumed. And the fundamental assumption of the consciousness
of the 'self' and the 'thinker' is that there is, necessarily, NO *other*
dimension of consciousness than itself; which is how this world has been
turned upside down and how evil has now become good.
Michael Cecil
Joseph Polanik
>All brain processes occur within the "I" ... Any contrary assumptions
>are, not surprisingly, exclusively for the purpose of preserving the
>consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker' in the first place. (That
>is, the 'thinker' "has a dog in the fight" in determining the structure
>of reality; it is *not* an objective observer.)
quantum mechanics has shown us that, at the most fundamental level of
reality, the experiencing I is a participating observer; but, it doesn't
follow that physiology occurs within the experiencing I, the I-2.
would you describe the 'I' that can have brain processes inside it?
Joe
mec...@sbcglobal.net
mec...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>All brain processes occur within the "I" ... Any contrary assumptions
>are, not surprisingly, exclusively for the purpose of preserving the
>consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker' in the first place. (That
>is, the 'thinker' "has a dog in the fight" in determining the structure
>of reality; it is *not* an objective observer.)
quantum mechanics has shown us that, at the most fundamental level of
reality, the experiencing I is a participating observer; but, it doesn't
follow that physiology occurs within the experiencing I, the I-2.
would you describe the 'I' that can have brain processes inside it?
Joe
the 'movement' of self-reflection, which establishes the metaphysical
duality. This establishes both the space in which everything occurs and the
consciousness of the "I".
In terms of consciousness, there are no grounds for establishing any spatial
differentiation between the brain, the finger, the chair on which you sit,
the keyboard for your computer, the sun, or the outer-most edges of the
space-time reality which, according to theory, has been expanding for some
13 billion years.
The question is over what "the most fundamental level of reality" really is.
Is it the perceived world at all, which is co-existent with the
consciousness of the "I" which originates in the 'movement' of
self-reflection, or is it a consciousness which exists prior to that
'movement' of self-reflection and the creation of both space and time.
Science, such as evolution and quantum physics deals with the phenomenal or
3-dimensional perceptual reality and consists of thoughts based upon
perceptions of that 3-dimensional reality. What I am saying is that there is
a 2-dimensional reality out of which the 3-dimensional reality emerges which
is a 'more fundamental' level of reality.
The 'movement' of self-reflection is not susceptible to either external
observation, nor is it experimentally reproducible. Thus, it is outside and
prior to both thought and science.
The "I" that can have brain processes inside of it is the "I" as described
by Western psychology, from Freud to Jung.
Science will never either arrive at or validate any assertions which result
in the annihilation of the consciousness of the "I" which is directly
involved in the perception of the physical reality. Knowledge of the
annihilation of that dimension of consciousness and the emergence of a
dimension of knowledge and consciousness beyond that consciousness of the
"I" can be found mostly in the Revelations of the monotheistic religions
(but NOT the respective theologies) and the writings of such esotericists as
Krishnamurti.
Michael Cecil