So, you're trying to convince the holograms inside you that they are just parts of your subjective experience? How come they, that is portions of you, don't know this already?phenomenal_graffiti wrote:For those believing that brains create consciousness: realize the people you know and see around you are all creations of your brain. Your mother, father, siblings, significant others, co-workers etc. are all made up of YOU, that is, they consist of your subjective experience. They're holograms, so to speak, made up of your consciousness streaming from the "movie projector" of your brain.
I guess I am still trying to understand why you would bother to post. IOW you have more direct contact with the hologram just mulling with your eyes closed on the couch. This is a mediated - or virtual reality simulation of more mediated - communication, reinforcing the illusion. Why not just relax and merge seemingly separate consciousnesses where they seem most intimate?phenomenal_graffiti wrote:The brain creates the holograms that are your experience of other people. That isnt to say they do not exist as things in themselves outside of the simulated reality created by your brain. Your neurons cause the holograms to believe they, your you-composed holographic counterpart as opposed to the external not-you composed person, are not you-composed holograms. But as external not-you composed persons are not produced by your neurons, it is unclear how your brain mimics their behavior.
Hm. I get that, but my immediate reaction reading the OP, was that starting with the brain confuses your audience or 'audience' if you prefer. The brain and its hologram. So the reader gets the image of the physical brain, then adds an internal image of the hologram in or 'in' that brain. I mean, the war is lost, not even just a battle, tongue and cheek or not. I know it might be a kind of bridging. To reach out into the model that is out there. And even many scientists who are physicalists think that we only experience a kind of inner theater/hologram. So, approaching the issue this way bridges. But it also muddles it up, I think. Because you are presuming phyiscalism, then trying to work out from its model to something closer to idealism or a Vishnu focused Hinduism.phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Of course, as I do not believe brains create consciousness but are reductio ad absurdum instigating a chain of logic leading to the sole existence of consciousness, the positive statements of brains or neurons doing x or y are tongue in cheek.
I am the part of you that realizes there is just one consciousness.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Of course, as I do not believe brains create consciousness but are reductio ad absurdum instigating a chain of logic leading to the sole existence of consciousness, the positive statements of brains or neurons doing x or y are tongue in cheek.
Hm. I get that, but my immediate reaction reading the OP, was that starting with the brain confuses your audience or 'audience' if you prefer. The brain and its hologram.
So the reader gets the image of the physical brain, then adds an internal image of the hologram in or 'in' that brain. I mean, the war is lost, not even just a battle, tongue and cheek or not.
Idealists can have vestiges of other paradigms in their own views.phenomenal_graffiti wrote:It would for those who didn't know I'm an Idealist. But for those who do, the joke should have been apparent. Or not.
Though holograms are created outside the devices. Mental Images are generally considered inside. I think I was reacting to the whole inner theater metaphor AND that you are addressing strangers more than that you were using a technological metaphor per se.And that's too bad. A hologram is an image composed of light emitted or originating from a mechanical or natural source that is the source of the light and the form the light takes. Thus a hologram and the mechanism by which a hologram is produced is analogous to consciousness and the mechanism of the brain generating consciousness. if true, the brain generates consciousness in the way a machine generates a hologram...let us say R2D2 emitting an image of Princess Leia to Obi Wan in Star Wars: A New Hope as a good fictional example.
It could view them as simply the same, and then end together. IOW consciousness as a facet. They could even believe that death is a kind of inevitalbe choice by the organism, ending both facets.Heck, secular mythology regarding the nature of death built upon the following premises...
1. The brain creates consciousness.
2.Consciousness cannot exist without first being produced and generated from a brain.
3. If the brain ceases to function, consciousness ceases to exist.
Me? ARen't you really saying something like 'you are actually a part of me'?The people you experience are created by your brain.
Isn't it more like 'you are a portion of me that doesn't realize it'?Thus, regardless of what a person envisions when I use the term 'hologram', this does not change the conceptual fact that if one pays strict attention to the first part of the first sentence in the OP, the people you experience are creations of your brain, and these people are doppelgangers, made up of nothing but your first-persosn subjective experience of people believed to exist in the external world the brain is believed to mimic.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
It would for those who didn't know I'm an Idealist. But for those who do, the joke should have been apparent. Or not.
Idealists can have vestiges of other paradigms in their own views.
Heck, secular mythology regarding the nature of death built upon the following premises...
1. The brain creates consciousness.
2.Consciousness cannot exist without first being produced and generated from a brain.
3. If the brain ceases to function, consciousness ceases to exist.
It could view them as simply the same, and then end together. IOW consciousness as a facet.
They could even believe that death is a kind of inevitalbe choice by the organism, ending both facets.
Thus, regardless of what a person envisions when I use the term 'hologram', this does not change the conceptual fact that if one pays strict attention to the first part of the first sentence in the OP, the people you experience are creations of your brain, and these people are doppelgangers, made up of nothing but your first-persosn subjective experience of people believed to exist in the external world the brain is believed to mimic.
Isn't it more like 'you are a portion of me that doesn't realize it'?
Now, yes, 'more direct' might seem to have vestiges of physicalism, but such is the nature of language. It may not actually be more direct to just deal with your parts without going online, but if you're anything like me and since we are one in your model you are then it will seem easier. But here you are online telling 'me' that 'you' are really a part of me that realizes it's all one.
If the universe is the hard package of thingies, sure. But if it is much more flexible, which I actually think it is, then no. There can be several overlapping minds (it is often presented as either one consciousness or many, when it can be both) and a very flexible overlapping set of multiverses.phenomenal_graffiti wrote:If my brain-created subjective experience of a chair and the non-brain-created chair in the external world were one and the same, the disappearance of my brain-created subjectively experience chair would result in the disappearance or non-existence of the non-brain-created external world chair. But as the external world chair is not a creation of anyone's brain, that is, airbag deploying from neurons within a skull, it does not logically follow how the external chair could be one and the same thing as the subjectively experienced chair as the external chair did not R2D2 stream from neurons within a skull. Thus it does not logically follow why neuron-created experience when that experience ends causes external objects to cease to exist. The brain is ridiculously believed to create subjective experience of objects, sure, but it's going a bit beyond logic to say the brain creates and can affect the existence of external world objects....for those believing external objects or non-experience exists.
Me, not you? Who are you talking to? Are you actually confessing to be a part of me, rather that experiencing it as you talking to a part of yourself?It's more like 'False I' is a portion of you made up of your subjective experience, created by neurons within your skull.
I t hink you're still in the old paradigm here. Who is having a conversation with whom`?'True I' exists outside your skull, albeit composed of first-person subjective experience, and is thus not the same thing as 'False I'. You can only create a copy of me, that is not the actual me.
Err...not that I am a part of you, but that you create a copy of me that is distinct from the external me.
Not only that, but you create you-composed copies of everyone you see and with whom you interact. These are creations of your brain: a mass of star-shaped pieces of flesh trapped within the confines of a skull. The real persons, the ones not created by your brain, exist in the external world and are not one and the same as the subjectively experience copies.
Well, you don't believe that, so I think you need to respond to me, to make sense, from within your own paradigm. And I am asking you 'what are you doing right now, when you communicate with me?´' It must be, it seems to me, parts of one self communicating.That is, If one believes brains create consciousness, or that something other than first-person subjective experience exists.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
If my brain-created subjective experience of a chair and the non-brain-created chair in the external world were one and the same, the disappearance of my brain-created subjectively experience chair would result in the disappearance or non-existence of the non-brain-created external world chair. But as the external world chair is not a creation of anyone's brain, that is, airbag deploying from neurons within a skull, it does not logically follow how the external chair could be one and the same thing as the subjectively experienced chair as the external chair did not R2D2 stream from neurons within a skull. Thus it does not logically follow why neuron-created experience when that experience ends causes external objects to cease to exist. The brain is ridiculously believed to create subjective experience of objects, sure, but it's going a bit beyond logic to say the brain creates and can affect the existence of external world objects....for those believing external objects or non-experience exists.
If the universe is the hard package of thingies, sure. But if it is much more flexible, which I actually think it is, then no. There can be several overlapping minds (it is often presented as either one consciousness or many, when it can be both) and a very flexible overlapping set of multiverses.
It's more like 'False I' is a portion of you made up of your subjective experience, created by neurons within your skull.
Me, not you? Who are you talking to? Are you actually confessing to be a part of me, rather that experiencing it as you talking to a part of yourself?
'True I' exists outside your skull, albeit composed of first-person subjective experience, and is thus not the same thing as 'False I'. You can only create a copy of me, that is not the actual me.
I think you're still in the old paradigm here. Who is having a conversation with whom`?
Err...not that I am a part of you, but that you create a copy of me that is distinct from the external me.
External? I don't think you understand the implications of your own beliefs. So, we are two distinct individuals?
Not only that, but you create you-composed copies of everyone you see and with whom you interact. These are creations of your brain: a mass of star-shaped pieces of flesh trapped within the confines of a skull. The real persons, the ones not created by your brain, exist in the external world and are not one and the same as the subjectively experience copies.
That is, If one believes brains create consciousness, or that something other than first-person subjective experience exists.
Well, you don't believe that, so I think you need to respond to me, to make sense, from within your own paradigm. And I am asking you 'what are you doing right now, when you communicate with me?´' It must be, it seems to me, parts of one self communicating.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users