The Brain and its hologram of reality

[phenomenal_graffiti]

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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]

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.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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?

[Karpel Tunnel]

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. 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.

I mean, if I notice that I am telling you how to broach this it feels a bit rude on my part.

But I think it might be clearer if you actually approached yourself (heh) as yourself, talkign to yourself.

I am the part of you that realizes there is just one consciousness.

For example. And skip all the brains stuff holograms.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

....negatively (conceptually) demonstrates consciousness and one's experience of "this" world and other people are a "Princess Leia" hologram, metaphorically speaking (by right of analogous process) that cuts out when "R2D2" (the brain) ceases to produce the "hologram".

The people you experience are created by your brain.

There are the people you experience, and their external world counterparts: people not created by your brain that are external doppelgangers of the people created by your brain. They are not one and the same, and the secular mechanism of death proves this. The people created by your brain wink out of existence when one deceases, while the external people remain because they are neither created nor controlled by the brain. There are two copies of your parents, siblings, co-workers, etc.: (1)There are the mental parents, siblings, co-workers, etc. created by your brain, phantoms made up of first-person subjective experience that disappear or wink out of existence at unconsciousness or death, and (2) there are the external doppelgangers of the mental people your brain creates, that do not wink out of existence when your brain ceases to function as these external parents, siblings, etc. are not mental copies created by your brain.

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.

[Gloominary]

Is the brain a creation of the mind?
Or am I a figment of my father's imagination, or of God's?
Or am I matter dreaming it's me?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and given enough time, monkeys can write Shakespeare.
Maybe matter can think like a human once every septillion years, all the particle waves happen to align just so.

Perhaps there's no precise, or any border between what's inside our brain or mind and what's outside, between self and other, could be an imaginary line we draw.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The people you experience are created by your brain.

Me? ARen't you really saying something like 'you are actually a part of me'?

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'?

IOW I think it is a bit odd to come online and tell other parts of yourself that really 'we' are all one. You could just lie on a couch and more directly interact with the portions of yourself. 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.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

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.

True, as long as those vestiges do not include something that is not or that is other than first-person subjective experience, which given the evidence may be the only thing that exists.

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.

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.

They could even believe that death is a kind of inevitalbe choice by the organism, ending both facets.

If every instance of conscious experience must be created or caused by neurons within a skull, the choice is a creation of the brain. Death is cessation of function of the brain thus this cessation of function cannot logically be produced by a choice, which is a mental object. But who knows? We're dealing with something that may not exist in this equation (something that is not subjective experience).

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'?

It's more like 'False I' is a portion of you made up of your subjective experience, created by neurons within your skull. '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. And the only copy of me you can create is the sight of these words on your screen as we do not see each other in person. Even then, you can only create a copy of my outward appearance, not my consciousness, which is not created by your brain and exists in the invisible, intangible external world outside the "Matrix" purportedly created by your neurons.

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.

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.

That is, If one believes brains create consciousness, or that something other than first-person subjective experience exists.

[Meno_]

Or, holograms are merely the other side of pan psychic experience.
The brains create consciessness but are in essence created by the very essential conscioussness that
caused their evolution.
It appears that cause and effect are mirror images.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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 t hink 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.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

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.

Then again, everything that is not a person and that which the person experiences is a product of imagination supported only by faith. One's imagination of what exists "out there" (that which is not a person and that which the person experiences) is ultimately make-believe "supported" by one's belief that the external state of affairs exists. Thus we can't know (via experience) there are overlapping minds or overlapping multiverses. Sure, as I am not a solipsist I have faith that other people's consciousnesses exist, and that God exists, but in my imagination of what's "out there" I have simplified things to just minds of persons existing within the "snowglobe" of the overarching subconscious mind of God, however that works. One imagination does not trump the other, however. Empirically, we can't actually know what the external world is like, save to imagine it and believe that one's consciousness is somehow linked to it. I think the only link is the substance of first-person subjective experience.

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?

I am talking to the external person by talking to a part of myself that I believe is my subjectively experienced copy of the external person, toward whom the message is intended. The external person is not a part of me, though I must speak to the copy of the person having faith the external other receives the message and is responding through the copy. The me-experienced copy is a creation of my brain: the external copy is not, though I believe and have faith the external person can perceive the message I direct to the me-experienced copy.

'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`?

One is having a conversation with a brain-created copy of an external person, if the external person exists. One is having a conversation with the external person through the brain-created copy of the person, under the believe that solipsism is false and that there is an external copy of the brain-created person. One must speak to the brain-created copy under hopes that one communicates, through the copy, to the intended recipient of the message: the external person not created by one's brain, that somehow forms a copy of your message in his or her consciousness as one converses with the brain-created copy.

Remember, there are two 'yous', not one. One 'you' dissipates when a person no longer converses with you, falls asleep or dies: this is the brain-created 'you'. It is not the actual 'you' the external 'you' that is not created by the other human's brain and that continues to exist safe and sound when the person no longer perceives you.

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?

What "implications"? It's horribly simple. We are two distinct individuals, and there are two versions of yourself, not one. If the brain creates consciousness, if a human being perceives you, it is a matter of that person's neurons creating a copy of you. The copy is a copy of the external you or "actual you" that is not part of the person as it is not created by that person's brain. The you that is perceived by the person exists only as long as that person's brain creates it. The external you, however, is not affected by whether or not the other person creates the you-copy. From the other person's perspective, however, regardless of whether or not the external you actually exists, the person believes and has faith the external person exists, to whom any message is sent, albeit the person must speak or converse with the neuron-created copy in order to "send" the message to the external person.

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.

Within the paradigm of Pantheopsychism there are two 'you's. When I communciate with you I communicate with a copy of you made up of my subjective experience that I believe is a copy of another person existing outside the "pocket dimension" that is my conscious experience. (The external person is its own "pocket dimension" made up of its' own subjective experience, albeit the subjective experiences of all "pocket dimensions" actually derive from that of the overarching Person). I believe the external conscious mind that is you exists, but can only communicate with that mind through the copy made up my subjective experience.

Thus it is 'parts of one self communcating', but the 'parts of oneself' is not the only thing that exists: there is an external copy of the 'part of oneself' one believes to be an external being or copy of the external being, the intended recipient of the message rather than the 'part of oneself' to whom one must communciate to reach the external person that is not 'part of oneself'.