The irony of this statement you are making about idealism and an ultimately subjective reality, found by science...Is of course, that by shifting into pure idealism, we effectively eliminate the plausibility of objective science. It becomes a paradox.
so... of course there is no 3rd person view in the brain, but outside world is outside, brain builds its own representation of it. i don't see much of a paradigma shift... did you see "matrix"? it showed exactly that, that human mind can be a program represented inside computer and this wasn't revolutionally new idea. as far as i know copernican revolution wasn't revolutional in this sense either. heliocentric hypothesis was proposed by ancients. problem was in fitting the data and showing the
formula that worked to show beyond shadow of a doubt that it was so (logically for argument of simplicity), only older authorities were prevailing for a time due to historical reasons. we are standing before the same problem, lack of formula, but as with heavenly bodies there is only one way of going about finding it, gathering data about workings of the brain, how it formulates its states and how it formulates outside world within those states.
and just touching on small last matter there is a sort of 3rd person view inside a brain in the sense of self-reference that makes us "externalize" our "I". ironically it is an essence of consciousness... me thinks.
I thought that it was only well established sciences that could have paradigm shifts; the 100s years old Aristotelian, Newtonian/Copernican and later the Einstein/Quantum. Neuroscience is barely a science since it seems to include all kinds of fluffy views already. I wouldn't given it credence of being a well-established science, it may disappear just as phrenology did.
Glad you're further giving your thoughts on this issue. If I may say something out of topic. "Everything is X" is never going to generate something meaningful if it is supposed to be an objective statement, wheather X is God or X is physical. We will just blur out the function of X. As a subjective interpretation those sayngs work just fine, as we get a sense of their world view.
After I make a response video to your 5 facts thing I'll work on one for this.
Once again, I'm not very well versed in Philosophy of Mind, but I hope to learn a lot more as I read. Currently I guess I'm just trapped in the "old paradigm" which I guess I'll address in my video. :-P
GREAT vids! I will respond shortly. I agree completely with all that you have said. I think there is already a school of thought which has taken these intuitions and systematized them into a genuine scientific theory (that would require a paradigm shift). It's called enactivism and it was introduced in a book called "The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience" by Varela, Rosch, and Thompson.
I don't understand your point. Crick's is saying that everything, even consciousness is completely material. You agreed with his quote and then said "all is subjective". What exactly would your "futuristic MRI machine" then do? Subsume subjectivity and make it objective? I'm confused.
Hi Karen - I totally understand your confusion. I'm saying the physical is an illusion because what we think is outside of us is really in brain - but the brian is physical! So it all sounds very loopy. I'm well aware of that. I'm working on a video where I address what I think are problems with the word physical. Hopefully it will clear some things up. We'll see ...
laffer - Yes, that comment at the end was pointing to a video that I hope will clear some of this up. It's a struggle trying to find just the right words to convey such strange ideas - ie, the nature of physical experience. But if we stick at it I'm confident we'll do it. Thanks for your patience!
The irony of this statement you are making about idealism and an ultimately subjective reality, found by science...Is of course, that by shifting into pure idealism, we effectively eliminate the plausibility of objective science. It becomes a paradox.
college12003 2 years ago
I'm a little late watching these videos, but it is nice to see more individuals following this line of thought.
Metzinger's "being no one" vibes very well with what has been said here.
If you haven't read that book, it is a must have imo!
5*
Canteatpancakes 4 years ago
so... of course there is no 3rd person view in the brain, but outside world is outside, brain builds its own representation of it. i don't see much of a paradigma shift... did you see "matrix"? it showed exactly that, that human mind can be a program represented inside computer and this wasn't revolutionally new idea. as far as i know copernican revolution wasn't revolutional in this sense either. heliocentric hypothesis was proposed by ancients. problem was in fitting the data and showing the
jogayot 4 years ago
formula that worked to show beyond shadow of a doubt that it was so (logically for argument of simplicity), only older authorities were prevailing for a time due to historical reasons. we are standing before the same problem, lack of formula, but as with heavenly bodies there is only one way of going about finding it, gathering data about workings of the brain, how it formulates its states and how it formulates outside world within those states.
jogayot 4 years ago
and just touching on small last matter there is a sort of 3rd person view inside a brain in the sense of self-reference that makes us "externalize" our "I". ironically it is an essence of consciousness... me thinks.
jogayot 4 years ago
I thought that it was only well established sciences that could have paradigm shifts; the 100s years old Aristotelian, Newtonian/Copernican and later the Einstein/Quantum. Neuroscience is barely a science since it seems to include all kinds of fluffy views already. I wouldn't given it credence of being a well-established science, it may disappear just as phrenology did.
plenipotentiarius 4 years ago
Glad you're further giving your thoughts on this issue. If I may say something out of topic. "Everything is X" is never going to generate something meaningful if it is supposed to be an objective statement, wheather X is God or X is physical. We will just blur out the function of X. As a subjective interpretation those sayngs work just fine, as we get a sense of their world view.
Censeo 4 years ago
Thanks for joining in on the conversation. :-)
After I make a response video to your 5 facts thing I'll work on one for this.
Once again, I'm not very well versed in Philosophy of Mind, but I hope to learn a lot more as I read. Currently I guess I'm just trapped in the "old paradigm" which I guess I'll address in my video. :-P
LennyBound 4 years ago
GREAT vids! I will respond shortly. I agree completely with all that you have said. I think there is already a school of thought which has taken these intuitions and systematized them into a genuine scientific theory (that would require a paradigm shift). It's called enactivism and it was introduced in a book called "The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience" by Varela, Rosch, and Thompson.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
I don't understand your point. Crick's is saying that everything, even consciousness is completely material. You agreed with his quote and then said "all is subjective". What exactly would your "futuristic MRI machine" then do? Subsume subjectivity and make it objective? I'm confused.
2bsirius 4 years ago
Hi Karen - I totally understand your confusion. I'm saying the physical is an illusion because what we think is outside of us is really in brain - but the brian is physical! So it all sounds very loopy. I'm well aware of that. I'm working on a video where I address what I think are problems with the word physical. Hopefully it will clear some things up. We'll see ...
SpiritualAtheist 4 years ago
Interesting vids. Looking forwards to the video you hinted at at the end there.. I'm still a little confused about that.
laffer35 4 years ago
laffer - Yes, that comment at the end was pointing to a video that I hope will clear some of this up. It's a struggle trying to find just the right words to convey such strange ideas - ie, the nature of physical experience. But if we stick at it I'm confident we'll do it. Thanks for your patience!
SpiritualAtheist 4 years ago