We need to talk about the meaning of existence

[torridon]

Reality exists at different levels differently. We cannot say which of them is the 'actual' reality. 

But one thing is clear that objectivity is an illusion. In reality, all experiences are subjective....collective subjectivity. Like different people using different terminals to play the same game. 

I think I'd go along with that, with the exception that there probably is no such thing as the 'actual' reality since Einstein dispensed with Newton, there is no objective frame of reference

[torridon]

Your example is one of how illusion exists in people’s experience. The thing is though we know what it is that is having the illusion. It is the self.

We are forced then to ask, in the case of the self itself, what is it which is having the illusion of self?

..

That we use phraseology as the above, is evidence for how compelling the illusion of self is.  We struggle to conceptualise the phenomenon of experience without introducing an 'experiencer' to make semantic sense.  it's reminiscent of how creationists argue that creation implies a creator, ergo since stuff exists, therefore God.  You also see similar with AB, and his oft-repeated claim that perception requires a perceiver.  Both these claims fail as they imply an infinite regress.  There is no 'experiencer' inside other than the emergent feeling of there being one and this feeling is created by our minds as a consequence of the way that our minds integrate senses of varying modalities into an apparently singular stream of conscious experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That we use phraseology as the above, is evidence for how compelling the illusion of self is.  We struggle to conceptualise the phenomenon of experience without introducing an 'experiencer' to make semantic sense.  it's reminiscent of how creationists argue that creation implies a creator, ergo since stuff exists, therefore God.  You also see similar with AB, and his oft-repeated claim that perception requires a perceiver.  Both these claims fail as they imply an infinite regress.  There is no 'experiencer' inside other than the emergent feeling of there being one and this feeling is created by our minds as a consequence of the way that our minds integrate senses of varying modalities into an apparently singular stream of conscious experience.

What is it that is having the illusion though. All you seem to have succeeded in doing is suggesting that in some way a real self is somehow deluded about something.

Stop guffing on about creationists. I can point to loads of arguments from atheists about what they think the implications of things are but like creationism that has nothing to do with this.

There is no 'experiencer other than' means that there is an experiencer.  That is the self.

So to recap. If the self is an illusion, what is it that is having the illusion since the brain functions from which the self emerges are incapable of experiencing illusions? 

[Bramble]

What is it that is having the illusion though. All you seem to have succeeded in doing is suggesting that in some way a real self is somehow deluded about something.

Stop guffing on about creationists. I can point to loads of arguments from atheists about what they think the implications of things are but like creationism that has nothing to do with this.

There is no 'experiencer other than' means that there is an experiencer.  That is the self.

So to recap. If the self is an illusion, what is it that is having the illusion since the brain functions from which the self emerges are incapable of experiencing illusions?

Can't there simply be experience?

If that is so then what is experienced as 'I' - the first person perspective - is just another aspect of experience. There is no grounding subject that has an experience  You don't own or control your experience. Nor are you found in the parts or the sum of your experience. There is no findable independent entity which is you.

Any appearance of self as something separate and foundational would therefore be deceptive - an illusion - but this is simply part of experience. The illusion may seem real, maybe more real than anything else. It is a real experience. And conventionally, of course, we can still speak and think in terms of selves and persons. It would be absurd not to - nominal selves do exist and function and they're no less significant to us for being only nominal.

[Sriram]

I think I'd go along with that, with the exception that there probably is no such thing as the 'actual' reality since Einstein dispensed with Newton, there is no objective frame of reference

When you agree that all experiences are subjective and that objective reality is an illusion...why are you denying the existence of a Subject?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any appearance of self as something separate and foundational would therefore be deceptive - an illusion

What is it then that is having the illusion since none of the brain functions involved can experience an illusion?

[torridon]

When you agree that all experiences are subjective and that objective reality is an illusion...why are you denying the existence of a Subject?

depends what you mean by 'Subject'. Everything has a subjective aspect, but if by 'Subject' you mean soul/spirit/self, then I don't think such a thing exists as an irreducible ontologically distinct part of the cosmos, rather it is an emergent phenomenon of mind, ie it is high order spatially and temporally derivative, not fundamental.

[Sriram]

depends what you mean by 'Subject'. Everything has a subjective aspect, but if by 'Subject' you mean soul/spirit/self, then I don't think such a thing exists as an irreducible ontologically distinct part of the cosmos, rather it is an emergent phenomenon of mind, ie it is high order spatially and temporally derivative, not fundamental.

Is it just your aversion to religious and spiritual issues (the God phobia) that makes you think of such convoluted possibilities...?!

[Sebastian Toe]

My point is that the self is not an illusion.

What is it then?

[torridon]

Is it just your aversion to religious and spiritual issues (the God phobia) that makes you think of such convoluted possibilities...?!

No, it merely follows from the observation that there is no cortical structure that houses a 'self' or a 'subject'.  The sensation of there being an experiencer is really just an function of experience, as Bramble says.

[torridon]

What is it that is having the illusion though. All you seem to have succeeded in doing is suggesting that in some way a real self is somehow deluded about something.

Stop guffing on about creationists. I can point to loads of arguments from atheists about what they think the implications of things are but like creationism that has nothing to do with this.

There is no 'experiencer other than' means that there is an experiencer.  That is the self.

So to recap. If the self is an illusion, what is it that is having the illusion since the brain functions from which the self emerges are incapable of experiencing illusions?

See Bramble reply #78, pretty much on the money, i think

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See Bramble reply #78, pretty much on the money, i think

Bramble asks can't there just be experience'.
Even if there can be that seems irrelevant to the self and no explanation as to the awareness of experience.
It is a diversion. Also Bramble has to come back on what it is that is having the illusion.

Can there just be illusion without anything experiencing it?
Well no,

Which brings us all back to the question. If the self is an illusion.....what is it which is having the illusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is it then?

It is an emergent property of brain function.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. There is no findable independent entity which is you.

I've found it and so have you. In fact it is a little hard to miss. Is it independent? Yes in the sense that none of the functions from which it arises possess the property.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is an emergent property of brain function.

Ok.
Purely as a result of biological functions?

[torridon]

Bramble asks can't there just be experience'.
Even if there can be that seems irrelevant to the self and no explanation as to the awareness of experience.
It is a diversion. Also Bramble has to come back on what it is that is having the illusion.

Can there just be illusion without anything experiencing it?
Well no,

Which brings us all back to the question. If the self is an illusion.....what is it which is having the illusion.

if my toe is hurting, what is it that is experiencing pain ? Is it my toe ? Not that simple, is it.  The sensation of pain is a qualia created by mind and projected to feel as if it is located in my toe.  That proprioception function, mapping to body, is part of how the mind creates a phenomenological mirror to the physical body

[Sriram]

No, it merely follows from the observation that there is no cortical structure that houses a 'self' or a 'subject'.  The sensation of there being an experiencer is really just an function of experience, as Bramble says.

What is your view of the Unconscious mind that forms 90% of our Consciousness....but lies below the surface?

[torridon]

What is your view of the Unconscious mind that forms 90% of our Consciousness....but lies below the surface?

In a nutshell, it is all our 'memories' for want of a better word, that are not in focus in the current moment.

[wigginhall]

if my toe is hurting, what is it that is experiencing pain ? Is it my toe ? Not that simple, is it.  The sensation of pain is a qualia created by mind and projected to feel as if it is located in my toe.  That proprioception function, mapping to body, is part of how the mind creates a phenomenological mirror to the physical body

Yes, the question "what is it that is having the experience of X", presupposes the idea of dualism, that there is an experiencer and the experienced.   So it's starting with the answer that it wants.  Admittedly, dropping dualism feels weird for many people, but is also craved.    But I suppose Alan's insistence on thinking having a thinker goes along the same tramline, of thinking that grammar, (subject, verb, object), is reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok.
Purely as a result of biological functions?

Why not?
After all as religion said centuries before Dougla Adam's likened us to puddles, we come from dust and we go to dust.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if my toe is hurting, what is it that is experiencing pain ? Is it my toe ? Not that simple, is it.  The sensation of pain is a qualia created by mind and projected to feel as if it is located in my toe.

Projected where and onto what?

[torridon]

On to where it calculates your toe to be

[Sebastian Toe]

Why not?
After all as religion said centuries before Dougla Adam's likened us to puddles, we come from dust and we go to dust.

I don't see why not but then I'm not the person staring that it is logical that the self exists in another (timeless) place and somehow visits our bodies, in this universe/spacetime to interrogate the brain in order to make real-time decisions.
What are your thoughts on that as a piece of logical thinking?

[Sriram]

In a nutshell, it is all our 'memories' for want of a better word, that are not in focus in the current moment.

You seriously think the Unconscious mind, which is 90% of our consciousness....is just a store house of memories? 

You do know that the Unconscious mind takes all decisions before our conscious mind is even aware of it.  The Placebo effect is said to be because of the unconscious mind.  Many spontaneous cures are said to be because of the unconscious mind.

According to David Eagleman....“The conscious you, which is the part that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning, is the smallest bit of what’s happening in your head….It’s like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.”

[torridon]

You seriously think the Unconscious mind, which is 90% of our consciousness....is just a store house of memories? 

You do know that the Unconscious mind takes all decisions before our conscious mind is even aware of it.  The Placebo effect is said to be because of the unconscious mind.  Many spontaneous cures are said to be because of the unconscious mind.

According to David Eagleman....“The conscious you, which is the part that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning, is the smallest bit of what’s happening in your head….It’s like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.”

Yes, that is right.  Unconscious mind is all mind bar the whatever is in focus in the current moment.  I use 'memories' in the broadest sense, to include all your habits of mind, your prejudices, your motor skills, language skills, preferences, personality, all such things are 'stored', hence forms of memory.