See also EgoFeature
Self Identification is the central line of code in everyone’s conceptual network. It determines our sense of Self. Currently for most people this central line of code contains the identification: Self = Immediate Human Body (including of course the Mind that emerges from Body).
Identification with a vulnerable Human Body/Mind causes a great deal of our fearful and defensive stance vis a vis the rest of the world. This fear for our vulnerable Body/Mind gives rise to a Body/Mind-centered stance vis a vis others and the rest of the world.
The false line of code is Self = Immediate Human Body/Mind is the EgoBug that causes our Body/Mind to usurp the center of our lives. The EgoBug infects our very sense of Self!
Self = Immediate Human Body/Mind is demonstrably false. Self is that which experiences our lives. Since the Human Body/Mind is something we can all observe, it cannot be the Self. Let us call that which experiences our lives “the Observer”.
Each of us has “the Observer” to a lesser or greater degree. It is the Observer in each of us that is the Real Self. Since the Observer cannot Oneself be observed, the Observer is not an Object. The Observer is therefore Pure Subject.
When we eradicate the EgoBug by deleting the identification: Self = Immediate Human Body/Mind, Self gets automatically identified with the default Self, namely the observer of our lives. Our identity reverts from Object to Subject. This is the most important single change that needs to take place in each of us, if only because this will automatically initiate the gradual correction and integration of each one’s conceptual network. The more our conceptual Network is corrected and integrated, the more we will each live from our default identity as the Pure Observational Facet of the Universe, or Universal Spirit.
The Observational Standpoint lets us:
OmidyarDotNet has a discussion and a fair amount of action around defining and deleting the EgoBug. You have to sign in to read/participate though (will work on getting this changed). I was introduced to this topic by RaviArapurakal who is one of my mentors. If anyone is interested, I’ll invite him here to discuss it with us.
Hmm, I recently read an essay called “The Multiple Self” that uses the same kind of metaphors about the self, except it’s more descriptive than prescriptive (which I think is good - I don’t particularly want to get rid of my “Ego bug”, but being aware of how I work is Good).
Key quote:
Pretty similar, eh ? 
Also, in the comments:
Emile, I’m off to read the Multiple Self now … thanks for the link 
And, when you say “I don’t particularly want to get rid of my EgoBug” do you mean “I believe Self == Immediate Human Body and I want to keep believing that”?
I don’t know if I’d say “Self == Immediate Human Body” - it’s not a matter of believing or not, it’s a matter of how you define “self”. I’ve got no problem with the idea that the “observer” isn't completely in charge.
I guess I don’t fully understand what this page is about (is it about the ego, defined as being a bug, or is it about a bug in our ego ?), but there are some conclusions I don’t really agree with (“The universe as our true common body”) - to me, other people are other people, and information about the self, the ego, consciousness or whatever won’t change that. Mind uploading, brain-computer interface, technological telepathy and the like might, though.
I too have difficulty with the idea here.
I am Soul. I inhabit a mind, which in turn inhabits a body, which in turn inhabits a world.
I don’t think most people have the “EgoBug” as described here.
If anything could be a “problem,” it would be identifying with mind. And I don’t think even that is a problem. Recognizing how we’re not our mind is useful as far as achieving enlightenment goes, but I don’t think it’s a major achievement in social progress.
People will still fight and argue and disagree, whether they think they are their mind, or not. They will still have “acceptable,” “unacceptable,” and “forbidden.” And they will disagree on where the borders for those things are.
Metaphysical nitpicks:
I talk about the HiveMind a lot, but: It’s a separate thing. A human cell is not the human body.
I’ve refactored the DocumentMode portion of this page, and started to address the comments that have built up. Thoughts on the refactoring?
>> I don't know if I'd say "Self == Immediate Human Body" - it's not >> a matter of believing or not, it's a matter of how you define "self"
This is indeed the crux. How do you define self? What are you?
When I contemplatively trace “self” back to its essential nub, I find: “That which is self in me is identical to that which is self in you.” The actual flesh of our bodies and the mindsets that have been uploaded into them differs a great deal … but the core that is life and awareness is the same. In fact the supercool emergent thing that is life can be seen to more or less degree in every living thing. That supercool emergent thing called life is what drives evolution to greater complexity and specificity. While this can be understood rationally, it remains a powerless (lifeless) construct until it is grasped through the eye of contemplation. This one of the fundamental realizations that zazen meditation leads toward.
>> I guess I don't fully understand what this page is about (is it about >> the ego, defined as being a bug, or is it about a bug in our ego ?), >> but there are some conclusions I don't really agree with ("The universe >> as our true common body") - to me, other people are other people, and >> information about the self, the ego, consciousness or whatever won't change >> that. Mind uploading, brain-computer interface, technological telepathy >> and the like might, though.
Certainly there is a real and functionally very important distinction to be made between the Emile Body and the Brandon Body (and likewise between the Emile Mind that emerges from the Emile Body and the Brandon Mind that emerges from the Brandon Body). And … that distinction no longer deserves its place upon the pedestal of self-identity. What is of primary coolness with regard to you and of primary coolness with regard to me is exactly the same thing. The special abilities and deficits of our flesh with respect to other flesh is cool … but not as cool as the life that animates us and drives our awareness.
Lion, you say
>> I am Soul. I inhabit a mind, which in turn inhabits a body, which in turn inhabits a world.
What is soul?
You also say “Recognizing how we’re not our mind is useful as far as achieving enlightenment goes, but I don’t think it’s a major achievement in social progress” and then assert that people will still fight and argue and disagree.
While I am with you that people will still fight and argue and disagree, I believe “enlightenment” brings about a major shift in how one relates to others. Social progress fundamentally springs from enlightenment. If every body’s mindset became more like that of the dali lama I think that our fights, arguments and disagreements would be less likely to bridge into violence. Please list some major desirable achievement in social progress that you believe is of paramount importance. I’ll then seek to show how it springs from this fundamental shift in awareness.
I agree that you’re mind is not the same as Emile’s or mine. And … I’ll assert that the property of consciousness or awareness that emerges from and participates through our body/minds is the same fundamental thing. Awareness is seeing through Emile’s eyes right now just as it is seeing through your eyes.
>> People very clearly ''are'' in conflict with one another. One mind >> wants one thing, another wants another, and they disagree and struggle >> with each other.
Indeed, individual body/minds are in conflict with one another. But saying that “we” are in conflict is falling prey to the EgoBug. There is no “we” other than the one awareness that perceives through each of us.
>> I talk about the HiveMind a lot, but: It's a separate thing. A human cell is not the human body.
The HiveMind emerges from the structured interaction of human minds in the same way that the human body emerges from the structured interaction of cells. In both cases, that which emerges from the arrangement of the parts is greater than the sum of the parts … I guess that means that in some ways the emergent coolness is distinct or separate from the parts it emerges from. It is also deeply connected and dependent upon those parts as well.
I Soul as “Consciousness” or “Awareness” or “Experience,” but not mind, computation, processing, or substance.
Things we know about Soul; Undebatable truths:
(It’s not by dogma that these are debateable; It’s simply that if they are debated, it’s either a misunderstanding of terms, or else the other person really isn’t talking about experience, and probably can’t be communicated with more. Everybody who’s experienced experience would have to agree with the above things.)
Things that we don’t know about Soul:
This is what I mean by “Soul.”
These are things that I am certain about, but certain about knowning, and certain about not knowing.
Certainty is an attribute of the mind. There are experiences of worlds that are not inspired by mind. (Though they are completely bound by logic.) Observations in those realms lead me to accept other ideas. However, I’m not certain of those ideas; I can only have faith in them.
Awareness & Emile:
I accept the assertion that there is a Soul in Emile, looking out through his eyes, and that Soul in Emile is the same type as Soul looking out through my eyes.
However, I do not believe that it’s the same Soul.
A few points on this:
Most specificly: I do not believe that there is one awareness looking through all of us.
I do believe that there is one universal mind, operating through all of our incarnations. We can call it: “The Grand Simulation,” or “The Demiurge” (the master craftsman, or master technician.) We can call it “the Matrix,” like in the movie. We could call it “Universal Mind” or “Cosmic Mind” or something like that.
But it is a gearworks, a machine, a computer, a story, a dream, a theory, a contraption, a device, a record, a pattern. It is plausible that it is intimately connected with something that is aware, I don’t really know. But I am saying, this thing, in this aspect, is the only thing that I accept sharing with Emile.
But actual experience, I do not accept is shared with Emile, and it is not a mistake or a bug, either: We genuinely see through different eyes, and genuinely see different things. Since I am what sees, (Soul,) then I would have noticed an equivalence. But there is no such equivalence, and so we clearly must be different things.
Again, Soul is literal, and it cannot be “fooled.” It is either experiencing, or it is not experiencing; There is no such thing as “fooling” it, or it “thinking wrong.” It can’t experience one thing in reality, but falsly believe itself to be experiencing another.
It could be observing a confused mind. It could be tracking a creature that thinks that it itself doesn’t exist. It could be tracking a creature that thought 1+1=3. DeCartes? may have summoned an Evil Genius to totally wack out the mind under observation by the Soul. But the experience of all these things remains constant, and the experiencer won’t experience anything other than what it is truely experiencing. That’s what I’m calling the “literalness” of Soul.
Note that a hypothetical God could experience everything, but still not be the same thing as Soul (or “be one with Soul.”) That is because the Soul is conceivably not a thing- only experiencable subjects are things. The hypothetical God may well be observing everything you observe. But that’s just two Souls tapping into one subject. It does not mean that the Souls are identical. (Note that, God, if it is concious, must be a Soul; The word Consciousness can be substituted everywhere here for “Soul,” and it makes just as much sense, and is just as true.) Perhaps the hypothetical God is a Soul with special access priviledges or something (this would require that Soul has some ability to select, or volition.) But it would be a Soul nonetheless.
So: This is what I am. I am not my mind, I am not my body. I am Soul.
I personally think it is valuable if people identify themselves this way. I think we would have a more spiritually realized world if people thought of themselves similarly.
That said: I am not convinced that such a recognition would lead to the end of conflict. While some problems would be solved, new ones would be opened. People may struggle against a Matrioshka Brain that they do not believe is truly aware. Zombie wars against skeptics are plausible as well. Transhumanist Post-vegans may argue that plant matter has soul, and that uploading and consuming sunlight is the only way forward. The original vegans may then counter-argue that the uploads are not aware, they are only hollow machines.
Further, the view says very little about the way that we should live; Christians and Muslims may still well destroy each other.
I think our minds are in near complete agreement on what Soul/Awareness/Consciousness is. The single bit that I would like to clarify is this: does the HiveMind have a Soul?
Deleting the EgoBug is necessary but insufficient to bring about an end to conflict. Once we delete the EgoBug, we must systematically evaluate and garden our culturally uploaded mindsets.
I don’t know; I don’t think so.
If it did, it would be very strange.
That would mean that nations have souls, to. Or any time a group of people get together and work together, a Soul pops into existance. Very strange.
Do cells in your body have Souls? Do ants have Souls? Do chimps or orangs have Souls? Do sperm and egg have Souls? Does a fetus have a Soul? Do babies have Souls? Does your body have a Soul?
No … There is only one Soul and that Soul is present wherever there is life/awareness/consciousness (however rudimentary).
The information exchange between neurons is functionally equivalent to the information exchange between human bodies. If it doesn’t seem strange to say that your Soul is observing the world through your two separate eyes, why does it seem strange to say that the Soul of all life is observing the world through billions of separate eyes?
If there is only one Soul, the question is: Why am I not experiencing the experience that everyone else is having?
What reason is there for believing such a counter-intuitive idea?
But then there is the question: People communicating with one another by words (the HiveMind) is similar to parts of the brain talking with each other using electrical signals (the Mind); Why then wouldn’t there be a Soul observing the HiveMind?
I don’t know that there isn’t. But, I can say this: If there is one, it’s different than me; It is a different Soul than the Soul that I am. It is an other, a different entity. Otherwise, by definition, I would be seeing through it’s eyes right now. (And I’m not.)
The existance of a Soul observing the HiveMind is strange, but it’s not unthinkable. It may very well be a reality. It could be that every planet has a Soul that is observing through the machineray of all the life on the planet. No more rediculous than a Soul that is observing through the machinery of all the life in a body.
It is just a very distant thing.
One thing I would note, is that if there is such a Soul, it is not speaking to us about itself.
The human body & brain machinery that should not know about Souls or Awarenesses or Consciousness (because Consciousness does not influence machinery) somehow sees fit to address experience. And, it clearly means something different than processing, it’s talking about the honest-to-god “observer.” The machinery either knows it is being observed, or the observers have simply chosen to observe only defective machines that acknowledge the presence of the observers.
Regardless of how this strangeness works itself out- there is no corresponding declaration of self-existance that comes with the sum total of all life. There are documents that say, “This is the United States, this is how it runs, it is a cybernetic organism consisting of the following parts…” …but nowhere does the United States say: “I am the United States, I am Aware, Conscious of myself, I make mountains to move, I move blood through my roads.”
Then again, perhaps it thinks these thoughts to itself through a vehicle called “a poet.”
But we don’t really know; We don’t even know if there are Souls in other people.
So, I am left somewhat inconclusive.
As for the EgoBug; I personally think it’s a property of self-preservation. All cybernetic organisms that are going to survive in some niche need a plan for self-preservation, and self-autonomy. I think that’s where our problems come from, but I don’t think it is solvable. A person without an EgoBug is a person who is going to accept any old programming from anybody. Such selflessness is reckless and dangerous; I can’t imagine wanting to live in such a world..! People preserve what they know is true and valuable, because they don’t want that information to be lost. Every person is keeping the Truth alive within themselves; They don’t want it to break apart, because they value it.
If someone had no “EgoBug,” we could quickly indoctrinate the person with whatever truth we wanted them to. We could put a different EgoBug in it’s place- what ground would the person have for rejecting it?
How can we assume that a person without an EgoBug could be more easily indoctrinated than a person with one? Isn’t the Soul already in place to review, evaluate and determine which programming is to be retained?
In the absence of the EgoBug, doesn’t Soul function instead?
It’s not clear to me that the Soul performs any function, at all.
(Lion, have you been reading some KurtVonnegut? ?)
I’m still not sure of what is meant by EgoBug : - Is it the idea that “I” (whatever that is) am fully the same thing as my body ? (as opposed to the idea that there are some parts “I” don’t really control, “I”‘m just pretending : the “Maggie Simpson” model) - Is it the idea that “I” am different from the universe at large and all consciousnesses it contains ?
(As much as possible, I prefer to avoid words like “soul” to which a lot of people give different definitions)
A question that might help me understand : do rabbits have an “EgoBug” ?
Well, I think we nailed down “Soul” pretty squarely, above. 
No, I haven’t read KurtVonnegut?. Did see Slaughterhouse 5 a long time ago, though.
I think EgoBug refers to thinking of ourselves as individual minds, brains, or bodies.
I agree that it’s a misidentification to think that we are the same things as our minds. However, it seems to me that the “EgoBug” is a property of the mind, and that it is appropriate for a mind to think of itself as a separate mind.
I agree with the notion that Souls are the same sort of thing as one another. I don’t agree that they are the same thing: You can have 13 atoms of Oxygen. They are all Oxygen. But those 13 atoms are still different than one another.
But even recognizing that the Souls are of the same type, it doesn’t mean that our minds all will have no problems. Souls and minds are worlds apart. Minds will always disagree with each other, and they will always have separate identities. At least, I hope so.
Souls just watch stuff. I don’t think they actually do anything. It’s possible that they do, either by selection (choosing which dream to watch) or manipulation (changing the dream,) but it’s not at all clear that they select or choose at all. The universe may just take it’s flows, and we watch (strict determinism.) I am sympathetic to all 3 views, really, but make no decisions among them.
Let’s begin with the question asked through Emile: “Do rabbits have an EgoBug?”
The answer is: Extremly unlikely. And here’s why. Consciousness in both humans and rabbits perceive through their respective senses. Some of what is perceived gets noticed. Let’s call such units of notice – percepts.
Each of these percepts is an experience. An abstract facsimile of each percept is copied and stored as a concept, which is an abstract form of the percept, which can also later be noticed as a memory.
Let’s say consciousness, through both the human and the rabbit, experienced a car rolling toward them through their respective senses of sight. They would both have a concept of the car stored in their respective brains.
Concepts get linked in both human and rabbit brains. Both humans and rabbits also link concepts in ways that they experienced associations or relationships between experiences.
Let us say that consciousness in both the human and the rabbit also heard a screeching sound when they saw the car. They also copied this sound in the form of a concept.
Let’s look at these concepts as nodes of information stored in the respective brains of the human and the rabbit. There are also links among such nodes, as when the concept of the sight of the car gets linked to the concept of the sound of the car in the brains of the human and the rabbit respectively.
This is commonly known as learning. Both humans and rabbits link concepts in ways that they experienced associations or relationships between experiences, as we have seen above.
Rabbits seem to get all their concepts they possess as copies of their sensory experiences. But this is as far as rabbits seem to get to go. Humans go further.
With humans, a lot more seems to happen. As the concepts formed by each human are stored in that human’s brain, these concepts are invisible to consciousness except to the consciousness viewing into the human in whose brain the concept is stored.
So humans have a second layer of sensory experiences in the form of sights and sounds that refer to something OTHER than these sounds or signs, namely language.
So humans have a specific sound and sign for the concept of the car as seen, and another specific sound for the concept of the car as heard.
Consciousness that saw the car and heard it now transfers the non-sensory concepts of these experiences by forming the sights and sounds that refer to each concept, namely language.
Here’s where humans really get away from rabbits in terms of what they seem to do. Consciousness through humans sometimes get language signs for concepts that refer to percepts that no active (operating through a human or other creature) consciousness has ever had.
This means that consciousness cannot actually have a concept for the reality that perceives what is stored within the creature’s brain. But it does through humans. This word is self. Self is the sound and symbol that refers to whatever is experiencing all the experiences had through a particular creature.
Rabbits are not known to have any concept that can be referred to as self, if only because there is no basis for consciousness to be able to have a concept either for the rabbit’s body, or to have experienced a word that refers to it. But humans do, and and a link between this concept of self and the concept of body. This information link between these two nodes of information comprises the Egobug. So Egobugs occur in humans, but are unlikely to in rabbits.
The Egobug is a false association formed as a result of the mistaken interpretation of consciousness perceiving as a human perceiving.
Now let us (consciousness) get to the point made through Lion. “it seems to me that the “EgoBug” is a property of the mind, and that it is appropriate for a mind to think of itself as a separate mind.”
Consciousness is saying through Ravi that Oneself (consciousness) is the only subject or agent in the entire system. Everything else, like humans or rabbits is either a vantage point, or a filter or a prop that allows specific kinds of experiences to occur, or specific kinds of actions to be executed, depending upon the capability of the instrument, eyes, ears, legs, hands, mouth, tongue, etc.
Mind cannot be a subject. It can be experienced, and noticed. So mind cannot think. Thinking is the process that occurs as a product of consciousness, namely the means by which new nodes are formed or linked or existing nodes are linked, unlinked or relinked in the infomration system of concsiousness. And to refer to an object such as mind doing or thinking is an error of misplaced agency or subjecthood.
Of course, there is the word ‘mind’. If mind is a catchall referring to all the conceptual objects and events that occur, that is reasonable. But when ‘mind’ is upgraded to also having a capability it doesn’t possess, i.e., to observe, to experience, to notice, to think, etc., we need to ask what is meant by the use of that word in this way. Does the concept for ‘mind’ include the concept for consciousness in the information system stored in Lion’s brain?
Assumption A: “Thinking is the process that occurs as a product of consciousness.”
I disagree, unless consciousness is defined as the activity of neurons and the brain.
Let’s describe two things:
Object B: The entity at the end of an experience (a “percept”) that experiences light & sound & what not.
Object C: Mental calculations, processing, nodes, linking, and the various machinery of mind that take place in a brain.
I think that Object C (what I call “the mind”) is either entirely responsible for thinking, or mostly responsible for thinking. Why do I think this way? Because we can crack open a skull, look at a brain, and observe that the motions are due to the firings of neurons. We have not seen any evidence (yet!) of “spooky” action, as an Object B (a Soul, a consciousness,) manipulates the process in ways that betray the 4 laws of physics (and I mean: Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity.) The laws are not important; What is important here is the concept of machinery and determinism. We see no evidence of “EtherealMachinery,” or “cosmic forces of the soul.”
That is: It’s entirely plausible to me that Object C is responsible for thinking, however concepts and links between concepts are encoded in the brain. (It’s plausible to me that concepts and links between concepts are somehow an illusion, and that the conceptual network is actually an appearance. Perhaps some other system is at work, that, when an Object B looks at it, it appears to be a concept grid. Neuroscience is way too young for us to think too seriously about how it all works down there.)
So I disagree with Assumption A if by “consciousness”, you mean “Object B.” If you mean Object C, though, I find the view much more agreeable.
Let’s now consider three possibilities:
Possibility D: Soul (Object B) selects universes to observe, out of the multiverse of all possible universes, but does not manipulate them. (The “dream” hypothesis: The soul is a dreamer, the world a dream.)
Possibility E: Soul can manipulate the physical world. (The “magical universe” hypothesis.)
Possibility F: Soul appears whenever there is something that notes itself. (The “self-reference births consciousness” hypothesis.)
Possibility G: All energy and matter gives rise to Soul. (The “living table” hypothesis, named after the idea that tables are aware. More conventionally called, “panpsychism.”)
Possibility H: There is no such things as consciousness. It’s all just an illusion. (The “illusion” hypothesis.)
Possibility G can be stricken off the record as incredibly unlikely; Every single atom and every single collection of atoms would have to be aware. If you have 5 atoms, you have 5 single-atom awarenesses, 10 two-atom awarenesses, 10 three-atom awarenesses, 5 four-atom awarenesses, and 1 five-atom awareness, for a total of 31 awarenesses. This is assuming that awarenesses form around atoms, and not fermions, in which case there may be a gadjillion awarenesses in there.
If you say, “only specially connected matter” is aware, then pan-psychism has border problems. So, I think it’s safe to put a dash through Possibility F.
Possibility F can be stricken off for similar reasons. I can write a program that notes whether or not the IP (instruction pointer) is increasing. As the program advances, it checks to see whether it is advancing. This is simple enough to do, the program can be written in say, 10 bytes. Yet I don’t think anyone would seriously believe that a consciousness is observing the program.
Possibility E is what you are proposing: The “magical world” hypothesis. The problem is that we have no evidence of spooky action in the brain. There does not appear to be anything beyond the 4 laws of physics at work in the brain.
It is entirely plausible that, within a decade (by 2015,) almost certainly within two decades (by 2025,) that we will witness the hippocampus of a rat completely simulated. Not only simulated, but made to function within a living, breathing, rat. If we do this regularly, I think we will (rightly) lose all faith in possibility E. (And, also, Assumption A: “Thinking is what an observer does.”)
Which leads us with two possibilities: D (“dream”) and H (“illuson”.)
Given such meager choices, most physicalist (“there is nothing beyond the universe”) scientists opt for H. But we can dismiss H immediately: There is very clearly an experience. Furthermore, it is impossible to claim that experience has been “fooled” into believing that it is experiencing. Experience does not distinguish between reality and illusion; It always experiences, regardless. An experience of an illusion is just as much an experience as an experience of a reality; It makes no matter. So it is impossible to state that an awareness has been fooled into experiencing awareness. It is completely absurd. As attractive as H is to many scientists, we can clearly take the big black felt pen to it, and cross out H.
Which leaves us with only D: The Dream hypothesis. Clearly, this world must be a dream.
This is where I stand.
Now: There is wiggle room here, for all possibilities but H. As counter-intuitive as they may be, they are plausible. There’s also a problem with D, which lends me to give more credit to E, F, and G.
The problem with D, is that we are talking about Self right now. Specificly, we are talking about the concept of Object B. Somehow, knowledge of Object B has entered a world that should only rightly know about Object C’s. (That is: If observers do not affect the world, how is it that there is knowledge of it in the Object C world?) Ravi, I think that you were alluding to this dilemma in your response.
It is indeed strange. In defense of D, I suggest that perhaps the dreamer only picks dreams where the existence of the dreamer is acknowledged, even if it is a strangely warped system that happens to imagine such things. But this proposition is clearly a metaphysical band-aid, a hack, an absurdity introduced from necessity, right? Nobody would be proud of such an idea. Yes, there it is, and it may be true.
But we’ve already seen the problems with E, F, and G as well.
We can revisit E, the magical world hypothesis, which I believe Ravi agrees with. The magical world hypothesis’ account for our knowledge of Object B (the Soul) in an Object C world (the brain, the mind) is clear: Object B put the thought there. Since the Soul is responsible for thought (or at least some of it; I’m reluctant to say all thinking comes from the Soul, when we know that the eye does pre-processing on vision, before sending data through the optic nerve, for example,) the Soul can then obviously think about itself, which means injecting the notion of itself into the brain. Problem solved.
You just have that very pesky problem of having put magic into the universe.
Very well then; I can accept that there may be magic in the universe. We haven’t seen it, at least not in a way that is accepted by mainstream science. We haven’t seen enough convincing evidence of such a thing. But I can accept that it may be true: Consciousnesses may manipulate matter.
Very well then: Where does this leave the EgoBug?
I now have two impressions of what the EgoBug is supposed to mean, taken from Brandon and Ravi respectively.
My impressions from the two of you:
Both of you seem to share the idea that clearing the EgoBug (whatever it may be) is the essential beginning of liberation.
Okay. Here are my thoughts.
Brandon: I cannot agree with my understanding of what you said. Souls are clearly distinct, because I’m not seeing through you (and everyone elses) eyes right now. Soul is the observer. For two Souls to be identical, they must be observing the same thing, if they are occupying the same time. Since that is clearly not the case, (assuming we occupy the “same time,”) Souls are distinct from one another.
Ravi: I can agree with my understanding of what you mean by the EgoBug. I frequently wish people were more discriminating about their sense of Self. I have met people who are very confused about the meaning of the word “Consciousness” or “Self,” and they equate processing (the brain’s calculations and responses to stimuli, Object C) with experience (the experience of the Soul, the experience of light and sound, subjective experience, Object B). It is irritating to argue with such people, and I wish I could simply step on the EgoBug.
The reason I believe Ravi matches my thinking, is because of the following phrases:
As for the final question: “Is squashing the EgoBug the most important, most fundamental crux of liberation that we can imagine?”
…I am somewhat sympathetic, but I actually do not agree.
Why I am sympathetic:
But here is why I disagree:
Okay. That was a lot of words. I hope it was all clear!
Hmm, this is getting complicated
I was expected we’d end up talking about Zombies (Lion, I had read the stuff on that on the old taoriver wiki … not that I had much to say about it)
I don’t know which of the explanations of consciousness (“The Dream”, “It’s just an illusion”, etc.) I’d adopt. However, I don’t think that Ravi is adopting the “magical world” explanation - at least, that’s not how I understood him. I don’t know what my answer would be, but I suspect that “having a consciousness” (or, a Soul ?) is something similar to “being Turing-complete”. I tend to be more comfortable with the “geeky/AI” language than the language of philosophy. I like the “Multiple Self” description of how we work - we’re just a recently-added plugin who thinks it’s producing the data being piped through it. (“Soul is not mind. Soul is not body. Soul is not emotion. Soul is just a tiny script running in the background that thinks it’s in charge.”)
Also, I don’t see ethics and consciousness as that strongly related. Rational self-interest (and social contracts, and the iterated prisonner’s dilemna, and the golden rule, etc.) can explain a lot in ethics. I’m not saying we base our moral decisions on cold calculation, but that many of our ethics were evolved by our brain and our culture and our education because they were the best for us. Things like “don’t kill another consciousness” are heuristics that work pretty well, but I don’t think it’s something fundamental to the concept of consciousness.
(About the “killing other consciousnesses” question - imagine a robot that’s conscious (well, apparently), and that has the ability to copy it’s “mind” as any computer program. How “bad” would it be to kill such a robot, considering that it has a lot of “brothers” running around ?)
It’s not enough to suspect that having a consciousness is “something similar” to “being Turing-complete.” You have to have some clear concept of why it should be the case. What you are describing is basically a combination of F and H. F is the one where: “If I write a program that notes it’s own motion, then it is aware,” and H is the one “Awareness is being fooled; it’s not really aware.” The argument in rejection of those two possibilities applies.
I agree that they are more convincing (on the surface) to a scientificly minded person: There is nothing spooky about them. However, they are both false, and easily thwarted. Unless you have a good argument to undercut the arguments against them.
It’s not legitimate to say that “Soul is just a tiny script running in the background that thinks it’s in charge,” because we’ve defined Soul by now, and this script does not address the definition. There’s nothing about this script that necessitates that it result in an actual experience. What I am saying is that there is no need for experience. Everything could have happened, just as well, in a closed box, that nobody ever saw. All the processing that occurs requires zero experience. That we do experience introduces an explanatory gap. Your job now is to cross the explanatory gap, and explain why your proposed little script can produce awareness. This is a magical action, in my book, just as spooky as the concept that awareness manipulates physics. That it goes in the other direction (physical to awareness, rather than awareness to physical) makes it no less spooky.
This makes scientists uncomfortable. The scientist sincerely believes that everything can be understood in terms of the four laws of physics alone. But there is simply no account of experience. Scientists play ignorant, as if they didn’t know what experience was- because either simple ignorance (unlikely,) or, more likely (to me
because if they did, they couldn’t explain it.
When you talk with Zombie scientists, they suddenly express dumbfoundment at the concept “what is awareness? what is experience? what is this nonsense you speak of?” And yet we are all very clearly aware. There is no waking someone who is pretending to be asleep. Rare but valueable are the scientists that admit their own awareness. They all (necessarily) recognize the mystery of it, because they see the explanatory gap.
Hm, don’t have very strong opinions about this; I’m fairly unsure of what I’m saying.
About the “script running in the background” - agreed, it doesn’t do much to address the question of “consciousness”, but rather the relationship between “consciousness” and the rest of our mind (Which is where I see the EgoBug).
Anyway, where do I place “experience” ? I’ll probably go for something along the lines of possibility F - the “self-reference births consciousness” hypothesis, but with a bit stricter conditions. I’d say something like “self-knowledge births consciousness”, to have consciousness a system would need some kind of symbolic knowledge representation that includes a concept for itself. And I don’t mean an XL spreadsheet with “XL” (or “this program”) written in one of the fields - I mean a system that really knows about itself, that “understands” itself. I’d suspect quite a few animals have ideas about “things”, but there probably aren’t that many who classify themselves and their peers in the same category. A chicken can recognize a worm, a human, etc, and generally knows how to deal with those. SO, inside the chicken’s mind there’s probably a category “worm”, a category “checken”, etc. But I don’t think it places itself in the cateogy “chicken”. Something like a cockroach may not even have that kind of fancy stuff, the receptor for “light” is probably almost directly connected to the trigger for “turn around and run away”. More important animals (humans, probably monkeys and dolphins and the like) also have “symbols” and “tags” for things, but are also capable of fitting themselves in that structure.
You may say, yeah but I can program the artificial intelligence of this goblin in this video game so that he also has a category for “himself” and knows that he’s in the category “goblin” like those other green things running around - but that doesn’t mean he has consciousness ! - well, I don’t know, but I’d say the goblin doesn’t “really” know about itself - it was “told” that it “is” that goblin with the red hat (In a sense, it was given the “ego bug”), but that’s not very different from it being told to control that goblin with the red hat. It knows about goblins, that they will die if they fall in the water and that they have a +2 bonus when attacking faeries, but it doesn’t place the “real” itself (that is, the program) in the picture. It would also need to know that it can perceive, it can think, etc. It’s probably possible to make a “conscious” program in a toy world, but it’s not as simple as just plugging an expert system to a video game.
So, something like self-reference. But, it has to know that it’s self-reference.
Things are easier with animals than with computer programs, because the “inert - conscious” range is fairly linear in animals, but in the things we can imagine in Artificial Intelligence, there are a whole lot of possible configurations - symbolic systems, systems that learn or not, deterministic or random stuff, lots of ways of building and storing knowledge - neural networks, genetic algorithms, etc. In life, things always work basically the same way - everything is in one animal and firmly focused on that animal’s interest, low-level neuron mechanics aren’t that accurate but it works on the long run. Higher level stuff (consciousness, knowing you should pull worms out of the ground with your beak) is always built on the same bases. In AI, we can built the higher-level stuff on different bases, self-interest is entirely optional, etc. So I’d expect the range of possibilities to be more subtle than “stupid - conscious”; there may be different ways of being conscious. (Which brings us back to the “Does the Hive Mind have a Soul ? Are poets it’s trains of thought ?” thingy)
(OK, I’m rambling now, I’ll go program a bit
)
We are beginning to get a sense of the conceptual nodes and links in the Lion Emile and Ravi conceptual networks.
Let’s find a common foundational fact, so we can build upon step by step.
Do we all agree that OBSERVATION is taking place? Like the observation right now as these words are being read. What words would you use to refer to what or who is observing these words, observing some apparent “meaning” of these words, observing some other conceptual stuff that arises in apparent response to the preceding observings?
The Ravi answers to these questions are: Observation is definitely taking place.
There are:
a) observation of lines of text on this computer screen;
b) observation of possible “meanings” that arise as the specific result of a specific line of text being read;
c) observation of notions that arise as a specific result of these meanings being observed;
d) observation of feelings that arise as a result of these notions; and
e) observation of notions that seem to be intended for typing in response.
Please let’s have Lion’s and Emile’s and Brandon’s, and anyone else’s response to observing the above questions as to whether observation is taking place.
Emile, you keep hopping back and forth over the explanatory gap, without bridging it.
Okay, let’s expand F, and call it “F-prime.” F-prime is like F, except that it requires that the system be capable of learning new things. And you’re saying, “If we have F-prime, if it can learn and also recognizes itself, then it is conscious.”
Okay, so let’s suppose we have F-prime. I have hardly any doubts that we will achieve it within 40 years, quite plausibly within 20 years.
You still have two problems:
If you redefine consciousness to mean “Anything that fit’s F-prime,” then you’ve haven’t answered the question. You’ve just said, “Here, let’s solve this simpler problem, and then switch back the words, and declare we’ve solved the hard problem, as well.”
Basically, you’ve just said: “I believe that things that match F-prime are conscious.” It’s a fair assumption, and I believe that way as well. But it does not explain why they would be conscious.
Do you understand why you still haven’t answered the problem of consciousness?
The understanding I find in my mind wrt Ravi’s questions: Observation IS taking place. (Life == awareness) is what is doing the observing.
To try and address Lion’s questions: The existence of stuff is a fundamental mystery. Included in that mystery is why (Life == awareness) ever emerges. I’m going to start by using the name PanPsychism for option G. PanPsychism is the interpretation of existence that I find most compelling.
To paraphrase Lion: PanPsychism is incredibly unlikely because there would be a gadjillion awarenesses
The existence of matter and energy is incredibly unlikely because there would be a gadjillion bits of the stuff. And yet I experience matter and energy, and furthermore … I experience experiencing. Given PanPsychism, self awareness (F) is simply one phase transition along the continuum of (life == awareness).
I realize that I’m not answering “why does life happen?” because I can’t answer it any more than I can answer the question “why is there something instead of nothing?”
I do believe in the legitimacy of PanPyschism? (G). We could propose a modification of PanPsychism, “G-prime.” It ascribes awareness to any field of information that is tightly coupled. We could account for the atomicity of awareness by saying that any “stray bits of awareness” within a given inter-connected region actually become one single experience. When stray bits depart, they actually birth a new awareness. I could imagine such a thing, though I don’t believe it; I am SelectivelyOpenMinded about it.
Trillions of awarenesses appearing when I touch my hand to the door, though, is simply too much.
We know that there are trillions of atoms; Why not trillions of awarenesses?
Simply because I see only one awareness. My intuition, shaped by communication with others, tells me that there are at least as many awarenesses as there are people. My intuition also tells me that animals are aware.
But recall that we are still talking about things that we cannot know except by intuition. To say that the subset of all arrangements of matter in my hand and the doorknob is simply too much for my intuition. My intuition explodes.
It is not large numbers themselves that my recoils at; It’s the proposed existance of large numbers of invisible things that causes me to jump back: OccamsRazor takes over.
To answer Ravi’s questions:
Do we all agree that observation is taking place?
I think it’s useful to distinguish three sorts of observation:
I believe that all three observations happen. I’m primarily interested in Object B’s & it’s ability to observe.
A physicalist (a believer in possibility H, the “illusion” hypothesis, “there is no such thing as consciousness,”) does not believe in Object B. That is, a physicalist will only mean by “observation” the activity of Object C & I, and will never confess to understanding what observation could mean otherwise.
My preferred words for object B is “Soul” or “Awareness.”
I would explicitly discriminate the concept of Soul from the following ideas:
While these are all things that can be connected with the idea of “Soul,” when I use it here, I mean to talk purely about Awareness, the observer, regardless of whether the other things exist or not, and have a bearing on the Soul or not.
I learned a word that I think is neat and useful in these conversations- the word is Phenomenology.” It means the study of what can be observed. It is one of the few sciences that very hapilly relies on internally reported subjective experience. Phenomenologists work on mapping out sensations, whether physical, emotional, mental, or subtle. Musical, colorful, whatever. The do it basically by sitting around and asking themselves what they see and notice!
So I agree that not only is processing happening within the brain, but also that there is an unnecessary (from the perspective of the processing) observation going on, as well.
Lion: Yes, ok, I’m saying something more on the lines of “I believe that things that match F-prime are conscious”. Which I admit doesn’t do much when it comes to explaining why and how.
I don’t see experience as “spooky” the way magical action is. I don’t expect to see it explained through the four laws of physics. (I’d rather expect an explanation on the lines of simulation, emulation, etc.) Weird, not easy to explain or to describe, but not really “spooky”. The question of “experience” doesn’t bug me.
How do we know it’s conscious ? I don’t know if we can. We generally accept that other people are conscious, but that’s because we figure out they were made the same way as us, and behave like us. But for computers and animals, it seems that it’s mostly unverifiable guesswork.
I’d say the difference between a zombie and someone with a soul is like the difference between a bag of marbles, and a pile of marbles that contains a definite number of marbles. The property “has experience” is (in my mind) necessary. All bags of marbles have a definite number of marbles inside, but, I don’t think that makes things more complicated, even if the behaviour of the bag of marbles does not require that number in any way.
(And no, I don’t claim that this explains the question fo consciousness.)
Wait, wait, wait.
An explanation that is on the lines of simulation, emulation, where the simulation itself is based on (or a simplification of) the four laws of physics, is still based on the four laws of physics. It is irrelevant if there are layers of complexity in between. A computer program is still based on the instruction set of the computer it runs on, regardless of how many abstractions are layered atop of it.
Saying that you expect experience to be explained by simulation simply means that you have faith that the information found in interaction between the four laws of physics will produce an explanation for experience. And I’m saying, “No way, no how.” Not unless you introduce another element into the equation; Not without something like PanPsychism, or some other explaining factor.
When you say: “The question of “experience” doesn’t bug me.” – do you mean: “I’m just not curious about experience?” or do you mean: “I can’t explain experience, but it’s not going to detract my faith that experience isn’t anything that the four fources can’t handle?” or do you mean: “I am fully confident that experience will be explained in terms of information transfers?”
I want to make sure you understand, experience is not a behavior. If you show me any behavior, and say, “See, that’s consciousness,” I’m going to say, “No, it’s not consciousness. It may be a mechanical correlate of consciousness, but it is not, itself, consciousness. And further, you’ve said that you can’t tell whether anything is conscious or not- so why the certainty in your expression?”
A bag encasing marbles, in a universe made entirely of marbles, would be a fascinating thing to discover. Sadly, the bags are all invisible, and known only to ourselves. It seems that we are the bags, at the most basic level.
Having received Lion’s confirmation that observation does take place, and not having received any comment to the contrary from Emile and Brandon, I am going to assume that all four of us acknowledge that observation does take place.
Lion, my use of the term ‘percept’ is for a unit of observed content; a sensory or conceptual or emotional datum; not any entity “that experiences light & sound & what not.” Indeed, I would say that the entity “that experiences light & sound & what not” any and all percepts, is what is observing, namely an observer.
Let us agree to defer the issue of whether there is one or many observers for the time being. Let us instead focus on the issue of the relationship between the observer and yourself.
Let me ask us all another question as a next step. What is more constant in each of us, the observer that observes (experiences) our respective lives, or any percept that gets observed by oneself?
I hold that the only constant in my existence that the only constant in each of our lives is whatever or whoever is observing the entire content of experience of our respective lives.
I therefore refer to one’s observer as ‘oneself’, which carries out the observing function, regardless of the word I may use to refer to the observer function, soul or spirit, or any other term.
Do let me know if we can agree that the observer is the only constant in my existence, and for this reason, is more truly my self than any of the perpetually changing content of observation, like elements in our sensory experience, our minds, or our bodies, or our feelings.
If any of you don’t agree with my position on this second step, please post accordingly.
Observer = Awareness = Soul.
I am a Soul, I am an Observer.
I am not a particular mind, brain, or body. I am not any particular piece that could be changed and replaced with something else.
I accept deferment on the question of the number of souls, as long as that number is agreed to be greater than zero.
As for “percept”: My understanding was that “percept” refers to an experience, meaning a momentary relationship between an observer and a sensory object. Now based on what you just said, I think you mean that a percept is not the happening of the experience between an observer and a sensory object, but the sensory object itself. That is, it is the object that is a perception. (Not to be confused with the object behind the sensory device. IE: The visage of a chair before an observer is a percept, but not the chair itself.) Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation.
I use the term “Spirit” to refer to something other than Observer, and would prefer not to use the term synonymously.
Next step in the logic?
Ravi: Yup, I think the “observer” is the “most constant” part - but I wouldn’t say the “only” constant part, since the mind and the body are pretty damn constant too, though they do change. “Self” for the “observer” makes sense. I don’t know if we can cleanly seperate the observer from what is observed. A lot of what goes on in our head (emotions, self-talk, memory, etc.) is pretty fuzzy, it’s not clear what’s “observer” and what’s “mind”. It’s easier to distinguish between what’s inside and what’s outside; the senses are a pretty straightforward interface.
Lion: I agree that “experience” is not a behaviour. Behaviour is all we can examine to determine if there’s experience or not, and I suspect that certain classes of systems “automatically” produce experience, but, experience is not the behaviour.
>> you have faith that the information found in interaction between the >> four laws of physics will produce an explanation for experience
No - that’s a statement I’d also disagree with ( … I think). I don’t think experience has much to do with low-level physics. I believe you could have consciousness in Conway’s Game of Life (though that it would be very hard for us to notice clues of it), and we know there’s no spooky action in there. In some sense, the explanation of our consciousness might depend on physics (how neurons work, time, etc.), but I think the biggest part of the explanation would have to do with more abstract stuff - maths, complex systems, computation, raw philosophy … (I don’t know !). The same as, say, a demonstration that a given computer program will terminate does not depend much on the four laws of physics either.
By “it doesn’t bug me”, I mean that I’m not excessively curious about it, and that I don’t see it as “against the order of nature”. Seeing someone levitate in front of me would bug me, because that would put quite a few things into question. The question of the existence of the universe does bug me, because it can lead to some interesting explanations. Experience is hard to describe and explain, but not paranormal. I guess I’d say experience is something that “just is”. I’m suspicious of any paranormal explanation, because I suspect they’re just a cheap way out that doesn’t really explain anything, and I don’t see it as very worthwhile to look for better explanations because they’d be unverifiable anyway, and wouldn’t be of that much use (no insights or applications).
Ravi: I partly agree with Emile’s partial rejection: If PanPsychism is true, then it is not fair to separate our concept of our true self from the mechanical correlate of our consciousness. I do not believe PanPsychism, as I stated before, but I am sympathetic to it, and SelectivelyOpenMinded about it. I do not believe it, but it could be true. And if it’s true, then that means that self in inextricably intertwined with matter, energy.
Emile: Okay– It’s not the 4 laws that we are particularly concerned with, but an information processing system called “the universe.” The 4 laws and the contents of the universe are one particular universe that could be running on an information processing system that I would like to call “the Matrix.” (In reference to the movie.)
Emile, I think surely you must have another reason for rejecting paranormal explanations, such as D (“dream hypothesis”) & E (“magical universe”). You wrote that the reason you reject paranormal explanations, is because they don’t explain anything. (I assume you mean “don’t make any predictions,” rather than “don’t explain anything,” because they do each provide a narrative/story/fable that bridges the explanatory gap.) If that were the case, you would have to reject all the other explanations as well, including F (self-reference), F-prime (learning system + self-reference) & G (PanPsychism). Those systems do not make any predictions either. And they share the same limitations. So there must be: some other reason that you reject paranormal explanations.
I can tell you the reasons I am fascinated by the problem of Awareness:
I apologize for mischaracterizing your argument. I see that you distinguish between experience, and the mechanical correlate of experience. (Or, in more traditional language, but unfortunately tied to material brains in this material universe: “Neural Correlate of Consciousness,” or “NCC” for short.)
One of the problems that arise in any discussion in which each of us respond thoroughly to one another, is the large number of points being made in each post.
It is very difficult for any of us to do justice to all of the points expressed by another, let alone all the others when the discussion is addressing fundamental issues like: What are we? How do we function? How does the whole shebang work?
This is why we are proceeding on a step by step process. For the time being, I am going to be responding only to those points that are essential to our step by step progress toward an ever stronger body of agreed (shared) points among us.
To recap, so far, we seem to have made one and some part of a step:
1. Observation takes place. There is an observer.
On this we all agree. On the next point we have some doubts.
2. The observer is the only constant in each of our existences. The observer is accordingly the true self in each of us.
Let us address the doubts, also one by one, before proceeding any further:
a) “the mind and the body are pretty damn constant too, though they do change” (Emile).
Emile, when we use the term constant, we mean constant. We don’t tolerate any absence of constancy in anything we would consider to be constant. Any degree of change is the absence of constancy. The question relating both mind and body is:
Is there any part of mind or body that does not change at all? If so, please identify that/those part/s of mind or body that don’t change at all. If there are no such parts, this will mean that “the observer is the only constant in each of our existences. And as we seem to agree that our ‘self’ must only identified with what is constant, then we must agree that our ‘self’ is what is observing.
b) “it’s not clear what’s ‘observer’ and what’s ‘mind’. It’s easier to distinguish between what’s inside and what’s outside; the senses are a pretty straightforward interface.” (Emile)
c) “If PanPsychism is true, then it is not fair to separate our concept of our true self from the mechanical correlate of our consciousness.” (Lion)
I will address both these points together. Given that we are observers, we each have an observational field. The observational field is the entire field of ‘whatever’ that can be observed by each of us.
Emile, when we agree that there is the ‘observer’, that is a foundational point that can help define other terms. If ‘mind’ is identical to ‘observer’ for you – as ‘soul’ and ‘awareness’ are for Lion, there is no disagreement among us on this point.
However, if there is anything that you understand under ‘mind’ that cannot be included under your understanding of ‘observer’, or vice versa, then ‘mind’ and ‘observer’ are somewhat different from your perspective.
If this is the case, It is up to you to demarcate the boundaries of these two concepts ‘observer’ and ‘mind’ in such a way that you know what part of each concept is excluded in the other. You may even call up a separate concept to refer to the each such exclusion.
One of the reasons it appears that a lot of what goes on in our head (emotions, self-talk, memory, etc.) is pretty fuzzy is because we haven’t yet deliberately identified what we mean by the words with which we refer to them.
When you say, “it’s easier to distinguish between what’s inside and what’s outside; the senses are a pretty straightforward interface.” You are revealing critical divisions in your observational field.
You are indicating that your observational field is already divided into two: an inside and an outside, with your skin serving as the boundary between the two. Of course, this is a very widespread phenomenon.
However it also imposes a limitation upon the scope of your observation. By dividing your observational field into an inside and an outside, and by assuming the senses to be a pretty straightforward interface, you are inadvertently limiting the focus of your observation to what is outside the skin, thereby tending inadvertently to neglecting what exists and occurs inside the skin.
When we are each the observer, everything else, for each of us, is part of one’s observational field. If we want to understand how everything works together, we must begin by becoming aware of such inadvertent divisions such as inside/outside, if only to become free to let ourself, the observer to range freely across the entire field of one’s observational capability.
Similarly, Lion, if you hold that ‘the mechanical correlate of our consciousness’ is part of our ‘true self’, you might consider a separate term than ‘self’ to distinguish the observable parts of your true self (parts of your self extant in your observational field – from the observer.
Even if everything were the self, we still distinguish parts of this self from other parts of the selfsame self. But only some part of this self is the subject. The rest is subject. The observer is pure subject, and all the rest of the self is object, or observables.
In such a case of everthing being the self, or anything more than the observer being also the self, the part of the self that is not observer is object, and doesn’t qualify to be the self who is having this life. You become the self, having mechanical corrleates that you can observe and perhaps even use.
Lion, Brandon, let us, for the time being, defer the issue of Pan Psychism, unless either of you feels it necessary in this step of the process. We must seek to advance with what we can all be certain of.
To conclude, please let’s address points a, b, and c, respectively, which currently keep us from agreeing that the observer is our self, if only because the observer is the only constant in our existence. After all, everything that constitutes life for any of us, arises only from what is observed.
I agree to defer the discussion of PanPsychism.
1. I agree that observation takes place (in other words, awareness exists), and I am willing to call that which does the observing “the observer”
2. The observer is the only constant in each of our existences. The observer is accordingly the true self in each of us.
I do not agree to 2 yet. I believe that our consensus on 1 is still a false consensus derived from differing meanings ascribed to “observation” and “awareness”. I would like to see us agree on the following before we tackle 2.
1a. I observe
1b. I grant that you observe
1c. I grant that chimps, dolphins, and orangutans observe
1d. I grant that human infants observe
1e. I grant that mice observe
1f. I grant that ants observe
1g. I grant that individual cells observe
1h. I grant that proteins observe
1i. I grant that molecules observe
1j. The observation of molecules are already so pathetically limited and straightforward that I consent to drawing the line at molecules. Even though atoms and sub-atomic particles have decreasing amounts of observational capacity, they are so relatively weak that we can treat them as not existing for the purposes of our discussion.
I’ve started an Agree/Disagree section at the very top of this page to serve as an evolving repository for our consensus as it emerges. Please feel warmly welcomed to add questions and responses there.
I think that this page and the idea of EgoBug leads nowhere. It is typical for similar tries in philosophy and abstract thinking to create definitions and derive knowledge by formal reasoning from that on. The problem is: it never worked and it never will. Language is just a rough tool to cope with reality but it is not identical with reality. Therefore operations and transformations on language symbols will not yield results that naturally correspond to reality. One has to check results with common sense. – HelmutLeitner
Brandon, you raise many interesting issues. I will have to consider them more carefully before I respond. In the meantime, let me address Helmut’s outright challenge to our engagement on this page.
Helmut, you say: “This page and the idea of Egobug leads nowhere.”
You expand on this: “It is typical for similar tries in philosophy and abstract thinking to create definitions and derive knowledge by formal reasoning from that on. The problem is: it never worked and it never will.”
And then you support this assertion with: “Language is just a rough tool to cope with reality but it is not identical with reality. One has to check results with common sense.”
Let me address your support, as it is the foundation of your implied suggestion that this page and this subject is useless.
You make two points in this support. Let me first address your issue of the roughness of language, making it unable to be identical with reality, and then the issue of checking results with common sense.
Yes, language is not identical with physical reality. Language is a rough tool for representing physical reality because physical reality is fluid, and the perceptual, conceptual and linguistic mechanisms with which we experience, store, and communicate physcical forms and relationships are granular.
Absolute representation of fluid forms with granular forms is impossible to the extent of the integrity of the fluidity of physical forms and their apparent boundaries. Even the most finely granular percepts, concepts and words are still separated from perfect correspondence with a fluid reality.
Language cannot represent physical reality directly. It is at least thrice removed from physical reality with granular mechanisms.
First removal: Language is our granular means of communicating concepts that are stored in us.
Second removal: Concepts are copies we store of the percepts we experience of physical reality.
Third removal: Percepts are the granular facets of physical reality that our senses allow to be distinguished from the rest of physical reality.
Nevertheless, the impossibility of such perfect correspondence between language and physical reality has not rendered language so rough as to be useless to us. This tri-layered representational mechanism with which we cope with physical reality has not prevented us from achieving all the scientific and technological advances of the last few centuries. This is why we trust ourselves to go to the moon, to fly in planes, to live in tall buildings, and drive under rivers.
Also, phyiscal reality is not the only reality we have to contend with. There is the conceptual reality with which we store our experiences of physical reality, and the linguistic realities with which we communicate these concepts. Both these kinds of reality are granular, and allow accurate uses of language. So language can be even more useful in such uses.
This is not an insignificant issue. There is much in our observational field that is not fluid. Functions like observation, emotions, facts, ideas, actions and motions can be distinguished from one another simply through clarity of definition. Consider the fields of mathematics and logic as merely a start in such deliberations.
Now to your point about checking results with commonsense. While I agree that we must check results of our deliberations with commonsense, let me suggest that commonsense must be regared with even greater suspicion than language by those who are using language with a some awareness of language’s limitations.
Any commonsense we can apply toward checking anything is the product of the existing conceptual configuration available to the one doing the checking. Most of the concepts available to us don’t originate in us. They are uploaded (communicated) into us by others through speech and actions in our presence during our formative years, when we were not even aware that this process was taking place. This was because we then possessed no perceptual or conceptual means for distinguishing the conditioning process from the rest of our experiences at the time.
Most of us are not even aware of the large numbers of assumptions and beliefs we possess, and which put forth prejudices and biases that seem so self-evidently true, like the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth.
Hence commonsense can be an even more grossly imperfect instrument than language. Commonsense can actually distort our perception.
So, Helmut, I agree we must check results of our deliberations with commonsense. But let us not consider the results of such checks to be absolute. Commonsense is just another sounding board, and a very unreliable one at that.
We can only trust the commonsense of an individual who has purged oneself of all the inaccurate assumptions and beliefs that were pumped into one before one was even aware that this invasion was occuring. And in our time, it is extremely unlikely that there are any such people, if only because most of us are not even aware of the conceptual content, in order to be able to begin the process of reviewing or edititng this stuff, let alone purge much of the obvious errors in it.
Helmut, I hope you might see enough value in our process to stay with our page and join in our effort. The term EgoBug is only a linguistic term. There are many terms that might serve the purpose better. The term Egobug refers to a specific conceptual reality that we might discover to actually exist, if we allow ourselves to focus on conceptual reality with the instrument of language, which, like concepts, is also granular.
I didn’t intend to offend anyone. Of course this page isn’t useless (I said “it leads nowhere” that’s different) because the search for truth or knowledge always makes sense, even if some attempt should turn out a dead end. The success of rational thinking in a field (e. g. science and technology) does neither mean that s&t can solve any problem, nor that rational thinking can be just as successful in any other field. I’m so quick to oppose because I’m deep in a discussion about Hegel’s philosophy at CoForum and he is the master of juggling with words, going nowhere. Of course commonsense isn’t reliable too, but if philosophy and commonsense agree, this gives a good feeling. If they disagree, I go with commonsense, or with simple empirical thinking. For example, if you go down the steps of evolution towards the molecules, I would not agree that all systems observe. Perhaps it’s important that an observer is changed by his observation, that he has a kind of memory, a way to recall or “re”-present (Glasersfeld) experiences. Without this, learning seems impossible and the idea of a “self” probably won’t work without learning. This is just a hypothesis. But if it holds, then 1c..1j is just the wrong way to start looking at the problem. Just as EgoBug assumes a result before starting the work.
Brandon, as you have already noticed, there is a tendency, especially in written discussions, among most of us to first notice what is different in a message from one’s own understanding, and to orient ourselves to respond to this difference or differences, often at the expense of what we might agree with in the rest of the message. This imposes a centrifugal force upon our discussions, diverting our respective attentions from the intended trajectory of our discussion.
For this reason, I strive, often unsuccessfully, to avoid making assertions that are unlikely to contribute to the purpose of a discussion.
As the one who ‘coined ’ the term ‘Egobug’ here is how I relate to it.
First of all, I am someone who considers myself and all others to be observers, all possessing an observational field that is made up of several different dimensions of substance, such as physical objects and processes (matter/energy), human behaviors and actions (intentional), conceptual objects and processes (informational), and emotional events (evaluational). I have devoted several decades focusing on the contents of these four dimensions, and the interaction both among them, and between each of them and the observer.
Along these investigations, I came upon a conceptual object that appeared to me to be the driver of most behaviors of mine that I disliked, and which seemed likewise to generate behavior in others that they themselves would find to be undesirable.
This object is what I today call the Egobug, as it both exists in the human software dimension of concepts, and in order to evoke associations of selfhood, software, and dysfunction in software in those who heard or read the term.
At your invitation, I am attempting here in this discussion, to have Lion and Emile, who were already in discussion with you on the subject - journey along with me across the phyiscal, interventional, conceptual and emotional territory I had covered, in order to enable them to discover this conceptual object I call Egobug.
I would like to encourage us to avoid all questions, comments, and assertions that are not necessary to advance on this journey, if only because each of these tend to divert attention from the specific journey at hand. And as the journey is across non-physical terrain, it is already difficult enough.
As you hold that our consensus on point 1 is false, please step back to point 1 and redefine observation and awareness. But in doing so please confine yourself to the FUNCTIONS of observation and awareness, instead of the forms of the sources that might be carrying out the function. At this stage we don’t need to consider a variety of other creatures to observe or be aware in order to agree that observation exists, and that there are observers.
My own position on point 1 remains as follows: anything at all getting noticed is a case of observation. And wherever there is a case of observation, we postulate that whatever or whoever may be carrying out this observation is an observer, regardless of its form, if any.
Helmut, No offence taken at all. Thank you also for your reassurance.
Observation is a loose word that admits many meanings. If we define observation as the act of noticing or perceiving something we are still left with the loose words noticing and perceiving. For me, each of the following words connotes awareness to a greater or lesser degree. Each of these actions is a sort of observation even if very primitive (in the case of the reaction of an atom). If you want me to use a different meaning for the word “observation” please spell out the crucial distinctions.
Ravi … I couldn’t resist dropping in a few forms (atoms, bees, mice) to serve as exemplars to illustrate what I mean by observation.
React - change state in response to environmental stimuli
Perceive - store a sensual correlate (percept) in memory (recept)
Learn - maintain a dynamic dictionary of recepts and responses keyed by those recepts
1. observation takes place (in other words, awareness exists) by some observer (the observer)
2. The observer is the only constant in each of our existences. The observer is accordingly the true self in each of us.
As it stands now, EgoBug seem a simplified rational argument for a religious cause: observer = abstract real self = “unified cosmic spirit”. While I also feel as a religious being, seeking not to be selfsih or materialistic - so I can identify with the vision of spiritual unification - I do not think that the rational arguments put forward work. It is a noble cause, but the arguments are bad.
The question is, what to do in this situation. Oppose, knowing that this could be misunderstood as arguing for egotism. Or just being silent, knowing that the arguments are in vain - religious people won’t need this type of arguments, materialistic people won’t be moved by the arguments anyway.
As far as I see, the ego itself or the boundary of self-identification is not the problem. “self” is not a concept of observing, but of living. We identify with items that give us sensations or experience, that we produce or control. This is our senso-motorical body, but also our family, the communities we participate, or ideas we produce or share. The solution is not to reduce the “self” to an abstract observer, but to increase the “self” step by step in an unfolding process. The larger the “self” becomes, the smaller the percentage of “body/mind” issues becomes. The happyness of being accepted, respected and loved means more than the happyness from a new car. The concept of a “growing self” seems more fruitful than the concept of a “shrinking self” which means fighting against one-self. The effect may be much the same, but the view of “ego” is different. Evolution has brought us the “ego” together with advantages and problems. We can concentrate on the problems and deny the wisdom of evolution, see it as an EgoBug, or we can see the chances to go from “today’s ego” to “tomorrow’s ego” and say: it’s not a bug, it’s an EgoFeature.
Brandon,
The purpose of step 1 is merely to establish a common foundational fact. If there were no ‘observing’ at all, there would be no experience, and therefore no knowledge, no communications, no world, etc.
It though it existed, the universe would not be known to exist.
Observing is the foundational event that opens up the possibility of anything to be known, thought about, or engaged. This is why I thought we might begin this process toward agreement with ‘observing’.
Even if you thought something else is more foundational, like the existence of the universe, this universe would forever be obscured in the absence of ‘observing’.
So all I am attempting to do with the postulation - there is observing - is to begin with the very first step that allows all this knowledge and discussion to take place.
Let’s address your new suggestions:
Of the words ‘react’, ‘perceive’, and ‘learn’, only ‘perceive’ can be considered for our purpose.
The word ‘react’ contains MORE, some kind of action that is a result of observing.
The word ‘learn’ also contains MORE, some kind of ‘storing’ or even ‘processing’ of the content of observation.
‘Perceiving’, on the other hand, can be considered. ‘observing’.
However, let us not confine ‘perceiving’ to sensory inputs, and let us not expand it’s meaning to include ‘store in memory’. Even non-sensory objects such as thoughts and feelings can be perceived.
Yes, observation, noticing and perceiving are all loose words to us as long as we mean different things by them. I use the word observing because it appears less loose for me than the others.
It is not impossible for us to arrive at a word that is not too loose for our purposes. We have only to ask two questions:
a) what MORE is conveyed by ‘observing’ that we don’t mean to convey?
b) what LESS is conveyed by ‘observing’ than we mean to convey?
Let’s call this the ‘more/less’ test. If the word is conveying neither MORE nor LESS, it should do for us.
If I were to use a phrase for ‘observing’, I would simply use ‘receiving input’, without specifying any particular quality or quantity of input.
As Lion suggested: Observer = Awareness = Soul (Soul being something that exclusively observes or is aware). I am even willing to replace ‘observer’ with ‘perceiver’ and ‘noticer’ if you feel this adds clarity to this step.
To conclude, by applying the ‘more/less’ test, does observing take place, and do ‘observers’ exist?
Once you resolve this, we can return to step 2.
Helmut,
For many of the reasons like those you yourself have recently pointed out to us, we too have understood that it is difficult to progress in a discussion of important issues in writing - unless we focus in a disciplined way - on the purpose of the discussion.
Accordingly, just before you made your first post to this discussion, we had agreed to advance on a step by step basis. For the time being, please therefore ignore anything said in this discussion about the Egobug. We are attempting to discover it by navigating the space in which such a thing might exist.
In order to do that, we are beginning with the function that is commonly referred to as observation, perception or noticing, if only because there is no experience, no knowledge, and no discussion, without this function.
If this step by step process is acceptable to you, please consider the following two steps on which we are already seeking agreement:
1. Does observing exist? Are there one or more observers in the Universe?
2. Is the capacity to observe the only constant in our lives? If it is, should we consider the observer ‘what is observing’ to be one’s self?
If you agree with the first step. You can proceed directly to step 2. If you agree with step two, please await agreement from the rest of us.
Thank you.
Ravi, thank you for clarification, but what do you expect me to do if I disagree with both questions? What if I think that the essence of life is not “observing” but “creating” and “unfolding”?
Helmut,
Let me first respond to your point about the essence of life.
I agree that there is both ‘creating’ and ‘unfolding’, and these are processes involved in ‘life’.
But we are not discussing the essence of life at this point. We are merely investigating whether observation exists, and whether observers exist.
Specifically, I was merely asking whether you agree or disagree with the notions that ‘observation is taking place’, or ‘there is an observer’ or ‘there are observers’.
If you disagree with any of these notions, then I would expect you to do two things:
a) explain why you disagree with each one that you disagree with.
b) identify the word you would use to refer to the function by which these words on your display are being observed or perceived at this moment, as you are reading them. Then let me have that word.
Ravi, I sometimes observe just as I sometimes eat or play Tennis. This doesn’t mean that there is an eater or a Tennis-player in me. There is no observer instance in me, just the same. The concept of “observing” has no big problems in everyday language, but in a philosophical discussion it holds almost all problems of a being facing the world, especially how to interpret reality and our perception of it. The human mind/awareness/soul/consciousness is a complex phenomenon that can’t be analyzed on the fly. To put “an observer” in into this system is an arbitrary construction, that obviously serves an important purpose in your thinking - or the religious reasoning you propose - , but this doesn’t make it a logical conclusion.
The way of the words on the screen into my consciousness where I think about them and react to them is complex. There is no simple flow of information. Especially it is improbably that “to observe” means the same to you and me. So even if we would agree on “we observe”, we couldn’t be sure what this means to each other, just as an agreement to “God exists” means little if we have no agreement on what the word “God” means to us.
Helmut, we seem to have a different understanding of what we are doing here. You seem to think that we are analyzing, or proposing religious reasoning, or engaging in a philosophical discussion.
So let first get all this out of the way of our dialogue. I am not seeking to analyze observation or anything else at this point. I am not proposing any religious reasoning. I am not seeking a philosophical discussion. I am only seeking a rational discussion.
Let me try again, using your own words. You mention that we are beings facing the world. Yes, indeed. But ‘facing’ would be meaningless unless the function we refer to as ‘observing’, ‘being aware of’, ‘being conscious of’, and ‘perceiving’ is the interface between the being and the world.
You say: “The way of the words on the screen into my consciousness where I think about them and react to them is complex.”
Yes, of course, but we are not discussing the stages of ‘thinking’ and ‘reacting’ here. We are merely focusing on the simple and single step of ‘observing’ or ‘perceiving’, that must take place, so that thinking and reacting can follow.
In fact you have inadvertently answered the question. By postulating a ‘being facing the world’, you have acknowledged both a ‘being’ that observes or perceives, and the existence of ‘observing’ or ‘perceiving’.
Firstly, you mention a being. This being that faces the world is the same being that is the observer or perceiver of the world. This being may also be an eater or tennisplayer, but the fact that the being can be referred to as such does not exclude the being being an observer or perceiver.
Secondly you mention ‘facing’. Without this being ‘observing’ or ‘perceiving’ what you call ‘the world’, the being can’t FACE the world. The being faces only what the being observes or perceives. Without ‘observing’ or ‘perceiving’ there would be no world for the being to have to face. Hence the phenomenon of observing or perceiving does occur in the world.
To summarize, I am suggesting here that you have here, by inference, agreed that there is in reality, a process called either observing or perceiving, which process is being carried out by a being that can be referred to as an observer or perceiver.
If you still don’t agree that you (a being that can observe or perceive) observe or perceive anything, I cannot respond to you any more, because you will have made it impossible for me to expect that you are going to observe or perceive what I am writing here, if only because –without observing, perceiving what I am writing here, it will not exist for you, and you will not be able to think or analyze or respond or do anything else with it.
Ravi, “I sometimes observe” were words 2-4 in my last posting, so I don’t know why you exaggerate my position. Obviously you are not only passively perceiving, but actively re-constructing and interpreting what I wrote in a very individual way. Beings in general get only very fuzzy and incomplete information about the world they face, so they “read between the lines”. If three persons “observe” the same reality, three different constructions or stories about the same experience will result. Do you agree that “observing” is a very subjective and active process that can not be separated or abstracted from the individuality of a being?
Helmut, you ask:
“Do you agree that “observing” is a very subjective and active process that can not be separated or abstracted from the individuality of a being?”
This is a very helpful question, because it can help to clarify my position on the matter more accurately.
Observing itself is NOT a subjective and active process. Everything else that happens because the observation has occurred may be very subjective and active processes.
It is critical that we distinguish between observation and the content of observation. This means that we must not impose upon observing itself, the attributes of the content and all that happens to the conent.
The content that gets observed, and how this content is stored into memory, and how this content is interpreted, and how inferences and ideas are processed from these interpretations, how emotions may be evoked by this content, how memories or interpretations, how intentions form in response to these interpretations, and how your body may ‘act’ or ‘react’ to implement these intentions, are all subjective and active aspects of the PRODUCT or CONTENT of ‘observing’, not of the function of observing itself.
So “observing” itself is neither subjective or active. Observing often simply happens. Objects impinge upon our observation, events likewise, thoughts likewise, feelings likewise. But none of these can occur without the function of ‘observing’.
However, thanks to your penetrating question, I realize that observation in its verb form ‘observing’ can imply an ‘active’ process. This implication is not intended in the function that I seek agreement on. Hence the word ‘awareness’ might be more appropriate. Awareness is not a verb, and is therefore, less likely to imply an ‘active’ process.
If you just shut your eyes and try NOT to observe, you will find you cannot prevent it. Sounds, feelings and other sensations would continue to flow in, so would thoughts and feelings and even the effort to not observe would be observed.
All this shows that the function of ‘observing’ or better still, ‘awareness’ exists, independent of the content and processes that engage the content that might be both subjective and active.
Please note that I am looking at the function of observing in the sense of its essence. If I were to think of a visual metaphor, I would think of a window between each of us and the world we face. We all have such a window. What comes in to you through the window is the content.
Both the content and all that happens to it might be both subjective and active. The existence of the window of awareness or observing, and the fact that its existence enables you, the ‘aware being’ or ‘observer’ to face the world – is what I would like us to agree upon.
I agree that if three persons observe the same reality, three different constructions or stories about the same experience will result. Let us please distinguish the function of observing, awareness or even experience – from its results, which are the constructions and the stories. Let us stop referring to these results as through they were the same as the function we variously refer to as observing, perceiving, experiencing and awareness.
I’ve lost track of where comments are supposed to go. I just wanted to quickly drop this off:
I’m not convinced that the observer is the only constant. The form of the river of thoughts appears to be constant as well.
What I mean is: At any particular snapshot in time, the water in the river is all different. This is like the thoughts and connections between neurons in our brain.
But, the river continues to be a distinct river. In our lives, we remain constantly attached to one river.
This may change as we enter a PostHuman era. But for now, to our knowledge, the subjective experience of observation is not the only constant. There is the material river of thought that it observes as well. While the contents of that river constantly change, the form and parameters of the river do not.
Lion, you are introducing a phenomenon you call the “river of thought”.
While I accept that thoughts are observable, in my own personal experience, there are frequent periods when there is no observation of thinking.
I can accept other such observable flows. The ones that I have observed are the flow of imaginative fantasies, the flow of dreams, the flow of visual content, the flow of auditory content, the flow of tactile content, the flow of olefactory content, the flow of interventive content, the flow of gustatory content, the flow of bodily sensation content, and the flow of emotional content.
I can accept all these eleven flows together constituting what we might call a river of observations, or a river of experiences, or a river of perceptions.
I can accept each one’s such river corresponding to what I refer to as one’s observational field.
But the flow of thoughts alone cannot be a river, unless your definition of river allows frequent discontinuities in the flow.
Then there is the matter of your other comment: “In our lives, we remain constantly attached to one river.
If what you refer to with the term ‘we’ is the sum of all ‘observerships’, I can accept the attachment between us and our respective rivers. However, I feel it would be more accurate to say: “In our lives, our respective rivers constantly flow into us.
This is because observation is a one-way phenomenon. If observer, or experiencer or awareness can be likened to a gate or a door or a window, these rivers of our observational field are perpetually flowing into us.
So, Lion, after integrating your introduction of this river into our discussion, as expanded to include all observational or experiential content, are we to conclude the following?
a) Both the observer and the river of one’s observational field are constants,
b) The observer (or awareness) is the self, and the river of observational flow is the world that is perpetually faced by this self?
Ravi, when you talk about awareness you seem to assert that awareness creates state changes. I find this to be backward … really awareness emerges from state changes rather than creating them.
To paraphrase you “awareness is the window rather than the stuff coming through the window.” I agree that awareness is not the stuff coming through the window, but this is still confusing things. It should be “awareness is the property of having a window” rather than “awareness is the window”. Awareness is simply being changeable. If you don’t have any windows (avenues to admit external influences) then you are not aware of those external influences.
Ravi, I’m pretty sure that modern brain science doesn’t share your view of separating “passive observation” and “active creation of meaning” the way you suggest. Especially because data reduction happens at all stages and meaning directs the focus of our attention. But let’s make a thought experiment and turn off any active elements, anything that is subjective and connected with my individuality, my history.
The door opens, my wife comes in, and talks to me. I see and hear. I see something against the background, various colors, something that is moving, there are sounds. I observe. I have no concept of words or meaning, that I learned in my life, I do not know that this is a human, nor do I recognize my wife. All such knowledge is individual and subjective, turned off. At that point, just observing, I’m very similar to a baby. The sounds do not transform to words, not do they recall what they re-present. Perhaps I try a smile. Perhaps I like the sensations and feel happy. No, sorry, smiling and feeling happy are already active reactions. So as a pure observer I do not understand, nor am I able to recognize things, make sense of what I perceive, because all meaning is an active process, comparing patterns, re-presenting memories, re-calling what one has learned.
So, even if we would agree, that such a passive, non-individual, non-subjective observer would exist … why should it be plausible, that this entity - void of all abilities to understand and communicate - is our true “self”? Why should it be a natural target for our self-identification?
Brandon,
I was planning to bring up the matter of what is behind the window separately, and I had accordingly deferred our discussion on the issue whether there is one or whether there are several observers.
It is important to distinguish the window from observation because there are as many windows as there are living human bodies, but only one observer behind all the windows, illuminating and enagaging the machinery of the social human body in the world.
One metaphor for this might be a single lamp in a house with two windows in each of its four walls. There are thus eight windows, and although the light falling upon the content outside the house falls through eight different windows and illuminates eight different parts of the content outside the house, there is still only one light generating all these different beams toward different facets of the world.
For the purposes of simplicity, in this stage of our discussion, I was content to combine the windows and the observer behind it into a single thing. The separation of individuality from the observer was not necessary for the procedure by which I was hoping to navigate us together toward the revealing and deconstructing the Egobug.
So, even after separating the window of observation from the observer, I am not aware of anything I said that suggests that ‘awareness creates state changes’. Awareness merely allows the generation of state changes in the world we face, which changes would not have occurred in the absence of either a window through which content could be exposed to awareness, or an awareness to receive the input flowing in through the window.
Awareness is anything but changeable. It is, as Lion speaks of soul, always there. It is always available to each human being in equal measure. It is the size of open space in each window that determines how much can be received through that window. The size of the window depends upon the extent to which the window is closed or diffused by informational content located in a conceptual filter just OUTside the window.
Awareness is the property of having a window only if there is something behind the window upon which content from the other side can fall into when the window is open, and doesn’t fall in when there is either no window or nothing behind the window to reflect the content back out through the window toward the world in the form of actions by the body (which is also outside the window) in the world, i.e., NOT behind the window.
Helmut,
Thank you for raising this example. It is an excellent means for us to understand our respective positions.
Let us take the same example from my model of the unfolding of the mechanisms that function when observation takes place. I will treat this example from the context of it being your experience. In this model you don’t have to be a child for observation to keep happening. The phenomena that get triggered as a result of observation receiving the phenomena are likewise, content that in turn get observed.
The door opens. Observation of the change in the status of the door from its closed state triggers recognition of this being a case of the door opening. My wife comes in. Observation of her presence in the door triggers recognition that my wife is entering the room in which I am. Observation of this recognition of her being in the room triggers positive emotional charges of attraction. These positive charges trigger a smile on my face. Observation of these sensations in my face trigger recognition that I am happy to see her. She says something to me. Observation of her voice triggers recognition that she is speaking. Observation of the specific sounds made by her voice trigger recognition the meaning of what she is saying. Observation of the meaning of what she is saying triggers’ an attraction to that meaning. This in turn selects data stored in the memory of my brain and generates a couple of possible responses. Observation notices these options. This triggers a higher positive emotional charge to one of them. Observation of this higher positive charge for one of the options triggers an intention to speak it out to her. Observation of this intention triggers the observation of a chain of words that express the intention. My vocal cords then cooperate with my mouth and these words are spoken out to her, etc.
Of course all these different steps occur at several layers both in front of and behind the window of individual observational standpoints. And they typically happen very fast, typically automatically. Currently the content stored in most of us promotes an interpretation of these processes as though there is a separate agent in charge of the process.
So, the entire human system is set up to respond with increasing sophistication depending upon a combination of the genetic and conceptual codes that have been developing over several years, both consistent with the way things work, and not consistent with the way things work, all depending upon what gets noticed through one’s individual window of observation. What doesn’t get noticed can’t and doesn’t trigger responses through the body through which the observation is occurring.
Human beings are a networked system of pure observational standpoints that have an entire machinery set up to respond to the specific content that flows into the system through observation. It is the preexisting conceptual content that determines how ‘what gets observed’ is interpreted. And here is the crux of the problem. Each of us has a somewhat different operating system for interpreting what is being observed. Most of the prevailing content in our time promotes the long outdated model that interprets to the observing capability of the universe, that one is a discrete, separate and autonomous ‘person’ who is ‘doing’ everthing that is actually happening in one’s transvironment.
In actual fact, humankind is a vast network of observational windows located in human bodies through which not only sensory content from the rest of the physical world flows into observation. This sensory content is only one part of our operation today. There is perpetual flow of conceptual content flowing across these individual nodes of observation, both directly from other observational standpoints, but through media such as books, TV DVD, internet and what not. So we are already a social multividual whether we like it or not.
Most of the decisions you appear to make actually occur as a result of data flowing into you in this way, or through data that was already uploaded into the databanks located in the body that provides your observational standpoint during your ‘childhood’ through parents or teachers and other influential sources.
Helmut, now that I have indicated where ‘my’ thinking is coming from, let me provide some quick brushstrokes of how we work with the world. At least in the earth part of the universe, there are myriad windows through which content flows into the observing capability of the universe.
These windows to the observational capability of the universe are located wherever living human bodies are. Information accumulates and gets processed in these human bodies, not only through genetic code that determines the specific form and physical capabilities and tendencies of each body, but even more through the conceptual content that flows into the observational windows located in each human body through upbringing, breeding and education.
Conceptual information keeps flowing in through these observational windows, into brains located in these bodies, where they get processed into actions or inferences, or ideas, and flow again to other observational standpoints located in other human parts of the physical universe.
Currently the content of much of this code that is flowing within our social multividual is outdated, based on an interpretation of the universe before we discovered it’s seamless homogeneity, and the perpetual flow of the information among us.
The current problem is that an outdated conceptual code is making a single social multividual tear itself apart, and endanger the biosphere necessary for it to survive. Central in this code is the identity code, the code by which the observational standpoint is identified in the entire system. The Egobug is the current mistaken identification of the observational standpoint with the human body that provides the vantagepoint and the instrument for response.
Ravi, I agree with you on all aspects of our current problems as human society and probably we would be able to have consensus on most values and would probably make similar decisions in life situation. So we should be able to communicate and collaborate fruitfully towards common goals.
It seems weird to me, that our theoretical world view or our “theoretical model of the self” should interfere with that. Whether we see individuality as a bug or as a chance is not really that important. It’s probably just a language problem ending in the same ideals, just like people climbing a mountain on different tracks in seemingly opposing directions. It’s a question of religious or metaphysical motivations or traditions. They make sense if they connect us and build bridges.
They can also become destructive when they are used to replace individual responsibility and action by application of a “rational truth”. There is no war without rational reasoning and planning and production of “a truth”. Current global problems seem connected to an unbalanced idea of “global economic freedom is good”, not so much caused by individual or bodily issues.
Helmut,
I am relieved that my digressive comments on “our current problems as human society” have found some resonance in you, as the resulting “consensus on most values” should make it easier for us to advance toward discovering the factors that shape our remaining differences.
I have lived in over ten different countries, ranging from the most economically developed (US, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Japan) to some of the least developed societies (post-taliban Afghanistan, Egypt and India).
This experience has shown me first hand that the problems of human society have causes that are far more deep-seated than any economic ideas, and that economic ideas are themselves effected by factors and processes that function far deeper within the ‘system of human society’
Let me therefore attempt a new strategy for advancing our dialogue. I hold:
1. That the Universe as a whole is a single seamless flux.
2. The Universe can be said to be comprised of human society, all living human bodies, and the rest of the Universe, or non-human Universe.
3. Over the last century, for the first time in recorded history, there has emerged a clear threat to the survival of human society.
4. This recent threat to the survival of human society originates not in the rest of the Universe, but exclusively in human society itself.
5. This threat originates not in the physical substance of human society, as these are merely tools for implementing intentions and plans that exist in a different layer of human society.
6. This other layer of human society is the ‘social informational layer’.
7. This informational layer exists not only in individual human brains, but in a very busy network of communications among individuals and in a wide range of media – from books to TV to the internet.
8. This informational layer itself looks somewhat like a network. It is made up of nodes and links of data.
9. In the informational layer of human society, data is made up of three layers of content:
a) the first layer is made up of concepts, which are stored copies of percepts, or simple units of perception.
b) as this conceptual layer is entirely abstract, it is transacted across individuals with an overlay of sensory representations of the conceptual content, namely, a linguistic layer of words that represent these concepts.
c) as concepts are linked, the words that correspond to these concepts are also linked, in each linguistic system (language) through syntax, which is a formal and limited structure for linking words.
10. These three layers, concepts, words and syntax comprise the mechanism of the informational layer of human society.
11. There are several structural and functional defects in this mechanism.
12. These defects generate several distortions in the orientation of human society both toward oneselves, and toward the rest of the Universe.
13. These distortions generate misdirected actions towards one another within human society, and toward the rest of the Universe.
14. Of all these distortions, none generates more turbulence in the informational layer, and in human social behavior than the delusion of individual discreteness, separateness and autonomy.
15. This delusion is directly caused by a specific link between two conceptual nodes, the node that represents ‘oneself’ and the node that represents ‘human body’.
16. This link, which comprises the identity code in the informational layer of human society, is the center of the entire layer, because all other concepts are structured around this link. (This is not unlike the pre-copernician model of the solar system, where the mis-identification of the center of the system with the earth resulted in a overly complex model of the solar system affecting our grasp of the movement of the sun and all the planets.)
17. It is this link that I refer to as the Egobug.
These seventeen points are intended to link our common understanding of the problems of human society to the Egobug.
Please let me know which of these points you would like to challenge toward arriving at a common understanding of the causes of the problems of human society.
Ravi, the patterns of your argumentation are those of a proselitizing sect regular. If you seek followers for a religious belief, you are probably wrong here. If you seek collaboration, you should make an offer.
Helmut,
I am amazed to find that you identify my argumentation to be that of a proselytizing sect regular.
Please identify the elements of my argumentation that you question, so that I can attempt to show you their foundations in our common observable space.
Ravi, so you don’t feel a religious mission?
I don’t know about proselitizing, but I don’t think the “here is what I believe, show me the point you disagree with and I will explain to you why you are wrong” pattern is the best way of convinving people.
Also, several ideologies have already attempted to improve the human condition by rewiring the human brain. I’m not aware that it ever gave that great results, and a lot can already be done with humans the way they are now.
Sticking to discussing the ego, the self, consciousness, etc. is probably safer than appealing to how it would make the world such a wonderful place if we weren’t all selfish bastards.
Conversely, I find it quite likely that if we have intelligent robots, they won’t necessarily have the “ego bug” - there’s no reason to attach an “intelligence” to a body (or even a sense of self), even if it’s the one containing the hardware. So, under that context, I can understand the concept of EgoBug, but I still dislike the term, it smacks of DoubleSpeak? - you can’t talk about it without implying a value judgement.
Helmut,
Not only do I not feel a RELIGIOUS mission, I consider belief systems, including religions, to be a dangerous form of information that exert at least three undesirable effects:
a) they reduces our potential for observation and the development of ever more reliable social knowledge among those who have them.
b) they skew the interpretation of the experiences of those who possess them according to their specific tenets and values.
c) they tend to divide and generate conflict among the ‘followers’ of different belief systems.
This is not to say there might not be truth to be found among the foundations of some of these belief systems.
However, truth should be arrived at through inquiry and exploration, through a process of seeking either experiential evidence or rational consistency that can be shared.
This then becomes knowledge, which is the most reliable content in our conceptual informational layer, a project that all of us can transparently contribute toward improving and refining.
However, you are right about my feeling a mission. I do feel intensely motivated to enable others who have not done so, to become able to focus on our informational layer as a legitimate dimension of scrutiny and exploration.
This is because our widespread neglect of this layer of ‘reality’ has allowed beliefs and superstitions to:
a) last far longer among far larger numbers of us than the intrinsic integrity of these belief systems deserve,
b) contribute toward several forms of destructiveness shown by human society.
I pursue this mission with dialogue and reason, expecting no one to accept anything I say on faith. I rather encourage people to challenge the foundations of my positions, so that I may have the opportunity to navigate along our common conceptual dimension, and show them conceptual objects and structures and processes that I know they will be able to see, if only they would give themselves the opportunity to do so.
Ravi, it doesn’t matter how you call it. I have nothing against religion, as long it is not too one-dimensional. You have constructed a truth and expect the world to follow it. In other places you are much clearer about your mission. Everyone can read and decide on his own:
It doesn’t convince me, neither in the direct and clear from, nor in the way you’ve put it on this page. The logic of proselitizing is that we here are not interesting to you as individuals, but only as followers to your truth. You will not talk about anything else and turn away from us the moment you understand that you can’t win us as followers. That’s the problem about this kind of communication.
Ravi, perhaps it is time to achieve some distance from this discussion by letting it sit for a while.
Helmut, these are painful statements. I do not dispute the truth in them, but find myself also caught in their flesh stripping scrutiny … ouch. I too tend to proselytize.
Emile,
It has become clear to me here that I cannot expect everyone who comes into this discussion to stick “to discussing the ego, the self, consciousness, etc., as you prefer. However, I am willing to stick to these points in my responses to you in our dialogue.
In this context, I have not yet had your response to my last comments to you.
I would like to know where you stand vis a vis my response to your previous post, so we may advance…
I am also willing to replace the term Egobug in our exchanges, to any term you prefer that isn’t loaded with a value statement.
As for intelligent robots, whatever intelligence they possess cannot be the same intelligence that humans have. Robots are not known to be aware of the code that runs prior to their actions, whereas humans can observe all the layers of our observational field, including its conceptual and the emotional dimensions.
Helmut,
Despite everything I have said about gleaning truth from direct experience, you insist that I construct my truth.
Despite everything I have said about the distinctions between belief systems and experiential and rational views, you insist that I seek followers.
Despite my responding thoroughly to your comments and questions, you have consistently shown more interest in my motives than in points I make.
And now, despite my painstaking and prompt efforts in this discussion, you are now making wild accusations about how you all are not interesting to me as individuals, and predictions about how swiftly I will turn away from you.
Indeed, “that’s the problem about this kind of communication.”
It’s simply ad hominem.
Brandon,
Thank you for trying to protect me.
Yes. I will let it sit until someone addresses a comment or question to me.
In the meantime, please don’t be intimidated into feeling ashamed to want to share things you care about with others.
This is one of humankind’s finest drives. It’s how knowledge grows and gets more reliable.
Ravi, I’m not a member of this community, just an OccasionalContributor. There are weeks and months when I’m not around, not even reading what is written. Therefore become part of this community, discuss and explore the wide range of topics existing here, share your professional knowledge as a communication or marketing expert, help people here with their ideas and projects, before expecting them to jump on your waggon.
It is so easy to prove me wrong.
Ravi, maybe AndriusKulikauskas is the person to help you. He is actively building a world-wide network of independent thinkers, people who “stick their neck out”, each with his own “key concept”. It would be natural for him to support you.
For example see http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/KeyConcept.
I’m an outside critic to this network too, providing special perspectives like
Note that I’m neither opposing religious ideas nor the idea of a “universal spirit” (in fact I think that a global awareness as TeilhardDeChardin’s NooSphere is forming). I just oppose the marketing shortcut (“we all see” proves “universal spirit”) because I think that we can solve our global problems only if we can free ourselves from marketing influence.
Helmut,
Thank you for the ‘Key Concept’ tip. I have already sampled some of the ‘key concepts’ and I must acknowledge that your ‘key concept’ of ‘Joint Reality’ was one of the best.
I like the concept of Joint Reality a lot. However, It was especially useful toward enabling me to identify where we might share a common understanding and where we might not.
In order to identify where we differ, let me first outline your point of view. Of course, please feel free to correct my misinterpretations, if any.
Your CONVICTIONS:
1. It is highly desirable for people to live and work together.
2. For this we need to facilitate communication and collaboration.
3. Therefore, it is important to build understanding between people.
4. But building understanding is difficult because we have different boundaries.
5. Various cultures, values and religions create different boundaries.
6. Language is a further obstacle toward understanding one another.
7. Identical words represent different meanings.
8. They are also bound to different emotions.
Your PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION:
9. For all the reasons listed above, it is impossible to arrive at common view of reality.
Your SOLUTIONS:
10. Instead of fighting the above problem in vain, we must seek solutions AROUND the impossibility of a common view of reality:
a. So we should seek to work toward common goals.
b. We need to bridge the gaps between our various views.
c. We should not think that one is right or possesses the truth.
d. We should be patient and suspend judgments.
e. We should also seek common values.
f. We should also seek common judgments.
g. We should even seek the middle ground between views.
h. We should seek partial aspects of views that can be appreciated.
i. We should explore the whole ground and not get stuck on single issues.
j. We should try and extend the range of possible intermediate views.
k. We should even create good relationships based on mutual respect.
l. We should understand one another’s points so that we can build bridges between them.
As you have probably already deduced, I share with you the same eight convictions.
Our difference arises in the Problem Identification. Whereas you hold that it is impossible to arrive at a common view of reality, I believe that it is possible. Hence of course, my solutions are different too.
The main difference between our different Problem Identification arises from our respective definitions of reality. Our definitions of reality are very different. It appears that you define reality as the SENSORY reality we all face. This definition of reality exclude US from part of reality. As a result, all views of reality must inevitably be flawed, because they are based on subjective states of people, which are themselves NOT part of reality.
I hold that we cannot exclude ourselves, and the substances, objects, functions and processes with which we interpret and interact with our sensory world – from reality. So view reality from a General Systems perspective, i.e., everything that exists – is a part of reality. But this too is not enough. I have taken an additional step. In order to understand ourselves as OBJECTIVE phenomena that drive our interaction with the sensory world, I have UNBUNDLED us, yes, so-called persons and individuals, into nine of the ten LAYERS within reality:
1. The first layer of Reality is of course the part of us that observes or experiences or is aware of the rest of the Whole (of Reality). The Whole which is itself structured into several additional layers of reality that the first layer faces. So the first thing that is common to all of us, is that we all are something that faces an identical range of layers of reality.
2. We all face a physical body through which we engage in various kinds of actions or behavior. We each experience oneself saying and doing things with our bodies. We also experience bodily sensations and feelings, such as discomfort, pains or aches.
3. We all experience a common physical world, albeit from different vantage points depending upon the location of each body in it, and the direction in which that body might be facing. We all notice some facet of this world at the expense of the rest of the world. I call these ‘distinguishables’ – percepts, the specific units of experience that we distinguish from everything else that faces us.
4. In addition to these phenomena, we all experience a variety of non-material realities: The first of these are COPIES of the percepts we experience, that are stored into one’s memory. I call them concepts, and they are units of information which we all possess in the zillions.
5. We all share a layer of conceptual processing, where the concepts we possess are developed into two layers of new concepts in the form of inferences on the one hand, and ideas, on the other. This processing of concepts is another common phenomenon we can all can observe taking place.
6. We all face a first layer of informational or conceptual layer of assumptions, beliefs and knowledge. This layer is the totality of concepts that we uploaded into us and stored in us while we grew up, those stored in us through the media and communicatoins channels around us, and those stored from direct expereinces, and the stored inferences that were processed from them. To each of us these assumptions, beliefs or knowledge are real.
This layer requires the most urgent cleaning up:
a) this is the layer through which all of us interpret the new experiences we face every moment.
b) this is the layer through which all of us process new inferences and ideas.
c) this is the layer that is currently most contaminated and dysfunctional in all of us. This is because this layer mostly contains assumptions, and beliefs that neither originated in the individual who possesses them, nor were reviewed, evaluated or selected by the individual who possesses them. So this layer generates most of our mistaken assumptions and beliefs, and accordingly produces our most dysfunctional and destructive interactions and responses.
7. We all face a second layer of informational or conceptual content in the form of imaginations, fantasies, and ideas. These are the products of rearranging the concepts we already possess into combinations that we have hitherto not experienced. The fact that each of us have them – is real. They are very powerful, because they can trigger behavior and action – either to transfer the idea into reality (hopes and aspirations), or to avoid the imminent possibility of its reality (fears and aversions).
8. We all face two linguistic layers of words and syntax. The first layer of words are used to represent concepts, which are entirely abstract, and cannot be observed through bodies other than the body in which the concepts are located. We all use these words to transfer concepts to others or to receive concepts from others. There is a lot of dysfuntion here as many words mean different concepts for different people, and even for the same person at different stages in one’s life.
9. We all face the second layer of syntax. This layer orders the words we read and use in a way that determines who or what is the agent, and who or what the agent is addressing. This is a valuable layer of our reality, because it determines ascribes agency to the subject. We all do this, whether those doing it notices it being done, or not. This is also often dysfunctional, because syntax often attributes causality falsely.
10. We all also face an emotional layer of feelings. Each of us experiences feelings, and to oneself, one’s feelings are vividly real. It the beliefs, ideas actions and objects that get a strong emotional charge that tends to attract more of our awareness and attention.
Helmut, as you can see, there is a vast difference between our respective understandings of reality. You consider physical reality to be real, but I hold that there are several other layers of reality as well, and that by focusing on all these layers of reality and by observing their interactions, we will arrive at new and better solutions to the key challenges we face in work and life.
Our differences are those between an incomplete reality and a more comprehensive reality. It would only be natural for those with the incomplete reality to believe that all views of reality are ultimately irreconcilable, and therefore common views should not be sought at all.
This is why your solution is to go around the actual views themselves, and try instead to identify common goals and individual points etc.
So whereas your Problem Identification is that:
It is impossible to arrive at common view of reality,
Mine is:
We are typically unable to purge our conceptual layer of all the MISTAKEN assumptions, beliefs and facts – that were uploaded into our brains from outdated and contaminated sources – while we were growing up, too young to even know that we were being programmed.
Because your Problem Identification is different from mine, our SOLUTIONS are different too.
Your Solution was:
Instead of fighting this problem (the impossibility to arrive at a common view of reality) in vain, we must seek solutions AROUND the impossibility of a common view of reality.
My solution, is, on the other hand:
In order to purge our conceptual layer of mistaken assumptions, beliefs and facts - all of us must get familiar with all the layers of reality, and clean up the critical interpretive layer that generates most of our dysfunctional and destructive drives.
Specifically, this involves
a) integrating the conceptual, emotional, linguistic and observational dimensions (that we both acknowledge in the list of our convictions above), into our common reality,
b) studing the nature, structure and content of each layer in greater detail, and to study the interactions among all the resulting structures of reality.
c) examining one’s hitherto neglected conceptual layer of assumptions, beliefs and facts, in order to purge the layer of all assumptions and beliefs that don’t stand the test of one’s own critical, empirical scrutiny.
d) focusing upon the assumptions and beliefs about one’s own identity, and to revise it in a way that distinguishes the subject from the object, the observer/experiencer/awareness from all the other layers of reality, which constitute the observable. This should be done in such a way that excludes all object, such as one’s body, and one’s beliefs, from one’s identity (subject). The assumption of the pure observational standpoint as one’s identity by all of us, will enable all of us to become more objective and more critical of one’s own false assumptions and beliefs, and accordingly, easier to purge them from our critical interpretive function, and thus put an end to the distorting interpretations they generate, and the misdirected interactions that result from them.
Helmut, yes, we all do share a JOINT REALITY. However, it would be more accurate to call it a COMMON REALITY. But it cannot be an incomplete reality. Those who view an incomplete reality - have to believe it is impossible to develop a common understanding of reality. So they grope and flail about in the larger and richer true reality, and are confine themselves to leveling all discourse to their level of ineffectiveness and inconclusiveness.’
Do pause a moment, and consider the vast and rich multi-layered COMMON REALITY we all are in. If you acknowledged that at least all these ten layers of reality identified above are common to all human beings, then this is a common truth we can all build together upon. Let us all work together to focus on the neglected dimensions of our common reality and clean up the layers that most severely cause our divisions, our conflicts and our destructiveness.
In the meantime, thank you once again for your well-meaning suggestions, there is much that could be helpful.
Um, in other words, Helmut wants to make things work the way humans work now, and perceive things now, and you want to first “reprogram” human nature so that the world works as it should. I’m highly suspicious of that - both on moral grounds, and practical grounds (if you can’t even convince anyone here of your point of view, how can you expect to apply them to the whole of humanity ?)
Emile, you too are taking the easy way out of our discussion. You still haven’t commented on my responses to your earlier comments. You seem to prefer making judgments about my responses to Helmut.
Do you really believe that I want to “reprogram” people? Please take a last and sharper look, in more detail below, at what I am trying to enable people to discover.
Ask yourself the following two questions of EACH of the twelve points:
1. What can be morally questionable in enabling people to discover this?
2. How can this discovery involve a case of Ravi “reprogramming” people?
List of a dozen things I want them to discover:
a) They discover there are several layers of reality common to all human beings,
b) They discover that one of these layers, that of their assumptions and beliefs, interprets their experiences for them,
c) They discover that some of these interpretations distort their perception of their experiences, because…
d) They discover that some of the assumptions and beliefs are not really true,
e) They discover that much of their existing assumptions and beliefs did not originate in themselves,
f) They discover they have been culturally programmed with several outdated assumptions and beliefs while they were growing up,
g) They discover that they had no way of knowing that they were being programmed in this way – at the time,
h) They discover that they also had no way of evaluating and selecting which programming to keep and which to reject,
i) They discover that is within their own power to review, evaluate and edit out what they themselves realize to be untrue, and as a result…
j) They discover that some of their earlier interpretations of their experiences were inaccurate,
k) They discover that they will gradually interpret their experiences with less distortions, and as a further result,
l) They discover, that they will in future, respond less dysfunctionally to their experiences.
If, after considering this detailed list of discoveries I want people to make, you still think I am trying to “reprogram” you in some “morally questionable” way, I apologize for having distracted you from more useful uses for your time.
In the meantime, please consider carefully what you mean with your use of the term “human nature”. I hope you realize that this term is merely a “catchall” for all the facets of human functioning that its user doesn’t yet adequately understand.
It is high time we each understand human functioning and increase our efforts toward improving – both our understanding of the ways in which we function – and our actual functioning – instead of continuing to sweep our society’s dysfunction and destructiveness under the rug of “human nature”.
Responding to your comment on the practicality of my efforts, let me say, every journey begins with a first step. Over time, I expect some convergence between a) improvements in the quality and quantity of the ways in which I communicate this perspective, and b) people’s own increasing dissatisfaction with their grasp and effectiveness in the world.
As a result, I expect more and more people eventually to consider this option, if only as a no-risk way for a chance to improve both their understanding and their effectiveness in life.
Ravi, you did a remarkable good job summarizing the idea JointReality? but in the end I feel still misunderstood. I do neither think that people can’t reach a common world view, nor do I recommend that people should think in terms of JointReality? in general. JointReality? is a mediation or bridge-building pattern that only makes sense when there is a gap between positions A, B and you want to build a kind of partial agreement like a cooperation.
You say that a COMMON REALITY is possible. Of course, I agree it is possible. But it is very improbably that you get a real agreement in certain situations. Think about Christianity and the Islam? A general agreement about the death penalty or tax reduction in the US? An world-wide agreement about the next war?
There may be formal agreements: the catholic pope and his cardinals obvisously share more than a “profession of faith” - still there are political factions and they didn’t fully agree on the new pope. So what does a formal agreement on “universal spirit” really mean? The answer: it is more a symbol than something real, it looks likes a claim (and acceptance) of leadership than a real agreement on a COMMON REALITY.
I also do not agree on your layer-structure of reality. There are obviously different parts or types of reality. Popper names three worlds: the physical world, the psychological world or our consciousness and the world of language and other inter-subjective cultural artefacts. It seems clear that all three are physical, but we access them in quite different ways, so it makes sense to keep them apart. What we see or feel is part of our psychological world but it is just as real, although we can’t measure it.
I strongly believe that it makes sense to think of ONE REALITY (physical, psychological, cultural and whatever) and DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REALITY. Different views may be correct at the same time, just as people see a mountain in different shape from different places. Einstein told us how to translate different views in his theory of relativity which has been so often philosophically misunderstood (“justifying arbitrary views” instead of “predicting different views”). Different view may also be just plain wrong, or approaching “truth” step by step.
The problem ist that we have no direct way to measure truth. And if something is provable true, like parts of mathematics, it doesn’t mean that it is relevant to solving world problems.
Helmut,
I am sorry I did not fully understand your Joint Reality concept. I didn’t mean to misunderstand you.
So let me try and build some Joint Reality bridges over the gaps between your key points and mine.
Let me begin with something we both agree on. You say:
“There are obviously different parts or types of reality.” You also say:
“What we see or feel is part of our psychological world, but it is just as real, although we can’t measure it.”
Let me withdraw my use of the term LAYER, and use your word TYPES instead.
I am now going to repeat my list of TYPES of reality, and ask you to confirm whether these types of reality exist. If you think some of these don’t exist, please be sure to point them out to me.
1. The first TYPE of reality is of course the part of every one of us that observes or experiences or is aware of the rest of the Whole (of Reality). The Whole which is Itself made up of several additional types of reality that the first type of reality faces. So the first type of reality that is common to all of us, is – that we all are something that faces the following range of additional types of reality.
2. All of us face a physical body through which we observe, perceive and experience the rest of the physical universe, and through which we engage in various kinds of actions or behavior. We each experience oneself saying and doing things with our bodies. We also experience bodily sensations and feelings, such as discomfort, pains or aches.
3. All of us experience a common physical world, albeit from different vantage points depending upon the location of each body in it, and the direction in which that body might be facing. We all notice some facet of this world at the expense of the rest of the world. I call these ‘distinguishables’ – percepts, the specific units of experience that we distinguish from everything else that faces us.
4. All of us experience a variety of non-material realities: The first of these are COPIES of the percepts we experience, that are stored into one’s memory banks. I call them concepts, and they are units of information which we all possess in the zillions.
5. We all share a type of reality called conceptual processing, where the concepts we possess are developed into two types of new concepts in the form of inferences on the one hand, and ideas on the other.
6. We all face a type of informational or conceptual type of reality comprising assumptions and beliefs. This type of reality is the totality of concepts that were uploaded into us and stored in us while we grew up, those stored in us through media and communications channels around us, and those stored from direct experiences, and the stored inferences that were processed from them. To each of us, these assumptions, beliefs are real.
This type of reality requires the most urgent cleaning up:
a) this is the type of reality through which all of us interpret the new experiences we face every moment.
b) this is the type of reality through which all of us process new inferences and ideas.
c) this is the type of reality that is currently most contaminated and dysfunctional in all of us. This is because this type of reality mostly contains assumptions, and beliefs that neither originated in the individuals who possesses them, nor were reviewed, evaluated or selected by the individuals who possess them. So this type of reality generates most of our mistaken assumptions and beliefs, and accordingly produces our most dysfunctional and destructive interactions and responses.
7. We all face a second type of informational or conceptual content in the form of imaginations, fantasies, and ideas. These are the products of rearranging the concepts we already possess into combinations that we have hitherto not experienced. Each of us have them. This type of reality is very powerful, because it can trigger behavior and action – either to transfer the idea into reality (hopes and aspirations), or to avoid the imminent possibility of its reality (fears and aversions).
8. We all face two linguistic types of reality: words and syntax. The first type, namely words, are used to represent concepts, which are entirely abstract, and cannot be observed. We all use these words to transfer concepts to others or to receive concepts from others. There is a lot of dysfunction here. Many words represent different concepts for different people, and even for the same person at different stages in one’s life.
9. We all face the second linguistic type of reality - syntax. This type of reality orders the words we read and use in a way that both combines persons or objects with some action or activity, and assigns agency to a person or object that is carrying out the action or activity. Through syntax, we all knowingly or unknowingly often award agency where none exists. This is also often dysfunctional, because syntax often attributes causality and agency falsely.
10. We all also face an emotional type of reality - feelings. Each of us experiences feelings. To oneself, one’s feelings are vividly real. Emotions are assigned to several other kinds of reality. Beliefs, ideas actions and objects that get a strong emotional charge tends to attract more of our attention.
Why is the acknowledgement of all these types of reality so important? This way, the phenomena you consider internal and psychological can be considered external and objective. Just because we haven’t learned to measure words and meaning and feelings, doesn’t mean that they are not real.
This brings us to the crux. Both you and I agree it makes sense to think of ONE REALITY. But whereas you believe that we have different views of this selfsame reality, I believe we can advance toward ever more accurate views of the one reality.
The ever increasing and refining advance of science is a manifestation of my view that we can advance toward ever more accurate views of reality. This shows us that if we advance emipirically, we can together advance toward a common view of our common reality.
Already, increasing numbers of us accept the views that make up all the knowledge that goes into the making of RELIABLE airplanes, computers, rockets, escalators, elevators, cars, trains, ships, bridges, tunnels, electronics, medicines, etc. to be true, and therefore, cases of a common view of our common reality.
In order to advance towared a COMMON VIEW of our COMMON REALITY, we have to use language much the way we use it in science. The boundaries of meaning must be sharp. We must shift gradually from mysterious and fuzzy words and terms like ‘psychological’ and ‘human nature’ and ‘mind’ that each seem to include several of the types of reality I have listed here.
We must widen our application of scientific rigor to go beyond our common physical reality, and to focus such rigor on the other types of reality that have hitherto languished under the much less rigorous use of concepts and words – under the above-mentioned words and terms like ‘psychological’ and ‘human nature’ and ‘mind’.
I am not promoting FAITH here. Quite the opposite. By postulating types of reality, I am promoting a more empirical scrutiny of all the kinds or reality we can focus upon, so that we can all advance gradually and rationally toward a common view of our common reality.
Faith, is in fact, our adversary here. When different groups of us give up our innate ability to question and challenge what we ourselves hold to be true, in order to sharpen and refine our knowledge and understanding – that’s where divisions and conflict form.
Imagine all high schools on Earth in the year 2050 teaching a new subject called ‘cognology’ which is the study of one’s own conceptual and linguistic operations.
Imagine that in the last three years of high school, all students all over the world are taught five techniques:
a) to regards all the observable types of reality as ‘objective’ content, available to one’s own scrutiny.
b) how to maintain focus upon their own assumptions and beliefs for longer and longer periods of attention.
c) how to edit out assumptions and beliefs that are not consistent with one’s own direct experience.
d) how to focus on one’s own emotions, both in order to be more familiar with one’s own likes and dislikes, and be less surprised and overcome by unexpected emotional storms.
e) how to identify fault lines in one’s conceptual architecture, and integrate the knowledge they already possess.
Wouldn’t these students, as adults, be less likely to be fanatics and fundamentalists of any religion?
Wouldn’t these kids be less likely to regard one another as “other” in the sense of “not like us”?
Wouldn’t these kids be more likely be able to filter out dysfunctional patterns of perception, interpretation, and communication before these patterns get realized in speech and action?
Here is one last metaphor for distinguishing our respective positions![:]](http://www.emacswiki.org/pics/forced.png)
Imagine all of us are each in a long train compartment. The compartments have six sections. From the front of the compartments, these sections are:
1. All of Physical reality except one’s own body.
2. One’s own body and its actions.
3. One’s ideas and imaginations.
4. One’s assumptions and beliefs.
5. One’s emotions and feelings.
6. The part of one that is observing, perceiving, experiencing, aware.
Here’s where most people are located in their respective compartments: Their existing identity as one’s body locates them in section 2, facing forward. All they can see is the rest of physical reality (other than one’s own body). All the other sections of reality are BEHIND them. It is much more difficult to know what is going on behind one, that it is to know what’s in front. So their thoughts and feelings and beliefs rage on, and make them act, often in ways they would prefer not to.
Now imagine students that graduated from those schools I mentioned above. Where are they located in their respective compartments?
At the back of the compartments. They consider themselves to be the pure observational standpoint (a scientific stance), able to focus on all the sectors in front of them – at will. These students can shift and hold focus anywhere along the front five sectors at will. They can also examine the interactions among the sectors in front of one. All five observable sectors of their reality is in front of them.
Which of these two kinds of people have a greater advantage in life?
Which of them is likely to have more reliable knowledge and fewer unexamined beliefs?
Which of them are less likely to be destructive towards others and the environment?
Which of them are more likely to avoid the pitfalls of communication with words that mean different things to their listeners?
Helmut, I would like to follow your technique and attempt to build another Joint Reality or build another bridge between Popper’s SECOND WORLD and my position:
One of Popper’s worlds is: “the psychological world or our consciousness”. I vaguely remember this one as Popper’s SECOND WORLD. In any event both he and you seem to regard this as ONE world.
I cannot see this as one world. I see three entirely different types of reality within this Popper’s SECOND WORLD. One of these types might be easy for us to agree on. Consciousness is a key common reality, but only as the observing, perceiving, experiencing, and aware noticing ‘subject’ function.
However, I must distinguish and separate the conceptual/information ‘object’ component of meaning from consciousness. There are two reasons for this:
1. What we call observing, perceiving, experiencing and awareness is a noticing function of subject. It is not unlike a video camera with a perpetually open shutter, receiving all kinds of snapshots and frames generating copies of each upon the film, tape or memory chip. These copied ‘objects’ are entirely different from the ‘noticing’ subject function that enabled these objects to be copied into brain-media as repeatedly retrievable (observable) units of data. This data is determined by the objects and events that happened to be in the physical world out there (Popper’s FIRST WORLD), for it is the objects and events that get noticed as percepts, which percepts in turn get copied into concepts, and stored in the brain-media for retrieval.
2. Much of this conceptual content is ALIEN to the brain in which it is stored and to the consciousness that notices it on retrieval. Great gobs of data get noticed copied and stored – that originate outside the individual, and are translated into linguistic form also outside the individual (Popper’s THIRD WORLD), and transferred to the individual through noticing functions such as listening, reading, media-watching etc and then get decoded into conceptual meaning data. Surely, the alienness of such content merits a distinction and separation from the noticing ‘subject’ function of consciousness, which, at least for the purposes of our discussion, is a local function within the individual.
This is a critical distinction, if only because the reality of conceptual data can be noticed and managed, pulled apart and fused together, processed into entirely new content of meaning such as inferences and ideas.’
But there is also a third reality in Popper’s SECOND WORLD. This is the emotional charge that often arises when objects or data are noticed by consciousness (subject) and get attached to the stored data form of the experience. This is also an entirely different function, because it is so different from both consciousness, and from the data objects that might evoke such a charge. The charges themselves are simple, either attraction charges or repulsion charges, which commonly understood as likes and dislikes, beauty and ugliness, and so on.
By fusing three realities: a) emotional function with b) data objects and c) the noticing subject function – all under Popper’s SECOND WORLD of “consciousness or psychological world”, we are actually handicapping ourselves, simply making it more difficult for us to observe and learn and grow from the interaction among these different realities.
Surely, Helmut, it’s high time we threw over this yoke of disability.
Ravi, although we are getting nearer, we are still getting nowhere. As far as I understand it, you try to build a formal understanding and reasoning within WORLD THREE to issues of WORLD TWO and assume that these must correspond. The field may be seen as part of natural science, but it more difficult than working about WORLD ONE. Still, when you make assumptions about the structure of our consciousness, these only make sense when they can be tested. You don’t seem to be interested on testing your assumptions in reality, or comparing your theories to existing results of various sciences, like neurophysiology or psychoanalysis. Do you think that “pure rational reasoning” in that field is possible? How do you justify to do this separated from science? How do you think to become effective without making it a religious message (as it will be perceived by many people naturally)? People usually do not even judge on their own (or think on their own, make their own judgements) but act synchronized to their traditions or trusted authorities.
Helmut,
You say: “People usually do not even judge on their own (or think on their own, make their own judgements) but act synchronized to their traditions or trusted authorities.”
I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion. This is a clear articulation of one of the most serious, if not the most serious - problems of humankind.
It is precisely because “people usually do not even judge on their own (or think on their own, make their own judgements) but act synchronized to their traditions or trusted authorities” – that it is so important and urgent that at least future generations are given the skills to focus on the programming inflicted upon them their “traditions and trusted authorities”.
It is precisely because “people usually do not even judge on their own (or think on their own, make their own judgements) but act synchronized to their traditions or trusted authorities” – that I want high school students to have the five techniques I mentioned above – because this could enable them to review and correct such outdated and error-prone programming already lying in their brains.
It also precisely why I suggest that people be made familiar with realities OTHER than the sensory world of physical reality (also mentioned earlier), because without realizing the existence of these realities, they cannot be expected to make the effort necessary to focus on these realities and clean them up, especially the realities of their pre-existing assumptions and beliefs. People cannot be expected to make an effort to look for things that they believe to be non-existent.
It is also precisely why I suggest that high school students become able to shift their identities from their bodies, from which vantage point they face only their sensory world of physical reality, to the vantage point of a pure observational standpoint – so that it becomes easier for them to focus on the conceptual and emotional dimensions as well. This is normally very difficult, if only because the body-based identity compels them to regard everything else, other than physical reality, including any possible conceptual and emotional content – to be “inside their bodies (heads)”
Helmut, is it not ironic that you are actually using this human condition of “not even judging on their own (or thinking on their own, making their own judgements)”, as the very reason for NOT accepting the ‘realities’ and ‘techniques’ that I am suggesting as necessary to overcome this very human condition.
You also say: “when you make assumptions about the structure of our consciousness, these only make sense when they can be tested.”
When I speak to you, I am speaking to consciousness. I am speaking to whatever is able to observe, perceive, experience, be aware of, notice, be conscious of – what I am writing here. The very fact that you are reading this at this moment demonstrates that this capacity to observe, to perceive, to experience, to be aware of, to notice, to be conscious of, is operating at this very moment. We don’t need neurophysiologists or psychoanalysts to confirm this.
I assure you, you can observe, perceive, experience, be aware of, notice, be conscious of – emotions and feelings, assumptions and beliefs, ideas and fantasies, just as you are able to feel the keyboard under your fingers, and the computer display or paper on which you are seeing these words. We don’t need to test what is obvious. We don’t need to test whether there is something that is capable of observing, we don’t need to test whether there are such things we refer to as emotions or feelings, we don’t need to test whether there are such things as your own assumptions or beliefs, we don’t need to test whether there are such things as actions being carried out by you.
So, several of my assumptions about the existence of consciousness and the several ‘realities’ that can be perceived by it, can MAKE sense without being tested beyond your own examination of these assumptions. You don’t have to wait for the experts to confirm it, in order to know that you are conscious, that you can be conscious of feelings and emotions, assumptions and beliefs, and your own actions and activities.
The same goes for anyone else who likewise considers whether she or he is conscious, whether she or he is conscious of that you can be conscious of feelings and emotions, assumptions and beliefs, and your own actions and activities.
It is not necessary to seek confirmation of “scientists from fields like neurophysiology or psychoanalysis” when discussing realities that anyone who is participating can verify on scrutiny. As usual, you are bypassing my request that you confirm or reject the specifics of the realities I list in order to complain that I don’t seek scientific verification.
Neurophysiology is not concerned with conceptual content at all, and psychoanalysis is not a science but a technique. Indeed, it is a technique that is not dissimilar from skills I want all high school students to be able apply regularly and intensively upon their own conceptual content.
Helmut, you say we are getting nearer, but still getting nowhere because we don’t have confirmation from the scientific community. I say there is a great deal that we can do that can be very usful to humankind, simply by using our own consciousness and our innate abilities to focus upon and review and correct and clean up our individual conceptual realities.
Please let us advance on what you and I and the others in this discussion can agree upon, without deferring or obscuring our efforts to await the confirmation of neurophysiologists and psychoanalysts to what we already know. Let us apply your “Joint Reality” process of building bridges between our respective understandings.