Philosophy Now Forum

This OP statement is one of the truths that is the same as saying that a knife cannot cut itself. A fire cannot burn itself. An eye cannot see itself. Or an arrow cannot point to itself.

It’s really that simple IC

Alex is right ...when awareness starts to observe itself, the whole act comes to an end when observer and observed merge as one...An observer is nothing but a “thought” it’s an empty concept.


It’s simple IC...Or in your own mind, the one you believe to have, this simplicity is very complicated, it’s unavoidable to overthink what is too simple, you are an expert at this game, no offence.

Differences are within the illusory dream of separation... in reality there is no difference between the observer, observation and the observed. It means that in absence of conditioning, there are not three different things, but just one single truth which exists - the combined reality of an observer, observation and observed. One Truth.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am What do you mean "feel" something? Do you mean tactilely, or emotionally "feel" it?

I referred to the sense of touch, not to emotions.

I see.

Well, I think I do understand. You're a sort of what would be called a Common Sense Realist, a sort of Materialism. It doesn't seem you detect a difference between the senses (see, touch, taste, and so on) and the "observer," the entity "behind the eyes," so to speak, who is making sense out of the external stimuli.

I do see a problem there. A rudimentary sensor, a mechanical device, can be created to indicate a difference in things like colour or texture. So in the senses sense, the sensor can "detect" the difference. But it is utterly devoid of potential to interpret, categorize, relate or process the difference it detects. It is not an observer.

So if experience is no more than the externals of taste, touch, feel, and so on, then experience is what a rudimentary sensor is having. But I don't think anybody reasonable wants to say that's what the sensor is having.

And I think you intuit the problem in such a view already. For you say...

None of the senses actually tell us "this is something material that I am experiencing now" - sure, thought will tell us this when our hand touches a solid surface, but the sense of touch itself does not.

Right. So the five senses cannot be equal to "experiencing." There must be an observer to do the thinking, a "ghost in the machine," to parrot Gilbert Ryle.

There is nothing wrong with this interpretation,

Well, I see a problem. It's the one above. If the five senses are all that are necessary to constitute an "experience," then there is no need for an observer. But if an observer exists, then something different from Materialism is true. And something more than the five senses is required for an "experience" to happen.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am Take the term "observer." An "observer" isn't an eye, per se. He HAS an eye, but an eye without the "observer" behind it would not be capable of "observing" anything, no matter how much light it channelled through its pupil, its iris, its rods and cones, or the optic nerve. A "seeing" observation is not a function of light. Instead, it's an interpretation of light patterns detected through the neural matrix by an entity we call the "observer."

This may all be true (or not)... I am not really talking about all these possible interpretations, but I am attempting to point you to what comes before all these thoughts take hold of the experience and turn something very simple into something complex.

It's not merely a difference of quantity, though, but a difference of quality. No matter how "complex" the stimuli picked up by the five senses are, they don't even constitute an "experience" without an observer processing them and making them into something. An experience is qualitatively different from sensors being stimulated. It's actually a different thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am f Materialism is true, then there can be no "observer," no consciousness behind cognition.

As I see it, the only "thing" thats true is the basic experience of "taste of apple" (or whatever else is being experienced...) - all the rest is interpretation and will never be true.

I would have to say this isn't so. After all, the same apple may taste bitter to one person and sweet to another -- say if one has just been eating a sugary dessert, and the other just had a steak. So it's not the "taste" itself that is being "true." It's variable. Rather, the difference is being marked by two different observers of exactly the same object.

No matter how "accurate" the conceptual interpretation, it is still infinitely far away from the truth of "taste of apple" - it "exists" actually, in a completely different dimension --> basic reality and conceptual reality never meet (just like left and right will never meet - they can only both vanish and leave you with... no separation and no opposite at all).

This almost sounds Platonic. Plato thought there was a "realm of ideal forms" where the "truth" about things like the taste of apple sort of floated about eternally. I'm sure you don't believe that, but what you just said sounds a lot like Plato.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am If Materialism is true, then conceptual thought itself doesn't exist in reality either.

Sure, conceptual thought exists... [/quote]
Yes, I agree it does. But Materialism holds that that is impossible. "Thought," according to Materialism, is nothing other than the snapping and crackling of neurons in a thing called a "brain." And in this brain, there is no "observer." There is no real-world entity capable of processing and interpreting these things. What there really is, is only the inevitable playing out of the long chain of material causes that exist in the universe. Well, so say the Materialists.

You can think of an apple, but you cannot experience "apple" directly.

This is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am It's what philosophers of mind call an "epiphenomenon," which is essentially a word meaning, "weird side effect we Materialists cannot find any adequate way to explain."

Did what I said above, explain it?
If not, I'll try again (if you like)

You have explained what you mean, I agree. I think there are still problems with that view, though, as I have suggested. I wonder what you'll make of those objections.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am I don't find it obvious at all, I must confess. I'm surprised at the confidence of your expression, actually, Alex

Well... look at at an apple and tell me what you actually see.

What you wrote earlier, which I repeat here to refresh out minds was:

The observer and the observation are made/thought up - they actually do not exist anywhere but in conceptual thought.

I guess I could sort of agree with this, if I was sure I understood what you mean by "made up." But I also would say that we all start out assuming Common Sense Realism...that what we see is what we are getting from our senses. We only later discover that's not how it's working.

Kant said there were two real things in play: one was the external world, of which we have no absolutely correct experience, and the experience that is occasioned by the external world, but is really the observer's processed version of the impressions from the senses. So we have a sort of relatively correct experience that we get from reality. But even Kant did not separate the external world entirely from the internal observer; after all, with no external world, there would be no internal experience. And the internal experience is largely stimulated by the actual activities of the outside world.

What I'm saying is that the truth is a bit of a tightrope walk between two incorrect beliefs. On one side is the falsehood that we observers see the world as it actually is, in all cases; on the other is the error that nothing we see is real, and reality itself is entirely a matter of interpretation. Both are false. Our experience is stimulated by, and dependent on external realities, but is processed by an internal observer in order to become an "experience" in the proper sense of that word.

Does that seem in any way close to what you also think?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am It doesn't seem apparent to me that I can find a way to dismiss things like consciousness, rationality, selfhood, identity, personhood, morality, and so on...all of which are immaterial realities that seem very compelling to me

They are only compelling to you because you have acquired certain knowledge - conceptual knowledge - that gives value to these concepts.

No, I think that's wrong. As I say, we all start out assuming some sort of Common Sense Realism. And these things are all part of the common sense of things. A person who walked around doubting all rationality, his own identity, the personhood of others, or all morality would be the odd fish in the school. Surely that's apparent. So nobody taught us about these things: they were intuitive experiences long before we could articulate them all, and they formed our baseline assumptions about the world.

In fact, I never recall anyone ever sitting down with me and explaining consciousness or selfhood to me, let alone rationality. Yet I was using all these things long before I went to school. And long before I could explain why, I had a sense of morality being in the world...if only because I knew darn well when I was being deceptive or selfish, even as a tiny child. Everybody's got a conscience.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:53 am It's not clear to me that that OP wording makes any sense...

Yes, maybe it could have been said differently, but hey... this is true for all statements.[/quote]
In philosophy, though, we try to fix this after-the-fact. If we misspeak, we try to correct. If we explain badly, we try to refine.

And part of that process has to be to accept justified critique from other people who detect better than we do, sometimes, when we have misspoken or miscommunicated. I think this OP does that, and I'd like to see the poster explain what he really meant, using better words, so I can understand it properly and give a fairer response.

As worded, it's actually insufficiently clear.

I welcome any further thoughts you have on any of the above, Alex.

Most of the time we do not question our experience, we exist in a naiive realist sense, with the experiences we have standing in as a surrogate for a world we assume is being DIRECTLY contacted with.

This is the normal state of human experience and understanding of it. Then, when one gets a chance to think about it upon reflection, they remember that light waves bounce off objects “out there”, and hit the retina which stimulates our neural impulses and creates a world “in here”. We have a conceptual understanding that what we are seeing isn’t direct contact with the things in themselves, but is a surrogate world standing in for those things. We are now one step removed from the world, interfacing with a virtual reality interface of sorts.

But we still take ourselves to be “in” the head. Some entity in there, the one who is “having” experiences. Like a person sitting in a theatre watching a movie.

This is the one we are inquiring about. The one it feels like to be. The one who seems to be seeing, and doing. The one to whom the senses are “presented” on this internal screen. This one is the fiction that believes itself into existence. It’s like a self writing book that becomes real. There is really no one to whom experiences arise for, there is just experiencing. There is also the sense of being the one experiencing which is also appearing on this screen. But whenever this one appears on the screen (of experience), it fools itself somehow into thinking its real, that it is the one experiencing, and thinking, and doing. It is not only the sense of identity, it also takes ownership of actions, thoughts, etc. This sense of self is linked to responding to fears, to desires, to threats.

It is essential to survival. But when it arises, it can’t be caught in the act so to speak, like thoughts can be seen as not necessarily “your” thoughts, but can be disowned in a sense. The arising of the self is to be caught in a dream or delusion. And it is entirely survival oriented, and so, is not a bad thing from the perspective of survival. But it creates suffering by virtue of these necessary energies which drive our organism. Suffering is the greatest motivator, and so a creature that suffers is one that is most likely to survive, but it’s experience is a negative one. When that organism’s own internal state is what is providing the most suffering, it necessarily wants to find the source of this suffering. Eventually, the source is not found to be external, but internal. It’s own reactions are the causes of this suffering.

What happens next is what has been described already.

Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:34 pm This is the one we are inquiring about. The one it feels like to be. The one who seems to be seeing, and doing. The one to whom the senses are “presented” on this internal screen. This one is the fiction that believes itself into existence.

I see what you're trying to say there, DB, but if you replace the word "fiction" with the word "unicorn" you'll see the fault in reasoning there. You do put it winsomely, and I like the metaphor of the internal screen and viewer. But I think maybe a metaphor has run away with the truth there, when you talk about anything "believing itself into existence." Nothing can do that. The word "fiction" also undermines any sense of reality there.

I think perhaps it's not that consciousness can "believe itself into existence," but that consciousness is a sort of dynamic, not merely a static object. One is only conscious when the activity of being conscious is "in motion," so to speak. And I think that's right.

The Materialist explanation is always poor, because it assumes that if consciousness exists, it must exist as a material object. But it does not have to do that. There are many non-Material objects the Materialist (often unwittingly) takes for granted as real; not the least of which is his own consciousness when he says, "There is no such thing as consciousness."

After all, if there's no, then who's speaking?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:21 am This OP statement is one of the truths that is the same as saying that a knife cannot cut itself. A fire cannot burn itself. An eye cannot see itself. Or an arrow cannot point to itself.

It’s really that simple IC

But it's not.

For knives and fire are not conscious, so they cannot perceive themselves. And eyes are uni-directional, so they can't "see backward." But this is superficial, when we speak of "observing" as including things like "awareness" or "understanding."' It's quite clear that any observer can make observations (correct and incorrect) about himself. And by looking in a mirror, or reflecting on what others see in him, he can see back into himself, and be more self aware.

So no, it's not "that simple" at all. The OP is simplistic, in fact.

And it's still in passive voice. I note that.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:39 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:46 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:13 am You are what observes, not what is being observed.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

.

I know I am the Conscious Light and the Conscious Sound that I Experience in my Mind. Therefore I can say I am Observing myself (the Observer) when I Experience these things. So in other words if you have ever Seen Light or Heard Sound then you have Observed the Observer.

I’m assuming you are referring to aware of being aware, in other words, there is only here an aware awareness?
So if we take that fundamental concept “Awareness” as all there is, it is clear that AWARENESS cannot be observed as in LOOKED AT ...As in the idea it can be contained in a jar to be looked upon from something outside of it.

Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing.
It can’t be known because it is the knowing.


This Empty Seeing and Knowing is what is being pointed to. In the exact same context an ARROW cannot point to itself.

I don't honestly see the logic in statements like "Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing". It just seems like a Speculation without proof or explanation. When you realize that you are the Light then you realize you are aware of yourself when you Experience the Light. In fact the only thing you are aware of is yourself.

Awareness is a chemical state of brain-mind. Awareness is not an entity. Brain mind is an entity. Brain- mind can see itself by means of brain scans.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:23 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:39 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:46 pm
I know I am the Conscious Light and the Conscious Sound that I Experience in my Mind. Therefore I can say I am Observing myself (the Observer) when I Experience these things. So in other words if you have ever Seen Light or Heard Sound then you have Observed the Observer.

I’m assuming you are referring to aware of being aware, in other words, there is only here an aware awareness?
So if we take that fundamental concept “Awareness” as all there is, it is clear that AWARENESS cannot be observed as in LOOKED AT ...As in the idea it can be contained in a jar to be looked upon from something outside of it.

Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing.
It can’t be known because it is the knowing.


This Empty Seeing and Knowing is what is being pointed to. In the exact same context an ARROW cannot point to itself.

I don't honestly see the logic in statements like "Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing". It just seems like a Speculation without proof or explanation. When you realize that you are the Light then you realize you are aware of yourself when you Experience the Light. In fact the only thing you are aware of is yourself.

But the light comes and goes, if that is you, it is always changing, what is the part of you that doesn’t change?

Imagine you are trying to answer the question, “what am I?”

In a sense you are correct Steve, but usually before you can recognise that you are everything, you need to realise that you aren’t the body, or your thoughts, because most people are highly identified with the body and their thoughts, they can’t see them without being sucked into them so to speak.

So before you can become everything, you first need to become nothing.

Sounds nonsensical, I know. This is not logic, this is understanding our own self from the inside. The brain is tied up in loops, so in untying those loops, we end up tying reality itself up in strange ways.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:00 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:21 am This OP statement is one of the truths that is the same as saying that a knife cannot cut itself. A fire cannot burn itself. An eye cannot see itself. Or an arrow cannot point to itself.

It’s really that simple IC

But it's not.

For knives and fire are not conscious, so they cannot perceive themselves. And eyes are uni-directional, so they can't "see backward." But this is superficial, when we speak of "observing" as including things like "awareness" or "understanding."' It's quite clear that any observer can make observations (correct and incorrect) about himself.

Observations are appearances...the observer IS NOT an appearance, and that which is not an appearance CANNOT be observed.

It’s that simple.

And by looking in a mirror, or reflecting on what others see in him, he can see back into himself, and be more self aware.

These reflections are just more appearances ..aka ideas, concepts, memories and thoughts and such...all appearances are empty reflections within imageless observing...so the image of what thought thinks is a face in the mirror is not the seer, the image in a mirror is the seen. And so any thing “seen” itself cannot see - because seer and seen are one unitary experience, inseparably one and the same no thing.

All very simple.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:00 pm For knives and fire are not conscious, so they cannot perceive themselves.

Arms and legs, eyeballs and brains, and all things of physical flesh and bone cannot perceive themselves either. A brain in particular is not conscious that it is conscious.

All things known are appearances of consciousness. And that which is known cannot observe or know anything of its existence.

Consciousness cannot see or know itself because it is ONE directional.

Consciousness becomes known upon its own projected reflection in association with the image it holds in memory which is also Empty.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:00 pm For knives and fire are not conscious, so they cannot perceive themselves.

Arms and legs, eyeballs and brains, and all things of physical flesh and bone cannot perceive themselves either. A brain in particular is not conscious that it is conscious.

All things known are appearances of consciousness. And that which is known cannot observe or know anything of its existence.

Consciousness cannot see or know itself because it is ONE directional.

Consciousness becomes known upon its own projected reflection in association with the image it holds in memory which is also Empty.

My brain-mind knows it is aware.Not constantly knows it is aware ,but intermittently, when it focuses on its awareness.

STEVE

I don't honestly see the logic in statements like "Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing". It just seems like a Speculation without proof or explanation. When you realize that you are the Light then you realize you are aware of yourself when you Experience the Light. In fact the only thing you are aware of is yourself.

There is no self to be aware of itself...there’s only awareness of no self...which points only to nondual oneness, not duality.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:08 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:00 pm For knives and fire are not conscious, so they cannot perceive themselves.

Arms and legs, eyeballs and brains, and all things of physical flesh and bone cannot perceive themselves either. A brain in particular is not conscious that it is conscious.

All things known are appearances of consciousness. And that which is known cannot observe or know anything of its existence.

Consciousness cannot see or know itself because it is ONE directional.

Consciousness becomes known upon its own projected reflection in association with the image it holds in memory which is also Empty.

My brain-mind knows it is aware.Not constantly knows it is aware ,but intermittently, when it focuses on its awareness.

A bain does not have awareness.....rather, Awareness has the brain as a known concept.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:14 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:08 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:47 am

Arms and legs, eyeballs and brains, and all things of physical flesh and bone cannot perceive themselves either. A brain in particular is not conscious that it is conscious.

All things known are appearances of consciousness. And that which is known cannot observe or know anything of its existence.

Consciousness cannot see or know itself because it is ONE directional.

Consciousness becomes known upon its own projected reflection in association with the image it holds in memory which is also Empty.

My brain-mind knows it is aware.Not constantly knows it is aware ,but intermittently, when it focuses on its awareness.

A bain does not have awareness.....rather, Awareness has the brain as a known concept.

I understand your point of view, DAM. I used to hold to the same point of view as yourself. Within western metaphysics it's called idealism. My point of view is mind (awareness) and brain are two aspects of the same thing. That is why I refer to
brain-mind and not to the mind (awareness) ,and the brain, as if they are not different perceptions of the same thing.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:23 am My point of view is mind (awareness) and brain are two aspects of the same thing. That is why I refer to
brain-mind and not to the mind (awareness) ,and the brain, as if they are not different perceptions of the same thing.

Not really sure what you mean here. But all I’m saying is that AWARENESS cannot be perceived.
Awareness is the perceiving that cannot be perceived. There is awareness of perception, but that which is aware of perception cannot be perceived. Awareness can only BE .. In other words, awareness is self illuminating. It is the ultimate source of perception itself. A perception is an appearance of it...but NOT IT

In the dream of separation aka the mental realm known as an appearance in awareness, there are the apparent separate self and no self in the exact same instantaneous moment. And the first is a veiling of the second that is realised via direct experience as the first knowing itself. Not as two as in knower and known, but as undivided.

That’s what’s being discussed here.