The elusive "I"?

[o_mlly]

What he perceive is what I call “me”, the reference point generated by brain, rather than “I”, experiencer.

the pronouns “I”, the first person subjective, and “me”, the first person objective, refer to the same noun.

 

[STT]

the pronouns “I”, the first person subjective, and “me”, the first person objective, refer to the same noun.

I am aware of that so to avoid confusion I repeat the statement again: “What he perceive is what I call “i”, the reference point generated by brain, rather than “I”, experiencer.” where I make a clear distinction between I and i.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

What do you mean with the bold part?

I cannot make it any clearer.

 

[tonyrey]

I am aware of that so to avoid confusion I repeat the statement again: “What he perceive is what I call “i”, the reference point generated by brain, rather than “I”, experiencer.” where I make a clear distinction between I and i.

There is no evidence that the brain has any reference point or that it knows what it is doing or that it is aware of itself!

 

[Aloysium]

I am aware of that so to avoid confusion I repeat the statement again: “What he perceive is what I call “i”, the reference point generated by brain, rather than “I”, experiencer.” where I make a clear distinction between I and i.

As much as you tried to avoid it, what we’ve got here is a full head on collision.

I think I know what you are getting at. Hopefully it is that who we are is different than our thoughts about ourselves.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I am aware of that so to avoid confusion I repeat the statement again: “What he perceive is what I call “i”, the reference point generated by brain, rather than “I”, experiencer.” where I make a clear distinction between I and i.

Now you have me thinking about what we might call the false self, the self that Jesus says must die because it not the true self we are called to be in Christ.

 

[tonyrey]

As much as you tried to avoid it, what we’ve got here is a full head on collision.

I think I know what you are getting at. Hopefully it is that who we are is different than our thoughts about ourselves.

We can never know ourselves as God knows us.

 

[tonyrey]

Now you have me thinking about what we might call the false self, the self that Jesus says must die because it not the true self we are called to be in Christ.

We agree with Aloysium that we can never know ourselves as God knows us.

 

[Aloysium]

We agree with Aloysium that we can never know ourselves as God knows us.

He sees us as we are, as He has made us, what we have done with our talents and how we have borne our crosses. God loves us through and through.
He is our heavenly Father, and we should try to be His sons and daughters, dying to sin and reborn in the spirit, Christ-like - the true self we are meant to be.

 

[STT]

There is no evidence that the brain has any reference point or that it knows what it is doing or that it is aware of itself!

That is not correct based on the latest scientific finding. There is a very interesting video about this on TED. You can find it here.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no evidence that the brain has any reference point or that it knows what it is doing or that it is aware of itself!

There is still no evidence that the neural impulses in the brain know what they are doing or are aware of themselves. No one has ever solved the problem of consciousness. Electricity is certainly not the ultimate explanation of rational beings.

 

[STT]

There is still no evidence that the neural impulses in the brain know what they are doing or are aware of themselves. No one has ever solved the problem of consciousness. Electricity is certainly not the ultimate explanation of rational beings.

How about this?

 

[tonyrey]

There is still no evidence that the neural impulses in the brain know what they are doing or are aware of themselves. No one has ever solved the problem of consciousness. Electricity is certainly not the ultimate explanation of rational beings.

That is** not** evidence that neural impulses in the brain** know what they are doing or are aware of themselves. **Otherwise it would be international headlines.

 

[Aloysium]

STT, dude, this article is nonsense.

It does demonstrate the reality of science as a social phenomenon. It’s being published for a variety of reasons, but I’m stumped at finding a good one. There’s a market for it among mystical materialists. Its weird and whacky claims make it definitely controversial. And, pretty clearly someone is seeking military funding for placing “a human in a rapidly changing magnetic field that is powerful enough to induce currents in neurons in the brain. Then sit(ting) back and see(ing) what happens.” Really? Doesn’t it make you want to be the first to volunteer? The phrasing is very unfortunate and hopefully piques the interest of ethics committees.

My understanding is that repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation may be effective for some people to alleviate their depression. The process has not been elucidated, and it may boil down to placebo. It’s hardly “become a powerful way of investigating how the brain works”.

Let’s consider the claims rationally. Superconducting magnets capable of producing very high magnetic fields inside the brain have produced disks and lines within the subject’s visual field when focussed on the occipital cortex. The article states (which is simplistic and incorrect because the “processing” the the brain does in the organization of our visual world is too complex) that when you move the magnetic beam, the light moves. They go on to suggest that an intense magnetic field produced during an intense electrical storm could cause that effect in vivo. Are we to suppose it is only the visual cortex that is subject to such influences? That if there were sufficient cerebral disruption to cause hallucinations, that it would not produce seizures and disorientation due to its action on other cortical centres? The idea that lightning storms can produce focal magnetic fields that pass through the brains of individuals to cause hallucinations is preposterous.

Knowing not much of anything about ball lightning, I just figure some poor bird got zapped and that it’s remains continue to float around as some sort of charged particle cloud.

Even though it seems far fetched, there may be applications for magnetism as a weapon. That said, it seems that a sturdy stick brought down with sufficient vigour upon someone’s head might be more effective in producing flashes of light and incapacitation.

 

[STT]

That is** not** evidence that neural impulses in the brain** know what they are doing or are aware of themselves. **Otherwise it would be international headlines.

Any conscious state is the result of collective firing of a set of neurons. Each neuron is not conscious as a molecule of water is not wet. The wetness of water arises when you have many molecules. The same apply to neurons but the outcome state is consciousness instead of wetness.

 

[davidv]

Any conscious state is the result of collective firing of a set of neurons.

This an unsubstantiated assertion which appears to be based on question begging the absence of God. I personally cannot accept this to be a true statement.

Each neuron is not conscious as a molecule of water is not wet. The wetness of water arises when you have many molecules. The same apply to neurons but the outcome state is consciousness instead of wetness.

How do you know an individual molecule of water does not exhibit the property of wetness?

 

[STT]

STT, dude, this article is nonsense.

It does demonstrate the reality of science as a social phenomenon. It’s being published for a variety of reasons, but I’m stumped at finding a good one. There’s a market for it among mystical materialists. Its weird and whacky claims make it definitely controversial. And, pretty clearly someone is seeking military funding for placing “a human in a rapidly changing magnetic field that is powerful enough to induce currents in neurons in the brain. Then sit(ting) back and see(ing) what happens.” Really? Doesn’t it make you want to be the first to volunteer? The phrasing is very unfortunate and hopefully piques the interest of ethics committees.

My understanding is that repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation may be effective for some people to alleviate their depression. The process has not been elucidated, and it may boil down to placebo. It’s hardly “become a powerful way of investigating how the brain works”.

Let’s consider the claims rationally. Superconducting magnets capable of producing very high magnetic fields inside the brain have produced disks and lines within the subject’s visual field when focussed on the occipital cortex. The article states (which is simplistic and incorrect because the “processing” the the brain does in the organization of our visual world is too complex) that when you move the magnetic beam, the light moves. They go on to suggest that an intense magnetic field produced during an intense electrical storm could cause that effect in vivo. Are we to suppose it is only the visual cortex that is subject to such influences? That if there were sufficient cerebral disruption to cause hallucinations, that it would not produce seizures and disorientation due to its action on other cortical centres? The idea that lightning storms can produce focal magnetic fields that pass through the brains of individuals to cause hallucinations is preposterous.

Knowing not much of anything about ball lightning, I just figure some poor bird got zapped and that it’s remains continue to float around as some sort of charged particle cloud.

Even though it seems far fetched, there may be applications for magnetism as a weapon. That said, it seems that a sturdy stick brought down with sufficient vigour upon someone’s head might be more effective in producing flashes of light and incapacitation.

Do you believe that there is a one to one correspondence between the electromagnetic field inside our brain and mental state, such as conscious state?

 

[STT]

This an unsubstantiated assertion which appears to be based on question begging the absence of God. I personally cannot accept this to be a true statement.

What that statement has to do with God?

How do you know an individual molecule of water does not exhibit the property of wetness?

Because the state of water can change from liquid to sold to vapor depending on external parameters yet the molecules of water in all these cases are same.

 

[davidv]

What that statement has to do with God?

Because the state of water can change from liquid to sold to vapor depending on external parameters yet the molecules of water in all these cases are same.

Are you not understanding what I wrote?

 

[STT]

Are you not understanding what I wrote?

Yes. How about you?