Is the brain analogously like a ball of string, impenetrable except at its ends? Assumedly its ends are the senses, and there are no internal junctions whereby a third party entity like the experiencer/perceiver/listener/seer/feeler, can gain access?
That would place the experiencer* outside the physics of the brain? …on the outside rather than the inside. Perhaps it* can interact via the general EM fields of the brain, or perhaps it does not interact at all, and merely experiences the mind kind of like an observer?
are there any aspects of the brain where one may gain access, is our view to blocky, we just arent seeing things on the subtle level. if the latter is true i’d still expect a physical representation of the minds interaction with the brain to be there somewhere.
Is Gordian someone who thinks they are experiencing thought, when in fact those thoughts are simple physical exchanges occurring anyway?
What of information produced by the physical apparatus [the ball of string], is Gordian not thinking in terms of > ‘informational {+} thought’ < ~ is that even logical, strictly?
It’s no different from the instrument we have, the wordfinder. You press a button and “Ready,” it says. Then you ask for a word; “Searching,” it says. That searching is thinking. But it is a mechanical process. In that word-finder or computer there is no thinker. There is no thinker thinking there at all. If there is any information or anything that is referred to, the computer puts it together and throws it out. That is all that is happening. It is a very mechanical thing that is happening. We are not ready to accept that thought is mechanical because that knocks off the whole image that we are not just machines. It is an extraordinary machine. It is not different from the computers we use. But the body is something living, it has got a living quality to it. It has a vitality. It is not just mechanically repeating; it carries with it the life energy.
Well there is a thinker or more rightly put an experiencer, you are it. A computer cannot know what information is, it performs operations on a purely physical level [binary mechanics].
What do we mean by ‘vitality’ and ‘life energy’? nothing really, because if we define what we mean by such terms then they become redundant. that’s why I use terms like experiencer, we know there is something there that experiences, its not just a label. We also know that the experiencer experiences in some cases with informational thought.
So info is being thought about by an experiencer; prove me wrong with logic, I dare anyone!
Where is this experiencer? Show me so I can see it and touch it. You can’t. All you can do is say what you know about it. And whatever it is you know about it, that’s what you experience.
So, you mean to say when you think you are experiencing? Okay … then look at your thought. How do you look at thought? There’s no way you can look at it. All there is is thought about thought. Thought is being used to achieve the goal (and all goals) of seeing itself. That seeing is the illusion. You are not ‘thought’ as in an experiencer … you are much more than what thought, with its limitations, encases you in.
Here, right here! You see with it [perceive] and touch with it, it is the thing ~ the will that does things via its vehicle the human being. What I know about it in observational terms probably are not it.
What I meant was; can you logically and rightly subtract it from the equation? One has to concede it is there and add it to any logical description concerning the matter, as much as any formal logic must begin with assumptions.
So what I was asking, is if we can remove it using logic?
The experiencer ‘is’ the thing that perceives and is the will, what it does is look at thoughts going through the brain much like when we watch the screen on a camcorder [as an analogy of the brain as an instrument]. Neuronal thought cannot perceive itself as it doesn’t have that capability.
So I agree I am not thought but that which reads thought, my problem is how if et al, does the experiencer input information into the system?
Hmm you gave me a good way of seeing it actually; maybe neuronal thought is what reads the experiencer! Hence that way you wouldn’t notice by reading neuronal pathways, that there is anything else there.
