We may observe all we want of the computer and describe the user somewhat in terms of the computer. The difference with the brain is that its connectivity is morphological… scholarpedia.org/article/Brain_connectivity
We look in one area of the brain and see the user as another area interacting with it, then we look at that other area and the user is now in yet another area again, or possibly the first one observed. Whatever way we look at the brain we never find the user, we can see where the user makes effect but in science we then declare that to be part of the brain. We keep doing this and keep coming to conclusions about the user being part of the brain.
The simple fact is that if we looked everywhere and found everything the user does, that doesn’t make the user part of the machine!
It seems that there is a hole in our thinking, ‘if’ we have looked everywhere, described everything the user does, but have not found the user, then the user must be transcendental.
From the first link;
Results demonstrate that the cerebral cortex is comprised of clusters of densely and reciprocally coupled cortical areas that are globally interconnected. These connectivity patterns are neither completely regular nor completely random
There is some randomness. Somehow it seems this is the gateway to the brain for the user, all other aspects of connectivity, matrices and networks may be measured [and the user not found].
I don’t know that the classical idea of a distinct, discrete “user” is all that accurate. Perhaps instead of viewing the brain as a system of task-specific tools with a single manager (what you call the user) overlooking them all, maybe it functions more like a team without any explicit manager or leader. Just throwing that idea out there.
[edit] in fact, upon thinking about it, I think the Split Brain experiments are at least minor evidence of my hypothesis.
[edit2] your idea of a user within the brain controlling it reminds me of the homunculus problem. if your idea does match the homunculus concept, that’s a problem.
found an interesting article that takes a stance similar to mine, except he goes in to far more detail, provides more sources and scientific back-up, and he’s a doctor! perhaps his thoughts, if not immediately agreeable, will at least give you something to think about:
Here I am thinking of the user as not a brain function I.e. transcendental. My experience is not that of a group or grouped entity, is yours?
Split brain for me is the same as conjoined twins sharing a brain, there’s two people there. In fact if we take that further you can get creatures with just a few neurons, so theoretically you could keep splitting it up and get more users/experiencers.
Essentially in this theory something is connecting to and experiencing the world, through both the mechanisms of the world and spirit/mind.
Sorry I doubt if I’ll read the link as it probably says the same as what I already linked to [upon first glance it does]. My entire point is that by reading the computer you wont find the user/experiencer, you are sat at the desk using the computer, and someone else is telling you that you don’t exist, because they can see the computer and cant find you on there.
Whats the ‘homunculus concept’ specifically, I’d assume it’s another mind body duality thing?
"Here I am thinking of the user as not a brain function I.e. transcendental. My experience is not that of a group or grouped entity, is yours?
Split brain for me is the same as conjoined twins sharing a brain, there’s two people there. In fact if we take that further you can get creatures with just a few neurons, so theoretically you could keep splitting it up and get more users/experiencers.
Essentially in this theory something is connecting to and experiencing the world, through both the mechanisms of the world and spirit/mind.
Sorry I doubt if I’ll read the link as it probably says the same as what I already linked to [upon first glance it does]. My entire point is that by reading the computer you wont find the user/experiencer, you are sat at the desk using the computer, and someone else is telling you that you don’t exist, because they can see the computer and cant find you on there.
Whats the ‘homunculus concept’ specifically, I’d assume it’s another mind body duality thing?"
The brain has an interconnect between the right and the left hemispheres called the corpus callosum. It’s function is to pass information back and forth between the hemispheres. While there is plasticity and a certain amount of redundancy within the brain, the individual hemispheres have some separate functions. A split brain isn’t like conjoined twins in that sense. There aren’t two people in one brain. There is only one split brain working for one person.
The ‘homunculus’ isn’t a mind-body duality thing. I think the way FJ is using it in his reply to you goes back to the way he and Vol latched on to, and made fun of, your visualization of how the brain works in other posts. As they said, there is no “little man”–homunculus–inside your brain doing anything. It up to you to decide whether or not FJ meant his reply as a gibe.
Oh! I cant imagine what that would be like, instead of there being two sides to every story there’d be two stories.
Hang on a minute, are there two consciousnesses in one person? How can that be. Unless here consciousness is conceived of as a character, and the person as the actor playing two parts. hmm i’ll wiki it.
Oh that, who‘d even think that? They can mock all they like, I have never stated such a thing and they have yet to show my philosophy to be wrong. Jibes kinda bounce back if the point isn’t proven.
I am not thinking of the ‘manager’ as the consciousness, here the computer is functioning properly ~ If you build a duel machine with multiple crossovers of instrumentation, then of course you would get problematic results.
Perhaps re-read the op? I don’t think you got what I meant. The experiencer without the brain or user without a computer, is not like the homunculus concept as that implies a little man in the brain. Its probably like an awareness operating the vehicle, whatever the vehicle is, is how you’d read the user if you were only looking at the machine.
They can mock all they like, I have never stated such a thing and they have yet to show my philosophy to be wrong. Jibes kinda bounce back if the point isn’t proven.