Our reality and Reality 3/6

Third of six parts to the article as it steps to completion.

4 The self as a part of a constructUo 002 28May18b 5

Our experience is determined “what” in context, “what’s what” ahead of our front-facing line-up through the “apparatus for having an experience”. Beyond this focus of knowing, what we determine breaks down or pixelates into uncertainty and unknowing. At the subjective end of the “apparatus for having an experience” we sit on the “self referencing conundrum”, where we cannot experience or determine our self.

We do need a different approach for our conscious self. Otherwise we remain concealed behind this front-facing lined-up with what we experience.

However, I do not think categorising our subjective aspects as fundamental is necessary or helpful.

Uo 002 28May18b 3 con self sense b labelledWe already have phenomenology (branch of philosophy that considers our reality of conscious experience and self as phenomena) which offers us the “thing-in-itself”, the state before we judge (phenomenological term) or determine “what” things experience are in their context. Phenomenology speaks of the conscious “being conscious of” and calls it intentionality. This recognition of the nature of consciousness proves reaching the conscious beyond experiencing or being conscious of, There is also in phenomenology our deeper being, dasein which translates from German to “being there” (title of Peter Seller’s movie 1980) or “presence” and refers to our existence within our reality.

While subjective aspects of our reality are indeterminable and cannot directly be experienced phenomenology addresses this “impasse” (phenomenological term) or conundrum (self-referencing) by stalling the “apparatus for having an experience” from determining or judging, and delivers (for our recognition) the self, experience and the conscious, in-them-selves. To these I add the witness, by which we are aware of those aspects delivered in the phenomenological approach.

The witness is the most hidden part of our reality. It may be though of as the displaced part to the manifestant (phenomenal) parts of our subjective aspects i.e, the conscious, self and experience, and sensed as the vacuous disassociation behind the self having an experience.

We may be aware of what the witness witnesses. Being self aware and self conscious points to the displacement of the witness and of the conscious from self. However, the witness seems independent of our sense of time and change.

While we identify in our self and with experience and determine what it is, the world is there in our periphery and background to our focus, as witnessed. The sense of the world being there whether we notice it or not, adds strongly to “one’s” notion and sense an objective world and our being in a “real” world; we can take it for granted.

With the inclusion of the witness by which we are aware of our reality as phenomenon, I proclaim “constructology” as the study of our reality as a construct of parts projected by our whole being. Beyond the phenomena and phenomenology of our conscious self and experience, our reality is made or constructed of parts necessary for experience that include the witness.

We can understand our reality as part, of our individual whole self next to other wholes in Reality. It means every part that constructs our reality is a part of our whole, including our self, conscious, witness, and what we experience, both the subjects and objects of experiencing. Not a product of the CNS, but of our whole; projected through, and not by, the CNS.

 

Our reality and Reality 2/6

Second of six parts to the article as it steps towards its completion.

3 The subjective aspects of our reality

The self is difficult to determine. “Who or what am I?” How does one refer to one’s self?

Even as words, sentences that refer to themselves or “self-reference” create in many cases confusion in our minds, recognised in philosophy as a “self-referential paradox”. Think about “This statement is false, true or false?It sort of doesn’t go anywhere but leaves one suspended or waiting for some conclusion, some resolution, as if that is expected in a sentence. It is a commonly used example of the paradox where the question cannot be answered in its terms of true or false because the sentence cannot be true when it says it is false and if false the sentence must mean it is true but says it is not. The contradiction and irresolution in the statement itself intensifies and prolongs the self-referencing and its paradox.

More so the question “What is the self?”, one’s self itself. It brings self-referencing directly back to us, towards one’s actual self, to a “self-referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc. wordpress.com/?s= self+referencing+conundrum), which comes of us being in the “apparatus for having an experience”. In this make-up and condition for having an experience, trying to directly experience one’s self is like a camera trying to take a picture of itself (with “exposures” of itself). We cannot bend the “apparatus for having an experience” to experience our “having an experience” self.

We risk loosing our “self” trying to experience the experiencing self. Rather than thus extinguishing our self we must distinguish and firmly grasp the objective and subjective ends of our “having an experience” reality, to not chase the other end of the “apparatus” like a dog its own tail in self-referencing. The self tells the tale and hears, the dog wagging the tail is tickled by the tale wagging. Where is the self? Within our reality (of conscious experience and self) are parts including our sense of being and doing, inside and outside, subject and object.

The objective is the “easy” aspect to explain and understand as produced by the brain – Chalmers 1986, Australian philosopher. Vision from eyes and all experiences from aspects of Reality according to the whole self’s sense organs (projected for us to experience, by our whole through the CNS) belong to this group, as the object of having an experience”. But also included are functions of the mind, including determining, remembering, filing, retrieving and analysing, that can be broken down to linear mechanical or computational processes, “easily” attributed to the brain that is computer-like, at least in part.

The subjective aspects on the other hand, include the self, consciousness, the experience itself (“raw” experience or qualia, different from what is experienced or determined what of experience, which is the object of experience, and which we may know), deeper being, and the witness. Their existence and nature are “hard” to accept as produced by the brain or anything else, with our independence, will etc. as questioned previously (from bottom p1). The subjective seem also impossible to experience or determine directly, the result of trying to being the “self-referencing conundrum”. In contrast to the “easy” and objective they, the subjective parts to our reality, are termed the “hard aspects of conscious experience” by Chalmers.

He, Chalmers, suggests we consider the subjective aspects of our reality as fundamental (i.e., irreducible) to help find new ways of considering them. Any new approach to our subjective part must be different from the linear reductive way we try to grasp things in our minds normally, which we consider “direct” and which keeps our enquiry and discovery to objective things and computer-like processes in our reality, while never addressing the subjective them-selves except as concept.

The development of AI (artificial intelligence) has moved the boundary between the subjective and objective in our reality to a great degree, objectifying so much of our mental functioning that are computer-like, though previously thought of as cognitive, creative, communicative (ripe to be connective and to love and demand the technologies that allow it), clever and human. This encroachment creates a new impetus and interest to the age old question, “What is it to be human?” (Note 2 – AI and our humanity).

We could be in a computer. Programmed self and experience run in an app. However, we are a part and there “must” be a whole human being we belong to, in Reality. We can apply our self to our whole in our actuality, as a projected part in space. Furthering part and whole as an integrating part.

Notes 2 Just when through modernity, we got used to being the self, it now threatens to disappear into the mayhem of our technological inter-phase and “connectivity”. Around the net or in the screen, if we are just enacting and interacting in our human responses, we are hardly different from AI, especially with neural networking and its apparent creativity (“inventing” its own programmes).
What is it to be human? Who or what is the true self? Who’s in charge? Is there free will? These age old questions about our self and our place in the world, are brought to a new impetus with AI, and its encroachment on so much of human functioning. We look for human-ness today in terms of jobs that computers and computerised machines cannot do, as we consider employ-ability into the future.
To a large extent, our sense of existence and purpose depends on the world we experience. It reinforces and confirms our sense of being, and our identity and roles are determined according to what’s going on and who is there, as indicated in the apparent world
we experience. Made from “aspects of Reality” that the whole self has sense organs for (see Note 1 above), indication of things in the real world take us to confusion, but also conviction.
We sit comfortably with the experience of things that fit familiarly within our world view (context) and understanding (causality). We are ready to scrutinise or verify what we experience, to question or determine what it is or is doing, weary of being tricked or being wrong in our assumptions,
we keep a sceptic distance. When a thing does not fit our world view, we either adopt or develop a new context that can include the thing. Or we ignore it. (Luddites actively reject new technology and the changes they bring to our reality. We may ignore, or at least post-pone an update for fear of having to re-familiarise with a new program.)
Seeing gadgets such as an automaton (mechanical dolls) do quite complex things that seem life-like, can disturb if not confuse us, until we have them within our understanding. We are now all too familiar with and are readily sucked into the screen reality (we spend much time living, working and interacting in it). However, when moving pictures were first shown on a screen, people were unsettled as to its reality. A train, for example, disappearing off the edge of the screen is said to have made people get up from their seats to look behind the screen (like some cats do). Where did it go? Where does it come from? What about the one that’s coming straight for you that presses you into your seat, or the girl strapped to the railway track who’s struggles before the approaching train makes your heart pound, your palms sweat and grip? Our reality is easily mimicked with moving pictures and sound, and augmented with large screen, music, volume and a lounge seat,
that prop our upright facing.
We live within story and sense as self and identity. Uncertain of what we experience, we are validated by and susceptible to occupational and diversional, meaningful and value-adding stories. We need to make our reality certain, but certainty for us has normally been a matter of perspective, verification with different senses, and context or story, within our reality and not from beyond.
The world we experience and its stories challenges and confirms, our sense and story. Our reality is both, subject and object. In our normal identification, in our self (subject) and with what we experience (object), we avoid the “self-referencing conundrum”, within the confinement and circularity of our reality being both subject and object. Beyond our identification and
our certainty, is the mystery of our being a part, and the profundity of our transcendent whole, where our true humanity awaits us, as a part.
Lost are we from being a part of our human whole being who, being of Reality, is next to other wholes in Reality. And has their self or identity heard about being a part,
of those whole in Reality? Would their self or identity see value in regarding their whole? Depends on their story, and certainly. However, our being a part, our whole self and Reality, are beyond story and what we experience, in them and through them.
We must approach our self be
fore the choosing and choice of what to click, the determining and what is determined of friend or foe, right or wrong, good or bad, the computer-like processing and what it processes.
Let AI encroach upon our humanity. But do not depend on it, nor the world we experience, for our own sense of existence and purpose. The same set of “aspects of reality” that the whole self has sense organs for creates our experience of what is
in the screen, but also of what’s on the streets or in nature. They are all experience projected by our whole in our reality. Be chased as to what is real and what is self, beyond our interactive choosing, determining and virtual act (our sense of doing what the whole does in Reality), take to our actuality, and to our relation with our whole (as a part).

link to Our reality and Reality 1/6 https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2018/05/22/our-reality-and-reality-1-6/

Our reality and Reality 1/6

First of six parts to the article as it nears its completion.

I hope to establish these two distinctions between Reality (absolute) and our reality (of conscious experience and self witnessed) and between our self (part of our reality) and our whole self (of Reality). A process is then alluded to, towards the end of this article, of our integration with our whole self, of contact with Reality through our whole, and our part to play for it. More of this process will be presented elsewhere, but here discussed are pivotal issues involved in approaching our “actuality” of being part, and referring to our whole being of Reality.

1 The concept of “projection”

It is proposed here that our reality is “projected” or placed in space, through the Central Nervous System (CNS) by our whole. The CNS, which includes the brain and spinal cord, is an integral part of our whole being. We will look at how our reality, of conscious experience and self witnessed1, can be a projected part of our whole being, projected through the CNS by our whole.

Let’s start with vision as an example of projection.

Light bouncing off real things in the real world focuses upside down inside at the back of the eyes, and stimulates the receptors there at the retina (cones and rods) which convert focused images into nerve impulses. These pulse through optic nerves and reach the brain where our vision is created and placed in projected space, for us to experience.

In similar ways information, of certain “aspects of the real world” that sense organs of the body are specifically sensitive to (eyes for light, ears for sound, sensors on the skin for touch etc.), is put together in the CNS (by our whole) to form the “outside world part” of our reality. It is the world we may experience called the phenomenal world, a useful and “powerful” 2 indication of the real world. With it is a “functional” and effective perspective, of our sense of being in the world – we can jump onto a spot, point and touch, front up and throw. We are allowed this sense in our reality where, as one’s self or identity, we seemingly do things in our reality. All the while, it is our whole who does things in the real world or absolute Reality, including those things we think we do.
(Note 1 – phenomenal world made from “aspects of Reality”)

The capital R is used to indicate absolute Reality, and to distinguish it from “our reality” of conscious experience and self that is witnessed. Our reality is a projected part of our whole being, who is in and of Reality.

1Witness : the displaced part to the manifestant parts of our reality, including the self and what is experienced, by which we are aware of our self in being self aware, and of what we experience in being aware of that. See p4 – witness, constructology.
Also we witness time and change in space within our reality. Consider experience of tending fire from when humans where early homonids erectus around 1 million years ago. We evolved with fire and our gaze at its forever changing unfolding in time and our involvement.

2The powerful theories of science have their origins here, in our phenomenal world we may try to understand. Powerful because our theories and understandings work when applied in the conditions that they are meant for or were developed in. Nevertheless they remain of indication and story about the real world and things in it.

2 The self is a problem

zzzNeuroscience seems to suggest that “what we experience” occurs in the brain. It has become a part of our modern understanding and culture (movies such as the Matrix). This diagram shows what was already being considered about our reality and the brain in the mid-1600’s, when it was used by Descartes in his work (father of modern philosophy – “I think, there for I am”). It illustrates a part of the brain registering vision and initiating pointing.

But what about our self, one’s self, yours and mine? Are we a product of the brain? With our ability to consider and question things, our sense of independence and will, and separation from what we experience, how can we be made by and so secondary to an organ? Are we not complete, in our existence absolutely as self against not self, and relative to our experience of the other, or of other things, others and the world? What about our consciousness, deeper being, sense of life, will and destiny? Where would they come from or fit, if not exist on their own?

I preempt this point, that there is no brain without a whole being, whole self or the whole body. We, as self or identity, together with and in our reality, are a part of our individual whole, “projected” through and not by the CNS but by our whole being.

Notes 1 The phenomenal world is also defined as the world that can “be perceived by the senses”. But there are no sense organs for us as self or identity. Consider your own situation. There is nothing of substance, no eyes, ears or brain, in our projected reality. We may think we see or hear in seeing and hearing vision and sound. However, the only thing that we can say we do, as self or identity in our projected reality, is experience, or have experience.
The whole self has the eyes and ears. Information of “aspects of the Reality”, those for which the whole self has sense organs for, is put together in the CNS by our whole, to give us as self or identity the world we experience and what we experience, in our reality.
Our phenomenal world is not the real world
of Reality. We do not experience the real world directly. Rather, the world we experience indicates “aspects” of the real world, dependent on what sense organs our whole happens to have. Reality itself is more than the sum of all aspects.
The “power” of scientific theories to predict and work or apply lies originally in our reality’s power to indicate the real world. We can understand from aspects, apply our understanding, and experience its outcome as we experience it in our reality. It can work, most of the time within the right conditions.