I am a strange loop.
Have a good week.
1. It emerges from Hofstadter’s books (author of the unique book ‘Gedal, Asher, Bach.’) and especially from ‘I Am a Strange Loop’ that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion; a hallucination that exists because it has hallucinated itself. One could perhaps argue that Hofstadter’s answer to the psychophysical problem is ‘There is no problem, because there is no psycho. It only seems so to us.’ The hallucination arises from the fact that the brain produces a representation of its environment (in order to survive in it), and part of this representation necessarily includes the brain itself, the ‘I’, a mechanism that represents itself and thus leads to its very existence. Thus, there are levels between humans and animals as well. What do you think of his words?
2. I saw a brain mapping that shows no ‘I’. According to scientific studies, there is no ‘I’, so what continues according to your claim – that there is continuity after death?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- These are nonsense. Whose illusion is consciousness? Of another consciousness that deceives itself into thinking it has consciousness? What does it mean that it has deluded itself if it itself does not exist. Who is the deluder?
- Why would the “I” appear there? It is not part of the brain map, it is the owner of the map. The I is the entity to which the parts of the brain belong. In the past, I have written more than once about the mistake of those who look for the I in the psychoanalytic map (there was an article by psychologist Aharon Rabinowitz in Badad, which proposed the location of the I according to various Gothic methods in Judaism. I wrote that this is conceptual confusion, because the I is not supposed to be found on this map as mentioned above. It is similar to someone who looks for a table in a picture of himself: you see legs, a plate, various decorations, and so on, but where is the table itself?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is the table the same as the soul? Because most people accept that a table is something more than the sum of its parts that we see. We simply define something with four legs and a plate as a table. Perhaps it exists as a concept in a parallel world but does not have a realization in our reality (so is there an angel telling it to stand? Then it can be defined as the same object).
On the other hand, in the soul, the "I" is something that is perceived and is not defined only by each of its components, but something that is essentially different, right? Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there is another object.
True. That's an easy way out. Anyone who is a Platonist/essentialist will recognize both examples.
1. Consciousness itself is the hallucination. And I don't see why not to accept his point.
2. The sense of self is built by the left brain. The left brain makes up stories and one of those stories is the idea of self. Areas of the brain become active in response to different thoughts, but it is not self.
Awareness is whose delusion? I asked you who is the delusion? A delusion exists within some delusion (he experiences this delusion). If he himself is a delusion, I will ask again whose delusion.
The delusion of delusion. The fact that it seems to us is what actually leads to the existence of the psycho. And ultimately: a delusion that is the result of a high level of biochemical processes. You remind me in your question of a question that someone asked: I probably know that I know, but I'm really interested in seeing the 'I' that knows me - when I know that I know that I know. When will it end?
I hope you understand what you wrote, because I don't. But we got it.
You can point out what is not understood in what is written here, instead of treating it that way. What is not understood in that consciousness is a hallucination of a high level of biochemical processes? You can not accept it, but also justify why not.
On the eve of Rosh Chodesh El-Lul[ah]
No, ’ – Hello,
If there is no ‘I’ for you – who is the hallucinator?
With greetings, an endless elephant
A’ is really a loop in ancient Hebrew script, but in Assyrian script – the loop has been opened 🙂
I explained it completely.
A’
What don't you understand? What kind of atheistic stubbornness
If there is no real consciousness (I) then there is no hallucination. There are only biochemical processes. Molecules that run back and forth. They don't produce anything except maybe other molecules or changes in the direction of their movement. Hallucination is something spiritual already. It is the qualitative equivalent of some configuration of neuron firings (quantitative model). But where does it occur? Hallucination is something that occurs within consciousness (that is, in contrast to truth (not hallucination) which is some image within consciousness that corresponds to the state of affairs (another image) in the external world (the world outside consciousness), hallucination is an image that does not correspond to the corresponding image in the external world (it is a lie))
That is, as a disguised premise, hallucination requires hallucination (consciousness).
I didn't understand what you were getting into here. In the end, neither you nor Mikhi nor Sh”t probably understood. Bottom line, a person has a reflection of awareness and everything is a hallucination of biochemical processes that occur in the brain. That's it. What's hard to understand here?
If the definition of existence begins with consciousness, then of course there is no way to deny its existence. I am conscious, therefore I exist.
But if we start from consciousness as the definer of existence, then consciousness as an illusion is a possible matter. However, such an illusion cannot be perceived, the perceiver cannot perceive its non-existence. Therefore, the claims that attack the illusion thesis are based on the assumption that the negation is incorrect, and there is no argument here, but rather the presentation of a different theory with different basic assumptions.
In conclusion, there is no argument here from either side, only the presentation of different basic assumptions.
Minister Amsalem quoted Lapid in the Knesset as saying to Netanyahu: If I have a security problem, I will turn to Bogy Ya'alon. If I have a problem with the local authorities, I will turn to Meir Cohen. If I have a problem with Iranian issues, I will turn to you.
Amsalem spread his hands, rolled his eyes, revealed a half-smile, and wondered, "And what will you do? If you don't really understand anything, then why do we need you?"
A ‘
I hope you understand what you are writing. Because I probably don't. What is a reflection of consciousness? A night of words? And what does a hallucination of biochemical processes mean. They are not hallucinating anything. They simply exist and that is it. They are not human.
The last juror
There is no definition here. It is simply an observation and that is it. I observe (see) this thing called consciousness (a fundamental concept and object. Although not tangible with the five senses. Observed with the eyes of the mind) and observe what is called hallucination and see that this relationship exists between them. And the rest of the things you wrote I am unable to connect to something understandable. And there are no different basic assumptions here. Simply an observation and that is it. Either you see it or you don't. And the fact that there are different basic assumptions means that one of them is wrong (or both. But not that both are equally right. Or that there is no truth). And the one who does not see what I wrote is the one who is wrong and that is it.
I also think I'm exhausted. Just think about things and that's it.
What are you going to do to me as an imitator of Miki? ‘They simply exist and that's it, they are not human.’ What? Reflexion: He knows, and he knows that he knows.
Wait until tomorrow. Just because you observe something doesn't make it exist. But you define existence as things that you observe.
But then electrons don't exist because they can't be observed.
On the contrary. Just because you observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things that exist cannot be observed, only inferred.
In the 28th of Av, 5771
No, – Hello,
On second thought, I was convinced. With a simple calculation, it turned out that ’Shimshon Zvi Levi’ in Gematria, it turns out to be a ‘biochemical illusion’.
In any case, this is a very sweet and pleasant illusion, and therefore I thank and praise the Creator of the world for deserving me of this delightful illusion of utter nothingness and even giving me the illusion that I am doing something in the world.
About this it is said: ‘Chemical 🙂 A great nation that has Gods close to it, and it is the secret of the narrowing that is not as simple as it seems, because there are no other gentiles besides it, and the ’narrowing’is only from the perspective of the recipients.
Greetings, worm and no one
A’
What can I do that Rabbi Michi is right (I didn't notice that he wrote word for word what I wrote. Or vice versa). And I still have no idea how it relates to what you said. Does man know? So there is man and he knows. Suppose there is consciousness (me). And if it is a hallucination then there is no consciousness and then who is it that knows? Neurons and molecules know nothing. They have no consciousness.
The Posk
This is a new level of stupidity. I don't doubt what my eyes see (even the eyes of the mind). Otherwise I'll go crazy. And what's the point of even talking about the existence of something at all if we don't believe the sensory data about its existence. Things that exist cannot be observed? What are you talking about? And what can be inferred cannot be observed by the eyes of the mind? I really find it hard to believe how much nonsense one can say.
If you didn't doubt what your eyes saw, why don't you touch exposed electrical wires? After all, your eyes don't see anything there.
The answer is that you don't trust your vision, but rather what you infer from it based on past experience.
As for the "otherwise I'll go crazy." That's already happened.
To the judge
There is a difference between believing what your eyes see without believing what your eyes do not see. And in the case of electrical wires, I also build on what my eyes see. I see the manifestations (phases. manifestations) of electricity with my eyes and from there I observe with my mind's eye the electricity itself (if I studied physics well)
Good. It really seems that we have exhausted
See here a detailed and interesting review on the subject
https://rationalbelief.org.il/%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%90%d7%94-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%96%d7%a8%d7%94-%d7%91%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%a1%d7%a4%d7%a8/
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
