Sorry, TC, but I honestly do not understand the question.
Well, everything that we say about the experience of consciousness is subjective, isn't it? But given that, isn't it justifiable to say that the state that feels the most real is likely to be the most real? Or in other words, is there any reason to suppose that the most real state might feel less real than others?

It's that question -- "is there any reason to suppose that..." -- that drives most of my thinking.

I mean, even the Dalai Lama spends most of his time in a normal state of consciousness, doesn't he?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

To the best of my knowledge, our five senses are receptors, waves of energy make contact with them, which then transmitted to the brain via electro/chemical impulses, where they are stored and translated into information. So, we have this vast array of sensory information, visual usually being the most dominant, that has been collected in the brain where it has been organized and stored. But we don't "see" our reality as inside our brain. We see it as a panoramic, three-dimension "event" happening "out there". So, what projects that image "out there" and exactly "who" or "what" is watching it?


But, "more real" is completely subjective. Most people don't realize they are dreaming, and act and respond in their dreams "as if" it were the most real thing going on at the time. Some people can lucid dream, and even though they realize they are in the "dream state" they react and respond to the dream world, not the sensory world. Finally, mystics who claim to enter into a type of "formless mysticism" whose brain wave activity closely resembles the brain waves of the deep sleep state, describe it as the "most real" and that the waking state is in fact a type of dream.

Materialism, or extreme objectivism, is therefore a view from nowhere. So, why attempt to explain anything from a completely objective state if that state does not exist. Please understand what I am saying. I'm not claiming that by removing subjectivism we don't gain powerful insight by observation. What I am saying, is that if we have methods that prove useful in removing as much subjectivity from an experiment to gain the most objective stance for determining truth, couldn't we also have a corresponding method of removing as much objectivity as possible to gain the most subjective truth we can?

And, if we agree that there always appears to be some degree of both objectivity and subjectivity in everything, is there an evolutionary base or ground to both of them, and if there is, what would you call it?

-TC

I'll answer this question now, and continue with the other later on (a little rushed this morning).

The very best answer I can give will not seem very satisfactory to you, but unfortunately it's the best I have. And it is this: read two of Douglas Hofstadter's books: "Godel, Escher, Bach" and "I Am a Strange Loop."

The following is from Wikipedia:
This is truly fascinating stuff. Yet it no more answers the question of "who is watching in the theatre of the mind" than this post does. Instead, it suggests "who or what is watching" is simply the wrong question. That, too, is behind much of Bernard Baars' Global Workspace Theory, which also deserves some study.

And the fact, by the way, that you even ask the question "who or what is watching," betrays you as (in the words of Daniel Dennett), a "Cartesian Materialist." You might try reading his "Consciousness Explained," as well.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I have to admit, I started reading, I Am A Strange Loop, misplaced the book, and had only gotten about of the third of the way through. But, what I remember of what portion I read, I can very much identify with the criticism. I had trouble relating his examples (i.e., th photo images and the reflecting mirrors) and relating it to any central idea I could follow along with. Maybe it comes together more later, maybe I had to read his other book first, but I have to admit I struggled with it because it seemed so here and then there. Maybe you could relate the general gist of how he believes inanimate material forms information loops to create an animated sensation? Is that even close?


Actually it doesn't betray me because I don't ascribe to it, I'm an Integralist, remember? This is the catch for materialists, which is why I asked for the materialist's explanation! Also, I still don't see how Hofstadter's ideas escape the Cartesian Theater? Perhaps if I had read on, it would be obvious. I understand it is supposedly the wrong question to ask, but I like the Integral perspective that it is one way to look at it, and that we should resist the idea of saying one begats the other.

Do you have a layman's synopsis on this explanation using these two researchers, or is it for you, like it is for myself , a bit to complex for such simplicities? Further, do you think this is the most likely explanation? Do you think the first person perspective is not as axiomatic as our intuition tells us?

-TC

-TC

It's going to take me a couple of days to even put together a synopsis, first because it's complex, second because Hofstadter is about 30 times smarter than I am. So patience please, I will get something done...

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.