The observer cannot be observed

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dimebag
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dimebag »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:08 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:17 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:59 pm
For me the word observe connotes a Visual activity. I suppose you can Observe a Sound, a Taste, a Smell or a Touch. However, I prefer to say that I Experience a Sound, a Taste, a Smell, a Touch , or a Color. So let's say it a little differently: The Experiencer cannot be Experienced. For me if I say it this way it is easier to recognize that the "Experiencer is not an Experience" so why would anyone even think the Experiencer can Experience the Experiencer. The Experiencer is a whole different Category of Conscious Mind Phenomena than any of the Experiences.
Thanks Steve for your thoughts.

If you want to swap the word ''Observer'' for ''Experiencer'' then that's fine.

And you are correct the "Experiencer is not an Experience" but this is all knowledge, in the sense that there is a knowledge of an Experiencer.

So all this thread is pointing to is the illusory nature of knowledge. There's nothing more to it than that.

You go on to say ... '' so why would anyone even think '' ?

So in response to that question... (why would anyone think) implies ''a thinker'' so now we are back to the dilemma of the ONE that cannot be seen, thought about, observed or experienced.

So that's why there can be no hard problem of consciousness, because to whom would that problem apply? (why would anyone think there was a problem?)

This thread is pointing to the obvious non-problem of consciousness.


.
I still don't understand how your philosophy has solved the Hard Problem.
Maybe because there is no one to whom there can be a hard problem. To me that still doesn’t solve it, it just redirects it, as all questions seemingly disappear once one understands the nature of the emptiness of self.

But, maybe it might resolve the binding problem, which arises to explain why seemingly separate sensations occur together in the one unified stream. To realise there is no one to which all of these experiences are arising, seemingly negates the need to bind them together. Because awareness is essentially a field, everything occurring within that field, is already connected somehow. I’m not sure it entirely addresses the binding problem, but on some level it negates it.

Under a nondual understanding, there is no separation between the observer and the observed, no distinction between subject and object. Instead of there being a point to which a view occurs, there is just the view, and yet in the view, a sense of awareness resides, but is inseparable from it.

The mind, or perception, acts upon the undifferentiated field of sensation, identifying features, cutting up the wholeness into distinct objects, with names, shapes, etc. But seemingly in the background, this undifferentiated field of sensation connects all of these separated and coagulated features of the senses to each other. Awareness can then reach out and go into each separate part of the sensory field through the perceptual mechanisms of division.

So to sum up, the need to bind experiences together, comes from a misconception that the field of awareness is initially stitched together. The correction is, it is initially unified, and perception combined with a conceptual division, causes this unified field to be divided into its discrete parts, which when viewed from this perspective of an observer and the observed, appears that everything begins as separate, requiring to be bound.
Belinda
Posts: 4582
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Belinda »

Dimebag wrote:
The correction is, it is initially unified,
Then might I infer you believe in God?
Dimebag
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dimebag »

Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:39 am Dimebag wrote:
The correction is, it is initially unified,
Then might I infer you believe in God?
I have no belief in god, only due to lack of any such experience, not due to any grounds for disbelief.

I know in spiritual circles, people tend to use concepts like awareness, oneness, unity consciousness, and god almost interchangeably.

If what you mean by god is, this impersonal ground of all being which is awareness, then you could say so, yet, the analogy will always be viewed from my catholic religious lens in which I was raised, which, if that is what you mean by god, I am less inclined to agree.

I am not a person of faith, yet I am open here now, and always have and will be, to some grand experience of the “absolute” as they call it. Whether I would view such an experience through the lens of god,I’m not so sure.

Everything I am referring to within this thread, pertains to the experience which occurs in, to and as us, and therefore I make no assumptions about its applicability to any reality outside of the subjective.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dimebag wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:50 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:08 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:17 pm

Thanks Steve for your thoughts.

If you want to swap the word ''Observer'' for ''Experiencer'' then that's fine.

And you are correct the "Experiencer is not an Experience" but this is all knowledge, in the sense that there is a knowledge of an Experiencer.

So all this thread is pointing to is the illusory nature of knowledge. There's nothing more to it than that.

You go on to say ... '' so why would anyone even think '' ?

So in response to that question... (why would anyone think) implies ''a thinker'' so now we are back to the dilemma of the ONE that cannot be seen, thought about, observed or experienced.

So that's why there can be no hard problem of consciousness, because to whom would that problem apply? (why would anyone think there was a problem?)

This thread is pointing to the obvious non-problem of consciousness.


.
I still don't understand how your philosophy has solved the Hard Problem.
Maybe because there is no one to whom there can be a hard problem. To me that still doesn’t solve it, it just redirects it, as all questions seemingly disappear once one understands the nature of the emptiness of self.

But, maybe it might resolve the binding problem, which arises to explain why seemingly separate sensations occur together in the one unified stream. To realise there is no one to which all of these experiences are arising, seemingly negates the need to bind them together. Because awareness is essentially a field, everything occurring within that field, is already connected somehow. I’m not sure it entirely addresses the binding problem, but on some level it negates it.

Under a nondual understanding, there is no separation between the observer and the observed, no distinction between subject and object. Instead of there being a point to which a view occurs, there is just the view, and yet in the view, a sense of awareness resides, but is inseparable from it.

The mind, or perception, acts upon the undifferentiated field of sensation, identifying features, cutting up the wholeness into distinct objects, with names, shapes, etc. But seemingly in the background, this undifferentiated field of sensation connects all of these separated and coagulated features of the senses to each other. Awareness can then reach out and go into each separate part of the sensory field through the perceptual mechanisms of division.

So to sum up, the need to bind experiences together, comes from a misconception that the field of awareness is initially stitched together. The correction is, it is initially unified, and perception combined with a conceptual division, causes this unified field to be divided into its discrete parts, which when viewed from this perspective of an observer and the observed, appears that everything begins as separate, requiring to be bound.
For me, the Experiencer is a Detector and the Experiences are what it Detects. Simply saying that the Experiencer is the Experience does not get past first base. It would be like simply saying that a Thermometer is the Temperature, or that a Scale is the Weight. There is an Explanatory Gap involved with the Thermometer, the Scale, and the Experiencer. The Explanatory Gaps are of course solved for the Thermometer and the Scale. It is well known that the Thermometer is not the Temperature and the Scale is not the Weight. When you know how a Thermometer and a Scale operates then you will see that it is just Superstition (or Intellectual Laziness) to simply say that the Thermometer is the Temperature and the Scale is the Weight. Superstition always works this way until the full power of disciplined Scientific and Engineering methods are applied. It will be a difficult Mental effort to solve the Consciousness Problem. We cannot be Complacent and Lazy in our approach to this. I fully expect a Scientific Explanation for Consciousness will be discovered someday but for now there is a Huge Explanatory Gap and a Hard Problem that must be solved. I apologize for calling Oneness believers Lazy but this is how I'm seeing it right now. Come on people don't give up, let's do some Thinking. Let's get outside of all Boxes and Think new Thoughts about this.
Dimebag
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dimebag »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 1:38 pm
Dimebag wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:50 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:08 pm
I still don't understand how your philosophy has solved the Hard Problem.
Maybe because there is no one to whom there can be a hard problem. To me that still doesn’t solve it, it just redirects it, as all questions seemingly disappear once one understands the nature of the emptiness of self.

But, maybe it might resolve the binding problem, which arises to explain why seemingly separate sensations occur together in the one unified stream. To realise there is no one to which all of these experiences are arising, seemingly negates the need to bind them together. Because awareness is essentially a field, everything occurring within that field, is already connected somehow. I’m not sure it entirely addresses the binding problem, but on some level it negates it.

Under a nondual understanding, there is no separation between the observer and the observed, no distinction between subject and object. Instead of there being a point to which a view occurs, there is just the view, and yet in the view, a sense of awareness resides, but is inseparable from it.

The mind, or perception, acts upon the undifferentiated field of sensation, identifying features, cutting up the wholeness into distinct objects, with names, shapes, etc. But seemingly in the background, this undifferentiated field of sensation connects all of these separated and coagulated features of the senses to each other. Awareness can then reach out and go into each separate part of the sensory field through the perceptual mechanisms of division.

So to sum up, the need to bind experiences together, comes from a misconception that the field of awareness is initially stitched together. The correction is, it is initially unified, and perception combined with a conceptual division, causes this unified field to be divided into its discrete parts, which when viewed from this perspective of an observer and the observed, appears that everything begins as separate, requiring to be bound.
For me, the Experiencer is a Detector and the Experiences are what it Detects. Simply saying that the Experiencer is the Experience does not get past first base. It would be like simply saying that a Thermometer is the Temperature, or that a Scale is the Weight. There is an Explanatory Gap involved with the Thermometer, the Scale, and the Experiencer. The Explanatory Gaps are of course solved for the Thermometer and the Scale. It is well known that the Thermometer is not the Temperature and the Scale is not the Weight. When you know how a Thermometer and a Scale operates then you will see that it is just Superstition (or Intellectual Laziness) to simply say that the Thermometer is the Temperature and the Scale is the Weight. Superstition always works this way until the full power of disciplined Scientific and Engineering methods are applied. It will be a difficult Mental effort to solve the Consciousness Problem. We cannot be Complacent and Lazy in our approach to this. I fully expect a Scientific Explanation for Consciousness will be discovered someday but for now there is a Huge Explanatory Gap and a Hard Problem that must be solved. I apologize for calling Oneness believers Lazy but this is how I'm seeing it right now. Come on people don't give up, let's do some Thinking. Let's get outside of all Boxes and Think new Thoughts about this.
Sorry in advance for this wall of text
It could be that awareness is some network or kind which reaches throughout the brain. But then it would need to bind all experiences together, stitch them together somehow.

All experiences occupy the same “space” in a matter of words.

But we do know that when you divide the brain, that certain experiences cannot occupy that one space. Whether awareness becomes divided into two separate observers is not known. But, we know that the default mode network is a required network in the sense of self. This is an integrated set of networks, incorporating much of the prefrontal cortex, certain other anterior sections on both sides of the brain. It could be that the awareness is not divided, as both anterior default mode network anterior sections share connections to the prefrontal cortex, but, they cannot share connections between anterior networks on separate hemispheres, meaning, certain functions will be hemispherically divided. Not a whole division of consciousness, but certain functions which aren’t totally there.

Getting to your problem you raised regarding the need to detect conscious experiences. I think in a certain way the prefrontal cortex might be responsible for “detecting” conscious experiences, but, what would you define as detection?

If I can perform a motor task without conscious intervention, seemingly automatically, yet no conceptual division of the process is required, the task is performed in a state of “flow” as it were, would you say there has been any detection of experiences? There has no doubt been a flow of experience, but, the information from the senses doesn’t need to pause the process at all for thought or control intervention to occur, the information of the experience seemingly drives the motor commands, in an effortless flow from perception to motor activation.

Now, when you stop to think about something, a detection has seemingly occurred, and it could be said that the need to conceptualise any part of the experience, amounts to a detection of that experience and the singling out of that experience, directing attention towards it, say for example, this cup on my coffee table.

When I direct attention towards it, seemingly the observer is also brought into existence. Whether this observer is illusory or whether it is a persistent state of the brain is debatable, and also depends on what we mean by illusion. The observer is the one who seemingly makes a detection. But the observer is connected to volitional action. I think and this is my opinion now, informed by my investigations of my own experiences and descriptions of others, how it is connected to volitional action is via the system in the brain responsible for identification, or identity. This system essentially merges the observer with a stream of experiences, and as such, gives it the sense of volitional control.

But we know the observer is connected to a conceptual overarching structure which uses thought as a means to produce novel action, on the fly problem solving, logical thought and inference, prediction based on past experiences. In some sense, the observer is a passive facilitator, serving as the space in which all these processes can take place. Yet, the observer has a sense of being much more than a space of passive resources for higher order though and planning. When plans for actions are produced by this system, the observer, which is just this passive resource, becomes owner and takes responsibility for all products of this system, even those which simply occur to it passively.

So if the observer is this space in which experiences occur, you could say it detects experiences I suppose, yet, in a sense, it doesn’t need to detect anything, as by virtue of whatever occurs in it is a detection, it’s not an active process. Whatever enters your awareness is known, by virtue of it being in your awareness.

But once again, I come back to the question. Is awareness located throughout the brain, in no particular location, or are experiences “sent” to this particular place in the brain, at which point they become aware. Or is there some in between process, a certain place in the brain uses its resources to interact with some kind of widespread network which allows perceptual experiences to be aware without needing to be “transferred” and recreated somewhere else.

I have a feeling the latter is the case, that there is some widespread network which interconnects the whole of perception, all the senses, as well as the conceptual structures, and which then connects or is also highly integrated with the default mode network, responsible for the identification and conceptualisation as well as active planning, and projecting into the future. But, this default mode network can become quiet, allowing the broader awareness network to passively collect experiences without any particular focusing or directing of behaviours. This would be a passive facilitative network of “knowing” which essentially sheds light on otherwise unconscious perceptual processes. This network would be highly integrated, and thus, allow all experiences to be tied together or woven together.

In this passive observing function, this network contains a non focussed, field of consciousness. But, there is also an internal “wandering eye” which focuses on more salient experiences, and brings them into focus, overshadowing this unified field of consciousness, collapsing and channeling the unified field of consciousness into a narrow field, focussed on one particular part of that field, which then allows that selected region to be operated on through the default mode network. This is when the observer is invoked (might be a better term, as being a network which has potential for action always, and its “default state” is to be active, and thus, most of the time, it is active and functioning), but in special cases, or in people who have engaged in meditative practices as well as self inquiry (subjective investigations into the nature of self) is quiet or at minimum, functioning in a different way.

This network of awareness can “tune in” to different layers of processing within perception. Certain layers deal only with the non specific undivided sensory field of colours and shape or form. Take vision for example. The way visual perception is formed is by progressively adding in more detail with more layers of complexity. At certain layers, shapes are singled out, and “identified” and given conceptual signifiers. Prior to that layer, the experience is an amorphous field of unspecified colour spread across different locations. At this stage, likely form is already present, for example, lines or boundaries between colour are already identified and “mapped” to specific locations. But, these boundaries of colour and form aren’t yet named, nor identified. They are unspecified.

Further down the perceptual layering system, these details or division of the perceptual field get added in, identifications or detections of specific patterns or shapes, which comprise the world of “names and forms” which eastern spiritualism references, are layered in to the perceptual field.

If awareness accesses this layer, it is already seeing discrete objects, with names, and therefore, potential thoughts arise. This layer is much easier accessed via awareness, it is “wants” to be accessed more than the prior Nonconceptual layer. Somehow, if the prior layer is to be accessed, awareness must circumvent the conceptual and pattern recognition layer, and “tune in” prior to that.

We are not used to accessing this layer consciously. But, as you sit here, try (or become more passive) to just listen to a sound without naming it, or identifying it. Allow the sound to be just sensation. Just notice the sensory component, before any specific identification or naming is present.

It is possible.

Another thing you can do is with pain. If you have a pain somewhere in your body, allow that pain to come into awareness. But just feel what that sensation is like. If your awareness can hover there, and just allow the experience of it to come to you without “holding” on to it, you can get to a point where the pain becomes just a stream of sensory fluctuations. The pain loses its “meaning” in a way.

This, I believe, is awareness accessing that prior layer of perception.

Now, imagine awareness becomes very good at this, accessing this layer of perception before anything is named and identified. It’s conceivable that this is possible. In this functioning, the default mode network will, by virtue of this, be very quiet.

This, is possibly a description of nondual awareness from the perspective of brain functioning.

It is, in a sense more basic compared to when the default mode network is functioning and working with the conceptual form based layers of perception through this pervasive network of awareness, but, as the system wants to default to the conceptual and thus, dualistic subject object mode, this mode is the basin of attraction for the brain.

Imagine you have a flat space, with a bowl imbedded within it at the lowest point. This is the operation of the brain in default mode, with concept and form identification, normal ego based subject object functioning. Now imagine this flat space has a hill, and on top of that hill, there is another bowl. That space in that higher bowl is nondual awareness.

Imagine your awareness is a ball within this space. Normally it will be in the lower bowl of the default state, ego based subject object division. But, if given enough energy and movement, the ball can find its way to the higher basin of nondual awareness. It’s a stable state as long as perturbations to the space don’t throw the ball back down to the lower basin.

That is a conceptual visualisation of the “state space” in which awareness can be in. (Look up the term state space, it’s a simplified plotting of complex systems and the potential states in which they can operate in).

Once again, this is all provisional and speculative, I’m just trying to take an understanding of both the subjective transformations of awareness and apply it to a functional picture of the brain. I have likely overlooked much, and likely have some details wrong, but, this is a synthesis not a description of already known things.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dimebag wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 10:59 pm
... But once again, I come back to the question. Is awareness located throughout the brain, in no particular location, or are experiences “sent” to this particular place in the brain, at which point they become aware. Or is there some in between process, a certain place in the brain uses its resources to interact with some kind of widespread network which allows perceptual experiences to be aware without needing to be “transferred” and recreated somewhere else.

I have a feeling the latter is the case, that there is some widespread network which interconnects the whole of perception, all the senses, as well as the conceptual structures, and which then connects or is also highly integrated with the default mode network, responsible for the identification and conceptualisation as well as active planning, and projecting into the future. But, this default mode network can become quiet, allowing the broader awareness network to passively collect experiences without any particular focusing or directing of behaviours. This would be a passive facilitative network of “knowing” which essentially sheds light on otherwise unconscious perceptual processes. This network would be highly integrated, and thus, allow all experiences to be tied together or woven together.
I think you are hinting at an Inter Mind concept here. I have speculated that there must be some sort of Inter Mind that is in contact with all parts of the Brain and which can integrate all the seemingly disconnected information into a coherent Experience in Conscious Space. Doing this integration is the classic Binding Problem (yes but yet another Problem) of Consciousness. There has got to be a separate Conscious Space concept. If there isn't a separate Conscious Space then Conscious Experiences will have to be Explained by Physical Space concepts. The vast Gulf of conceptuality between anything known about Physical Space and anything known about Conscious Experience demands the existence of Conscious Space. It is a Logical conclusion.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SteveKlinko »

The first argument for the Inter Mind from TheInterMind.com:

The first argument is based on an analysis of what the Visual Areas of the Brain are actually doing. It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we experience. Rather the Brain seems to deconstruct the image with the goal of detecting elementary properties of the image like lines, edges, motion, and color. There do not seem to be any downstream Visual Areas that are involved with reconstructing the CL Scene that we experience from all the deconstructed properties that the Brain detects. The only place where there is a good undistorted image is on the Retina of the Eye. The other various stages of processing are highly warped and distorted maps of the retina. The highest stages don't really even map at all. The highest stages seem to be involved in image recognition and the lower stages seem to be for mechanical control of focus and eye convergence. But we find that there are artifacts from the downstream processing stages that become visible in our CL Scene. For example there are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in V1 that can be experienced in the CL Scene. Also if there is a damaged area in V1 then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the CL Scene. Similarly if there is damage to the Color areas then the Color experience will be impaired or completely missing. So it seems that whatever is creating the CL Scene must use and be in contact with all the processing stages at the same time. The actual CL Scene is a kind of overlay of all the areas. It seems that the data available at these processing stages are hints as to what the CL Scene should look like. This data must be the input to the Conscious Mind (CM). It seems that there is a lot of processing that has to take place to reintegrate all the Visual Area processing results into the seemingly perfect CL Scene that we experience. There is a Processing Gap. We could just say that the CM monitors the Physical Mind (PM) Visual Areas and creates this Scene itself. I think it is more instructive to propose that there must be a whole new aspect of the Mind that consists of further processing stages that monitor the PM and generate the CL Scene that the CM perceives. This of course is the Inter Mind (IM). It should also be mentioned that this process of combining the processing results of the various areas of the Visual system to create the single CL Scene is called Binding. The fact that no one knows how this is accomplished is called the Binding Problem. I think that the Binding processing might eventually be found to be located in the Inter Mind.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Dimebag wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:41 am It’s true that there is only one “I”, there is no other, but, the actual “I” or awareness, can merge, or can remain attached to its contents.

For that reason, this affects awareness’s own understanding of itself, or in other words, it’s identity.

But identity is like a tree like structure in the mind (not literally), but as a networked structure. It contains a “root”, and this root is connected to larger branch like “structures” which awareness can merge with, at any point.

One branch might contain your identity as your profession or work, another, as a carer such as father or mother. Another branch exists as man, or woman. This is sexual identity. All of these are branches. Some branches exist attached further from the root than others, and some branches branch from other branches, for example, the “man” branch is closer to the root than the “father” branch. The closer the branch is to the root, the more unchanging this aspect of identity is. But, further down this tree of identity, there are more fundamental aspects of identity, for instance, very close to the root, is the identity as the agent of all actions, thinker of thoughts, then, closely tied, is the identity as the body. You actually identify “as” the body.

Important to note is, awareness is always looking “through” this tree of identity, and “as” one of the branches. Whichever branch it looks “as” it identifies “as” that aspect of identity, plus all other branches leading towards the root. But all parts of the identity structure leading back towards the root, are essentially invisible to awareness, because it’s looking as, and through. These aspects are essentially unconsciously held, and “assumed” without awareness.

Notice throughout the day, the branches you identify as, changes. For instances, you might begin the day waking to your alarm, telling you to wake up and get ready for work. As such, you are identifying “as” your profession. Then, you might go see a friend later in the day, and you switch to the friend branch of this tree of identity.

Have you ever noticed, that your wife tells you, “you are a different person around your friends”? That’s because, you actually are. Your identity informs the way you act, what is appropriate and what’s not, things you can and can’t say. Even the way you speak, including accents, or nuances of speech. You have no control of this. It’s completely situational, unless of course, you notice it.

At the very base of this tree of identity is the sense “I am”. This can only be known once all other aspects of identity have been shed, by “detaching” or disidentifying.

Important to note is, once awareness knows, or sees an aspect of identity from outside that branch, it can then realise when it is “merged”, and thus, has an ability to detach, by becoming mindful.

The “I am”, is the last bastion of identity, once it’s been seen that one is awareness, there can still be this sense of “I am”, the non distinct sense of being here. This is what keeps awareness from knowing itself “as” itself, because awareness is actually not distinct from its contents. The contents “play” within awareness, like waves on the surface of a body of water.

The system of identity, also is the system which sorts self from other. If it’s seen that there is no self, by implication it is known that there is no other. This is why when the illusion of self is seen through, awareness knows it is the same as every other thing which appears in it, because it is that which appears in it.

This is how one comes to know the “observer IS the observed”, as distinct from “the observer cannot be observed”, which means, everything you look at, is not you, because you are awareness. But awareness IS it’s contents, though this is not most people’s experience. The two distinctions reflect different progressions of experience.
That's fine db, that you want to draw lines in the sand, it's your brain chemistry after all. You can see it however you want, it can be a tree, compartmentalized, or however you choose to view it.

But I see that I can see myself, as I am myself, as my environment is what made me what I am, I only have to know of psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, chemistry, history, etc. And as I grow, learning more of each of these academic studies, wisdom is gained about my self, as I can admit more and more about my self. You see the mind has what is called an subconscious mind, which is where the conscious mind places anything it denies, that which it doesn't want to face. This is the separation that she and you are struggling with. The degree at which you hide things from yourself is the degree at which you refuse to know yourself. So it's no surprise that some believe they cannot observe themselves. Those that are more capable of admitting to themselves, are self deprecating, etc, have less of an subconscious mind. These people can more readily observe themselves. The less one hides from themselves, the more unified the conscious and subconscious minds become. Which is why I'm more capable of observing the observer than some, and is where my argument is born. I'm sorry for those that are incapable of doing so. But the fact is that, all 'could' do so. All 'could' observe their observer, if they unify their conscious and subconscious minds. Those that are capable of accessing their subconscious minds, that do so, and find it unbearable, are some of those that become insane.

So what I'm saying is that this argument is conditional, that it's not black or white, that in fact it's comprised of ever varying shades of grey as to whether or not one can observe their observer.

Who knows, it may be a new evolutional beginning. Or maybe it's simply that some people get caught up with concepts they really don't understand, getting caught up in the hoopla, if you will.
Dimebag
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dimebag »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:30 pm
Dimebag wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:41 am It’s true that there is only one “I”, there is no other, but, the actual “I” or awareness, can merge, or can remain attached to its contents.

For that reason, this affects awareness’s own understanding of itself, or in other words, it’s identity.

But identity is like a tree like structure in the mind (not literally), but as a networked structure. It contains a “root”, and this root is connected to larger branch like “structures” which awareness can merge with, at any point.

One branch might contain your identity as your profession or work, another, as a carer such as father or mother. Another branch exists as man, or woman. This is sexual identity. All of these are branches. Some branches exist attached further from the root than others, and some branches branch from other branches, for example, the “man” branch is closer to the root than the “father” branch. The closer the branch is to the root, the more unchanging this aspect of identity is. But, further down this tree of identity, there are more fundamental aspects of identity, for instance, very close to the root, is the identity as the agent of all actions, thinker of thoughts, then, closely tied, is the identity as the body. You actually identify “as” the body.

Important to note is, awareness is always looking “through” this tree of identity, and “as” one of the branches. Whichever branch it looks “as” it identifies “as” that aspect of identity, plus all other branches leading towards the root. But all parts of the identity structure leading back towards the root, are essentially invisible to awareness, because it’s looking as, and through. These aspects are essentially unconsciously held, and “assumed” without awareness.

Notice throughout the day, the branches you identify as, changes. For instances, you might begin the day waking to your alarm, telling you to wake up and get ready for work. As such, you are identifying “as” your profession. Then, you might go see a friend later in the day, and you switch to the friend branch of this tree of identity.

Have you ever noticed, that your wife tells you, “you are a different person around your friends”? That’s because, you actually are. Your identity informs the way you act, what is appropriate and what’s not, things you can and can’t say. Even the way you speak, including accents, or nuances of speech. You have no control of this. It’s completely situational, unless of course, you notice it.

At the very base of this tree of identity is the sense “I am”. This can only be known once all other aspects of identity have been shed, by “detaching” or disidentifying.

Important to note is, once awareness knows, or sees an aspect of identity from outside that branch, it can then realise when it is “merged”, and thus, has an ability to detach, by becoming mindful.

The “I am”, is the last bastion of identity, once it’s been seen that one is awareness, there can still be this sense of “I am”, the non distinct sense of being here. This is what keeps awareness from knowing itself “as” itself, because awareness is actually not distinct from its contents. The contents “play” within awareness, like waves on the surface of a body of water.

The system of identity, also is the system which sorts self from other. If it’s seen that there is no self, by implication it is known that there is no other. This is why when the illusion of self is seen through, awareness knows it is the same as every other thing which appears in it, because it is that which appears in it.

This is how one comes to know the “observer IS the observed”, as distinct from “the observer cannot be observed”, which means, everything you look at, is not you, because you are awareness. But awareness IS it’s contents, though this is not most people’s experience. The two distinctions reflect different progressions of experience.
That's fine db, that you want to draw lines in the sand, it's your brain chemistry after all. You can see it however you want, it can be a tree, compartmentalized, or however you choose to view it.

But I see that I can see myself, as I am myself, as my environment is what made me what I am, I only have to know of psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, chemistry, history, etc. And as I grow, learning more of each of these academic studies, wisdom is gained about my self, as I can admit more and more about my self. You see the mind has what is called an subconscious mind, which is where the conscious mind places anything it denies, that which it doesn't want to face. This is the separation that she and you are struggling with. The degree at which you hide things from yourself is the degree at which you refuse to know yourself. So it's no surprise that some believe they cannot observe themselves. Those that are more capable of admitting to themselves, are self deprecating, etc, have less of an subconscious mind. These people can more readily observe themselves. The less one hides from themselves, the more unified the conscious and subconscious minds become. Which is why I'm more capable of observing the observer than some, and is where my argument is born. I'm sorry for those that are incapable of doing so. But the fact is that, all 'could' do so. All 'could' observe their observer, if they unify their conscious and subconscious minds. Those that are capable of accessing their subconscious minds, that do so, and find it unbearable, are some of those that become insane.

So what I'm saying is that this argument is conditional, that it's not black or white, that in fact it's comprised of ever varying shades of grey as to whether or not one can observe their observer.

Who knows, it may be a new evolutional beginning. Or maybe it's simply that some people get caught up with concepts they really don't understand, getting caught up in the hoopla, if you will.
What I have not mentioned so far, is that this observing is also observing the causes of actions, the intentions, all of that is observed as well. It’s not a repression, but an uncovering.

It’s not really any different to what you speak of. What is being spoken of here, is a specific aspect of this path of observing, which is usually called the “direct path”. It seeks to side step all that other uncovering process, which as a matter of fact, I think is essential for living a healthy and integrated life, as you also do. But just because you go the direct path, doesn’t mean you can’t also simultaneously uncover the depths and plumbing of the mind. It’s just that many people who go that direct path are doing so due to their inability to face life’s problems, so it’s a form of escapism in a sense. Yet once this direct path is realised, it’s also realised that there is no one there to really have a problem. But it never ends there. All of life’s problems still exist inside this emptiness.

There is a term called “spiritual bypassing”, which is I think what you are referring to, and it does tend to be a problem. Instead, what really needs to happen, is to both transcend and include all of the mind and it’s hidden forces.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 9238
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dontaskme »

The observer is the observed in the exact same instant. There is no conceivable division or distance between the whole and the part...except in this artificially constructed conceptual overlay 'appearing' to oneness itself....the many of the ONE and no other.

Oneness cannot be split in two in the same context: A slice of the 'whole cake' can only ever be the 'whole cake' sliced, the slice is of the whole that can never be made unwhole. And that realisation is just the oxymoronic asymmetric nature of the whole = part phenomena that is self awareness.

The observer cannot observe the ''Observing'' no more than a tooth can bite itself. It's a simple concept to grasp, not difficult to understand at all.

This thread was started to point the thinker to the no thing that appears to be everything and yet not one thing.

The observer is the observed aka (the object) who, in and of itself cannot observe. Einstein was one of many who was on the game when he said '' Life is an illusion albeit a persistent one''


.
Post Reply