The observer cannot be observed

[SpheresOfBalance]

I get what you are saying, but this self -conscious realisation is a perception, it is perceived. It does not imply the observer is being observed, because the perception is already appearing within the observer, in that the observer must be prior to the perception perceived so that it can be known.

.

"perceive [ per-seev ]
verb (used with object), per·ceived, per·ceiv·ing.
1) to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist.
2) to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice." -dictionary.com-

As you can clearly see, everything humans can say the know is via perception.

Are you familiar with the story of Helen Keller? Have you watched the movie? She was missing two of her senses, sight and hearing, so she could not speak. She was only informed by taste, smell and touch. And because of those limitations she acted out, often violently. She could not observe herself, because she could not observe others. Her actions were not informed as to what was proper, what is proper is observing others, thus observing self, otherwise one could never assimilate. The fact that you're not stark raving mad, shows that you observe the observer.

It has been understood that solitary confinement in prisons is considered inhumane. Those that do not have models of proper self control, relatively, loose themselves to insanity. As the observer observes others, relatively, they observe their observer, else relatively insane, they are charged.

One has to observe others and their own observer or there is no peaceful cooperative society.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Maybe that saying really is true, the lights are on but nobody’s home. It’s typically meant as an insult to people lacking intelligence or

self awareness,
And that my friend, is the observer observing the observer.

but at the heart of it, there really is no one home, but, there is still light in the home, aka awareness.

[Dontaskme]

"perceive [ per-seev ]
verb (used with object), per·ceived, per·ceiv·ing.
1) to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist.
2) to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice." -dictionary.com-

As you can clearly see, everything humans can say the know is via perception.

Are you familiar with the story of Helen Keller? Have you watched the movie? She was missing two of her senses, sight and hearing, so she could not speak. She was only informed by taste, smell and touch. And because of those limitations she acted out, often violently. She could not observe herself, because she could not observe others. Her actions were not informed as to what was proper, what is proper is observing others, thus observing self, otherwise one could never assimilate. The fact that you're not stark raving mad, shows that you observe the observer.

It has been understood that solitary confinement in prisons is considered inhumane. Those that do not have models of proper self control, relatively, loose themselves to insanity. As the observer observes others, relatively, they observe their observer, else relatively insane, they are charged.

One has to observe others and their own observer or there is no peaceful cooperative society.

There is no observer to observe.

And one does not necessarily have to be insane to say this, because saying this is seen via direct experience.

A peaceful cooperative society is a fictional story written and read by no one, absolutely.

The observer is the observed that cannot observe, it’s all one unitary action which means there’s not two observers, there is no other observer to observe.

There is ONLY “Observing” and this observing CANNOT be observed.

[AlexW]

There is ONLY “Observing” and this observing CANNOT be observed.

Yes, there’s only observing, or.. one could say: there is only the observed/experienced (and no observing).
Observed and observing merge. Its two conceptual sides of one. In reality there is no difference (the difference is only in language... verb vs. noun... but they are not two)
And yes, of course, as there is only the observed (but no separate observer) which cannot be observed. How could you observe yourself if there is only self? It requires a magic trick. A mirror made of concepts in which one perceives parts of what cannot be broken.

[SteveKlinko]

You are what observes, not what is being observed.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

.

I know I am the Conscious Light and the Conscious Sound that I Experience in my Mind. Therefore I can say I am Observing myself (the Observer) when I Experience these things. So in other words if you have ever Seen Light or Heard Sound then you have Observed the Observer.

[Immanuel Can]

"Be observed "is grammatically in the passive voice" It does not specify any observer, nor exclude any. "The observer" is the subject of the sentence, but not the doer of the action, therefore.

There is no reason why a second observer cannot observe he first observer. That would be the observer also being observed. The observer can also observe the second observer observing him, and say, "I am being observed." That's actually a very ordinary thought. Therefore, the statement as made is false. It should read, "An observer cannot directly observe himself."

But even then, it's open to doubt, if we mean "observe" as in "think about." It's obvious an observer can indeed think about the fact that he is observing...it's called "metacognition," and we can all do it. We can reflect on the fact that we are observers of other things, or even, as now, reflect on the fact that we are reflecting on our observer status...meta-meta-cognition, if you will.

So it's hard to see what the point of the whole debate is.

[Dontaskme]

There is ONLY “Observing” and this observing CANNOT be observed.

Yes, there’s only observing, or.. one could say: there is only the observed/experienced (and no observing).
Observed and observing merge. Its two conceptual sides of one. In reality there is no difference (the difference is only in language... verb vs. noun... but they are not two)
And yes, of course, as there is only the observed (but no separate observer) which cannot be observed. How could you observe yourself if there is only self? It requires a magic trick. A mirror made of concepts in which one perceives parts of what cannot be broken.

Very well said. Thanks for your interesting valuable input - I like

[Dimebag]

"Be observed "is grammatically in the passive voice" It does not specify any observer, nor exclude any. "The observer" is the subject of the sentence, but not the doer of the action, therefore.

There is no reason why a second observer cannot observe he first observer. That would be the observer also being observed. The observer can also observe the second observer observing him, and say, "I am being observed." That's actually a very ordinary thought. Therefore, the statement as made is false. It should read, "An observer cannot directly observe himself."

But even then, it's open to doubt, if we mean "observe" as in "think about." It's obvious an observer can indeed think about the fact that he is observing...it's called "metacognition," and we can all do it. We can reflect on the fact that we are observers of other things, or even, as now, reflect on the fact that we are reflecting on our observer status...meta-meta-cognition, if you will.

So it's hard to see what the point of the whole debate is.

It’s a little deeper than that. What we are referring to is identity. If you observe an Apple, there is the Apple, and there is you, the one observing the Apple. Who or what is that one observing? Can THAT one be observed? Is the one observing your body? Or is it your mind, the thoughts you think, or is it consciousness or awareness itself that is you? And if that is you, and everything else is observed, then what as a matter of identity ARE you? And can THAT be observed? And is there anything there to be observed? If it was, it would be another appearance IN you, awareness. Anything that can be seen CANT be you, if you are the awareness. So then, nothing that can be seen is you. You cannot be known or perceived. All you are is this, perceiving, this observing.

[AlexW]

There is no reason why a second observer cannot observe he first observer. That would be the observer also being observed. The observer can also observe the second observer observing him, and say, "I am being observed." That's actually a very ordinary thought. Therefore, the statement as made is false. It should read, "An observer cannot directly observe himself."

This is very hard, maybe impossible to understand as long as one thinks in the conventional way of: an independent observer observes something separate.
Once observer and observed merge - eg in meditation- also the doing, the observing is no more.
All thats left is... this... being... no one doing or observing anything.
Its only when one describes the experience that the conventional/conceptual dimension (dualistic language) is used to communicate the reality of the experience... this is where it becomes awkward as it’s always only an interpretation, a finger pointing at the moon...

Now one can believe that this is so or one can question or doubt it... its The same with anything one hasn’t directly experienced... if one has never been struck by lightning every report of what its like will be fairly unbelievable, dry, lifeless... but things change very much once it actually hits you.

[Dontaskme]

You are what observes, not what is being observed.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

.

I know I am the Conscious Light and the Conscious Sound that I Experience in my Mind. Therefore I can say I am Observing myself (the Observer) when I Experience these things. So in other words if you have ever Seen Light or Heard Sound then you have Observed the Observer.

I’m assuming you are referring to aware of being aware, in other words, there is only here an aware awareness?
So if we take that fundamental concept “Awareness” as all there is, it is clear that AWARENESS cannot be observed as in LOOKED AT ...As in the idea it can be contained in a jar to be looked upon from something outside of it.

Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing.
It can’t be known because it is the knowing.


This Empty Seeing and Knowing is what is being pointed to. In the exact same context an ARROW cannot point to itself.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s a little deeper than that. What we are referring to is identity. If you observe an Apple, there is the Apple, and there is you, the one observing the Apple. Who or what is that one observing? Can THAT one be observed? Is the one observing your body? Or is it your mind, the thoughts you think, or is it consciousness or awareness itself that is you? And if that is you, and everything else is observed, then what as a matter of identity ARE you? And can THAT be observed? And is there anything there to be observed? If it was, it would be another appearance IN you, awareness. Anything that can be seen CANT be you, if you are the awareness. So then, nothing that can be seen is you. You cannot be known or perceived. All you are is this, perceiving, this observing.

Hello there, DB. I don't think we've ever talked yet. Nice to meet you.

I see what you're saying. You are suggesting that the "self" is a dynamic rather than an object. Is that a fair summary?

There's certainly some truth in that: the self, whatever it is, is certainly dynamic, and not a material object as such. It is something that "observes," not something that one can "observe" in an object-like relation. However, it's not clear to me that just because we say something is dynamic and immaterial, we also have reason to say it cannot be "observed" -- at least, not if we open up the definition of "observe" to include things that are experienceable and discoverable in a dynamic way, in the interaction between and among persons.

I'm aware that there are identity issues there, but my suggestion is that the initial claim in the OP above is mis-worded. That which can "be observed" is observed from without, not from within. So given the wording of the OP, the problem would be "Can X see Y?" not "Can X see himself?"

Is that what the OP intended to convey? I suspect not, though I cannot prove it without confirmation from the poster. And absent such correction, I think we begin by taking the OP at its word. But if the OP is, indeed, worded as intended, then there is a lack of information in it: namely, that is is a passive-voice phrase with no doer in it, no specific "Y," thought a "Y" is certainly implied by the passive voice.

So, then, I want to know who Y is. Are we speaking about a human observer seeing the "self" of another? If so, there are certainly aspects of the self to which X's wife or children may be attuned, but to which X himself is oblivious: that's a common enough experience. Still, even X himself can learn of his self by watching the reflexive actions and accepting the input of his family or friends. Has he then learned more of his "self", even if we say he has not yet got full knowledge of this "self"?

But it might be true that no human observer can know the fulness of what X's self might be. Can a divine observer? Or are we ruling against any such? And what of the reflexive perspective, as Kierkegaard argued, of the X who can only know himself once he realizes he "stands in the face of God," as K. himself put it? Do we already rule against Kierkegaard on that? For what reason do we do so?

[Immanuel Can]

Hello, AlexW. Nice 'meeting' you -- without "observing," of course.

There is no reason why a second observer cannot observe he first observer. That would be the observer also being observed. The observer can also observe the second observer observing him, and say, "I am being observed." That's actually a very ordinary thought. Therefore, the statement as made is false. It should read, "An observer cannot directly observe himself."

Right. If that's what the OP really meant, it should be differently worded. The passive voice there is deceptive by accident, perhaps. It's certainly ambiguous.

And "directly" is an out. Is there a superiority in observing directly? Not always. Sometimes, observing reflexively is more accurate, as when a man's wife points out to him features of his personality with which he has been living unaware -- certainly a common enough event. So there's something possibly missing from any easy or immediate assumption that "observation" is simply impossible. I'd want to see that fleshed out by the OP more fully.

Once observer and observed merge - eg in meditation- also the doing, the observing is no more.

I don't think that's quite the right way to think of it. What happens, I would say, is that "observing" becomes a different thing.

[AlexW]

Hello, AlexW. Nice 'meeting' you

Hi, nice meeting you too.

And "directly" is an out. Is there a superiority in observing directly?

To observe/experience something directly means to see, hear, taste, smell or feel something, but not wrap it up into concepts and then believe in the idea of actually experiencing something that is actually never experienced.

as when a man's wife points out to him features of his personality

This - a feature of ones personality - is a prime example of something that is never experienced directly.
It can only be thought about, it is a conceptual construct, not real in the sense of the direct experience of "taste of apple".
"Taste of apple" is primary - the idea/feature of this taste being sweet, sour, foul, lovely or whatever else, is not a direct experience - it is an interpretation derived from a direct experience. The direct experience really has no intrinsic, conceptual qualities, it simply is, its not right or wrong or anything else really - its only once we attach our mental ornaments to the direct experience that it "inherits" certain qualities.

So there's something possibly missing from any easy or immediate assumption that "observation" is simply impossible.

That something is observed by a separate observer is never directly experienced - what is being experienced is "taste of apple", but not a "taster" nor the process of observation. The observer and the observation are made/thought up - they actually do not exist anywhere but in conceptual thought.
You can easily see this for yourself - simply investigate your own direct experience - its perfectly obvious (which doesn't mean that we shouldn't use the observer or the process of observation in daily language - language based communication works only in duality, it needs this implied separation even in "reality" there is none to be found).

I don't think that's quite the right way to think of it. What happens, I would say, is that "observing" becomes a different thing.

Not sure what you are pointing at... Can you elaborate?

[Immanuel Can]

Hello, AlexW. Nice 'meeting' you

Hi, nice meeting you too.

And "directly" is an out. Is there a superiority in observing directly?

To observe/experience something directly means to see, hear, taste, smell or feel something, but not wrap it up into concepts and then believe in the idea of actually experiencing something that is actually never experienced.

What do you mean "feel" something? Do you mean tactilely, or emotionally "feel" it? To "see, hear, taste, smell..." those are all material properties. So are you a strict Materialist, or do you think there is something real and experienceable other than the merely material?

Take the term "observer." An "observer" isn't an eye, per se. He HAS an eye, but an eye without the "observer" behind it would not be capable of "observing" anything, no matter how much light it channelled through its pupil, its iris, its rods and cones, or the optic nerve. A "seeing" observation is not a function of light. Instead, it's an interpretation of light patterns detected through the neural matrix by an entity we call the "observer."

If Materialism is true, then there can be no "observer," no consciousness behind cognition. Instead, what appears to be cognition is no more than the contingent actions of material reactions that were, in principle, set in motion long ago, prior even to the Big Bang, by whatever action started the universe. But then there IS no "observer." There are only odd (yet, in principle, predictable) material causes and effects.

Is that your view?

The direct experience really has no intrinsic, conceptual qualities, it simply is, its not right or wrong or anything else really - its only once we attach our mental ornaments to the direct experience that it "inherits" certain qualities.

That certainly sounds like very basic Materialism. But I'll wait for your confirmation on that.

So there's something possibly missing from any easy or immediate assumption that "observation" is simply impossible.

That something is observed by a separate observer is never directly experienced - what is being experienced is "taste of apple", but not a "taster" nor the process of observation. The observer and the observation are made/thought up - they actually do not exist anywhere but in conceptual thought.

If Materialism is true, then conceptual thought itself doesn't exist in reality either. It's what philosophers of mind call an "epiphenomenon," which is essentially a word meaning, "weird side effect we Materialists cannot find any adequate way to explain."

You can easily see this for yourself - simply investigate your own direct experience - its perfectly obvious

I don't find it obvious at all, I must confess. I'm surprised at the confidence of your expression, actually, Alex. It doesn't seem apparent to me that I can find a way to dismiss things like consciousness, rationality, selfhood, identity, personhood, morality, and so on...all of which are immaterial realities that seem very compelling to me. So I'm afraid my intuition on that doesn't agree with yours at all...that is, if I'm understanding your point.

I don't think that's quite the right way to think of it. What happens, I would say, is that "observing" becomes a different thing.

Not sure what you are pointing at... Can you elaborate?

I'm pointing to the fact that "observe" is not merely a synonym for "see." It is also a synonym for "apprehend," or "cognize," and that one can observe indirectly or through relationship things with respect to which the observer is himself ordinarily oblivious, even about himself.

For example, if I observe that people ordinarily laugh at my jokes, though I think them very ordinary, or I observe that they recoil at my jokes as disgusting, though I think them very clever, can I not learn something from that about myself...a thing I was not able to "observe" in myself, perhaps? Could it be that I am, unbeknownst to me, a natural comedian (in the first case), or could it be I am a tactless social boor (in the second)?

And yet, "the OP says that the observer cannot be observed". However, it seems to me the recipients of my jokes have observed me, and I have observed myself better through observing them. So in what sense is it true that the observer cannot be observed?

It's not clear to me that that OP wording makes any sense....especially, as I say, because it's worded in the passive voice, which is very often an indicator that the speaker doesn't know as much about his topic as he needs to, or has failed to communicate as clearly as he should, because he allows his readers to remain uncertain of who the doer of the proposed "observing" actually is. If he knew who was doing the observing, he should specify it, using the active voice.

[AlexW]

What do you mean "feel" something? Do you mean tactilely, or emotionally "feel" it?

I referred to the sense of touch, not to emotions.

So are you a strict Materialist, or do you think there is something real and experienceable other than the merely material?

Experience doesn't have anything to do with Materialism (even it might sound in a way similar).
None of the senses actually tell us "this is something material that I am experiencing now" - sure, thought will tell us this when our hand touches a solid surface, but the sense of touch itself does not. Materialism is one way of interpreting experience, but I am not a Materialist - I am a very simple fellow... I see, hear, smell, taste and feel (sense tactilely). But the sense of touch alone tells me nothing about a material universe, this is true for each one of the five senses - and then we combine them, we weave the inputs into concepts and suddenly... you end up with "I hold an apple in my hand".
There is nothing wrong with this interpretation, all I am saying is that the direct experience is not of "holding", or "apple", or "solid material" - these are only descriptions. These description may be right or wrong, they can be discussed, agreed upon, or disagreed upon and we might even start a war because of our different interpretations, but the fundamental experience doesn't care. It simply is as it is - non conceptual, not separate from any (apparent) observer, simply here/now.

Take the term "observer." An "observer" isn't an eye, per se. He HAS an eye, but an eye without the "observer" behind it would not be capable of "observing" anything, no matter how much light it channelled through its pupil, its iris, its rods and cones, or the optic nerve. A "seeing" observation is not a function of light. Instead, it's an interpretation of light patterns detected through the neural matrix by an entity we call the "observer."

This may all be true (or not)... I am not really talking about all these possible interpretations, but I am attempting to point you to what comes before all these thoughts take hold of the experience and turn something very simple into something complex.

f Materialism is true, then there can be no "observer," no consciousness behind cognition.

As I see it, the only "thing" thats true is the basic experience of "taste of apple" (or whatever else is being experienced...) - all the rest is interpretation and will never be true. No matter how "accurate" the conceptual interpretation, it is still infinitely far away from the truth of "taste of apple" - it "exists" actually, in a completely different dimension --> basic reality and conceptual reality never meet (just like left and right will never meet - they can only both vanish and leave you with... no separation and no opposite at all).

If Materialism is true, then conceptual thought itself doesn't exist in reality either.

Sure, conceptual thought exists... what doesn't exist (in directly experienced reality) is the object that a conceptual structure (which is erected in thought) points at.
You can think of an apple, but you cannot experience "apple" directly.
The human body doesn't have "object" sensors, all it can sense is the color (of what will later be conceptualised as "apple"), the taste and the tactile information - none of these "streams of data" contain any objectivity. The object is erected mentally (but this doesn't mean that it actually exists in direct experience).

It's what philosophers of mind call an "epiphenomenon," which is essentially a word meaning, "weird side effect we Materialists cannot find any adequate way to explain."

Did what I said above, explain it?
If not, I'll try again (if you like)

I don't find it obvious at all, I must confess. I'm surprised at the confidence of your expression, actually, Alex

Well... look at at an apple and tell me what you actually see.
Sure, the conventional answer is "I see an apple" - but as I tried to explain previously, the sense of seeing doesn't contain the slightest information about "apple" - do you "see" that?

It doesn't seem apparent to me that I can find a way to dismiss things like consciousness, rationality, selfhood, identity, personhood, morality, and so on...all of which are immaterial realities that seem very compelling to me

They are only compelling to you because you have acquired certain knowledge - conceptual knowledge - that gives value to these concepts. If nobody wold have ever bothered about "identity, personhood, morality..." then you wouldn't find them compelling either...
I am not saying that these values should be neglected, I am saying that there is a world/reality that exists before all these conceptual ideas take hold - this reality is basic, what we make of it is up to our mental disposition.

And yet, "the OP says that the observer cannot be observed". However, it seems to me the recipients of my jokes have observed me, and I have observed myself better through observing them. So in what sense is it true that the observer cannot be observed?

To me, it is true as there is no such entity as an observer from the outset.
All that actually "exists" is a thought stating: "I see" or "I experience", but both, the noun "I" as well as the verb "see/experience" are non existent in the primary, sensory experience (this is actually true for all objects and all "doing").

It's not clear to me that that OP wording makes any sense...

Yes, maybe it could have been said differently, but hey... this is true for all statements. Some people might (think they) understand what is being said (and maybe they do or they actually don't) and some don't... its only a game of words/interpretations