The observer cannot be observed

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you. I enjoyed our discussion

Likewise. Thanks for all your thoughts.

[Dimebag]

So just to sum up, IC, you seem to feel there is some definite internal essence or subject to which experiences occur, and that accounts for the sense of a self?

[Dontaskme]

So just to sum up, IC, you seem to feel there is some definite internal essence or subject to which experiences occur, and that accounts for the sense of a self?

IC cannot answer what he cannot answer.

I brought up the same question to him, he ignored it, as to be expected.

IC is more interested in coherent kind polite exchanges. I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine kind of discussions, but if you don’t agree with him then the discussion is all nonsense anyway.

Every discussion I’ve ever had with him was a waste of energy and effort on my part.

[Dontaskme]

(Belinda wrote

It is our experience of an out of focus picture that gradually focuses on separated entities.Thus "the story of me" alternates between focused awareness of 'me' and the unfocused picture where entities and events are melded.

In a sense yes. There is apparently two of you, the reflection of a reflector appearing as an image of the imageless.
While the image is seen, the seer is never seen. Therefore the duality of you is an illusion. There is no separate reflected you as there is only you, seer and seen are inseparably ONE which is no thing and every thing.

Brahma is the creator of what we know as the individuated world we live in. His consort was knowledge.If we worship Brahma too much we lose touch with the god of gods who is Brahman.

Not sure what this is saying.

[Dontaskme]

IC "...a commentary issued by no one?"

Now, there's an idea of which I can make no sense. It seems to me that it's easier to speak of a man lifting himself up by his bootstraps than to speak of a commentary that's real, but has never been issued by anyone.

Commentary via words which are just built out of “SOUND” with attached meaning.

Who issues sound?

It’s like asking who issues sensation and pain?

Or who issues thoughts?

And what do you use to answer these questions? That’s right you use more concepts, never touching actual reality.

The actual reality is this immediate untouchable unknown sound and light show. The actors have no independent reality in and of themselves, they are mere images of the one light projector of all projections....appearing as actors/ characters synonymous with the characters appearing in a nightly dream, just different appearances of the same one light source.

.

[Belinda]

(Belinda wrote

It is our experience of an out of focus picture that gradually focuses on separated entities.Thus "the story of me" alternates between focused awareness of 'me' and the unfocused picture where entities and events are melded.

In a sense yes. There is apparently two of you, the reflection of a reflector appearing as an image of the imageless.
While the image is seen, the seer is never seen. Therefore the duality of you is an illusion. There is no separate reflected you as there is only you, seer and seen are inseparably ONE which is no thing and every thing.

Brahma is the creator of what we know as the individuated world we live in. His consort was knowledge.If we worship Brahma too much we lose touch with the god of gods who is Brahman.

Not sure what this is saying.

I am not good at explaining Hindu philosophy. Please note, if you read the folllowing, that Brahma is not the same as Brahman.

https://www.learnreligions.com/lord-bra ... on-1770300

[Dontaskme]

(Belinda wrote

It is our experience of an out of focus picture that gradually focuses on separated entities.Thus "the story of me" alternates between focused awareness of 'me' and the unfocused picture where entities and events are melded.

In a sense yes. There is apparently two of you, the reflection of a reflector appearing as an image of the imageless.
While the image is seen, the seer is never seen. Therefore the duality of you is an illusion. There is no separate reflected you as there is only you, seer and seen are inseparably ONE which is no thing and every thing.

Brahma is the creator of what we know as the individuated world we live in. His consort was knowledge.If we worship Brahma too much we lose touch with the god of gods who is Brahman.

Not sure what this is saying.

I am not good at explaining Hindu philosophy. Please note, if you read the folllowing, that Brahma is not the same as Brahman.

https://www.learnreligions.com/lord-bra ... on-1770300

I didn’t read it, don’t need to, I’m over story time.

Hindu philosophy and religion is only pointing to the nondual nature of reality which is not a theory, nor is it a religion or a philosophy.

Advaita Vedanta means the end of knowledge, the cessation of wanting to KNOW...and abiding as this immediate not-knowing ISness when life lives effortlessly as and through the human body mind mechanism. Knowledge is a fictional story upon ISness.

In ISness there is no observer, no worshiper,no experiencer, no thinker, no believer etc etc...except in this conception within the known dream of separation, aka the artificial creation of the world of things.

.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
If you were put in solitary confinement for a while, in your case not a very long time, you'd fully understand, that is if we could pull you back from the abyss.

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.

Then I feel sorry for you, because I surely can! You see it's not two observers it's one that can multitask.

You see the thing is that you really don't know what it is that you actually are. But don't feel bad as there are many such as you. Actually I would say that most are such as you.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"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.

observe [ uhb-zurv ]
verb (used with object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing.
1) to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.
2) to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question.
3) to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.
4) to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be.
5) to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet.
6) to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws.
7) to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday.
8 ) to perform duly or solemnize (ceremonies, rites, etc.).
9) to note or inspect closely for an omen or sign of future events.

verb (used without object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing.
10) to notice.
11) to act as an observer.
12) to remark or comment (usually followed byon or upon). --dictionary.com--

As you can clearly see, once you two understand what the word actually means, it's easy to see that the observer can observe the observer. Maybe you two are incapable.

Have you ever said something, then realized it could be taken two or more different ways? That is you observing you. Self awareness is the observer observing self.

If you believe you can't see your wheels turning, as you observe, you don't understand that you are a recording device, that you are the culmination of every recording you have ever committed to memory, that unconsciously/subconsciously you are constantly thinking, comparing, supporting, categorizing, etc, all those recordings such that your self, the observer and the observed, makes sense of all that you have sensed. The unconscious/subconscious mind is constantly working which is why words and ideas simply fly off your tongue. No conscious searching is required, or coherent speech would be considerably slower. Your unconscious/subconscious mind is the observer observing the observer.

All humans are mimics, we, "monkey see, monkey do." The differences between us are the unique sequences of events, at any particular relative intensity, where prerequisite experience makes clearer, and the lack thereof, the opposite.

The solitary confined are proof that the observer must observe itself as it observes, else it's labelled insane, relatively speaking. We are not social animals per say, rather users, mimics, else we are shunned and called insane, ignorant, stupid, mentally challenged, etc. Without commonality we are exiled. It doesn't matter if we are truly more intelligent or not, as the mob calls all the shots, knowing or ignorant, it matters not! Violence of one type or another reign supreme, calling all the shots.

[Dontaskme]

The solitary confined are proof that the observer must observe itself as it observes, else it's labelled insane

On the absolute level of understanding...We’re all in solitary confinement in every moment right here and now because there’s only one of us here. And 1 is the loneliest number.

On the human level. We’re also all suffering from a degenerate mental terminal illness, because we have knowledge that we are going to die.

ONLY The sane person that lets go of the desire to KNOW lives out the rest of eternity shining

Don’t feel sorry for yourself, you do not have to be a beggar in your own kingdom.

[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.

observe [ uhb-zurv ]
verb (used with object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing.
1) to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.
2) to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question.
3) to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.
4) to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be.
5) to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet.
6) to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws.
7) to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday.
8 ) to perform duly or solemnize (ceremonies, rites, etc.).
9) to note or inspect closely for an omen or sign of future events.

verb (used without object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing.
10) to notice.
11) to act as an observer.
12) to remark or comment (usually followed byon or upon). --dictionary.com--

As you can clearly see, once you two understand what the word actually means, it's easy to see that the observer can observe the observer. Maybe you two are incapable.

Have you ever said something, then realized it could be taken two or more different ways? That is you observing you. Self awareness is the observer observing self.

If you believe you can't see your wheels turning, as you observe, you don't understand that you are a recording device, that you are the culmination of every recording you have ever committed to memory, that unconsciously/subconsciously you are constantly thinking, comparing, supporting, categorizing, etc, all those recordings such that your self, the observer and the observed, makes sense of all that you have sensed. The unconscious/subconscious mind is constantly working which is why words and ideas simply fly off your tongue. No conscious searching is required, or coherent speech would be considerably slower. Your unconscious/subconscious mind is the observer observing the observer.

All humans are mimics, we, "monkey see, monkey do." The differences between us are the unique sequences of events, at any particular relative intensity, where prerequisite experience makes clearer, and the lack thereof, the opposite.

The solitary confined are proof that the observer must observe itself as it observes, else it's labelled insane, relatively speaking. We are not social animals per say, rather users, mimics, else we are shunned and called insane, ignorant, stupid, mentally challenged, etc. Without commonality we are exiled. It doesn't matter if we are truly more intelligent or not, as the mob calls all the shots, knowing or ignorant, it matters not! Violence of one type or another reign supreme, calling all the shots.

I don’t disagree that we are capable of observing our own internal states, our own thoughts, behaviour patterns, even the hidden reasons behind our reactions, all of this is observable. But all of these are appearances, you are the condition in which all of these things are being noticed. You may take ownership of them, ‘MY thoughts, MY tendencies, MY inclinations or defence mechanisms’, but ownership is different to identity. My car is not me. My thoughts are not me. My observation of my body is not me. I am that in which these things are seen.

You may think your thoughts are you. But you don’t think your thoughts, you notice them. They arise, then you become aware of them.

What do you think you are? You mention the observer, but you seem to think the observer is also that which it observes? I think I am observing. The reason I say observing is, this observer has no observable characteristics, it has no shape, no location, it does not think thoughts, thoughts are seen by it. Pain arises, reactions to pain arise, they are seen, they are not me.

If whatever arises in this observing is not it, then what is it? It is like space, with no form, no location. Location occurs as a condition within it.

“I” is the space of awareness.

[SteveKlinko]

I am my Experiences. This might be all I am. But Experiences might encompass more than we usually think they do.

[Dimebag]

I am my Experiences. This might be all I am. But Experiences might encompass more than we usually think they do.

So what do you think experiences them? Or do experiences inherently contain the “experiencer” within them in your view? Do you think there is somewhere it “all comes together”?

I know your view of the intermind might imply something like this.

[SteveKlinko]

I am my Experiences. This might be all I am. But Experiences might encompass more than we usually think they do.

So what do you think experiences them? Or do experiences inherently contain the “experiencer” within them in your view? Do you think there is somewhere it “all comes together”?

I know your view of the intermind might imply something like this.

I don't yet know what a Conscious Self might be. It's a difficult thing to wrap your Mind around. I am at a brick wall in my studies on this. I can Logically and Scientifically show that I am my Experiences, such as the Experience of Redness. Note that I still like to specify a particular Experience like Redness rather than just thinking about generalized Experiences. I'm also ok with just thinking about Light in general which is made out of all the Color Experiences. But at least we stay within a Category of Experiences by limiting the study to Light. So the Light is in my Mind. But then there is the logical next question as to what is having that Experience of Light? I always thought there had to be some kind of Conscious Self concept. But recently I have been trying look at the problem in new ways. What if we could eliminate the Self as a separate thing? I think some people and maybe you have even suggested that. Somehow the Experience is what I am. There is no Self Experiencing it. There is only the Experience itself. This sounds good for about 10 seconds, and then I have admit I don't understand that kind of talk.

[Belinda]

I am my Experiences. This might be all I am. But Experiences might encompass more than we usually think they do.

So what do you think experiences them? Or do experiences inherently contain the “experiencer” within them in your view? Do you think there is somewhere it “all comes together”?

I know your view of the intermind might imply something like this.

I don't yet know what a Conscious Self might be. It's a difficult thing to wrap your Mind around. I am at a brick wall in my studies on this. I can Logically and Scientifically show that I am my Experiences, such as the Experience of Redness. Note that I still like to specify a particular Experience like Redness rather than just thinking about generalized Experiences. I'm also ok with just thinking about Light in general which is made out of all the Color Experiences. But at least we stay within a Category of Experiences by limiting the study to Light. So the Light is in my Mind. But then there is the logical next question as to what is having that Experience of Light? I always thought there had to be some kind of Conscious Self concept. But recently I have been trying look at the problem in new ways. What if we could eliminate the Self as a separate thing? I think some people and maybe you have even suggested that. Somehow the Experience is what I am. There is no Self Experiencing it. There is only the Experience itself. This sounds good for about 10 seconds, and then I have admit I don't understand that kind of talk.

SteveKlinko knows when his knee bends and Steve knows how that knee bend feels.

SteveKlinko does not know when his neurons fire but Steve knows how that firing feels.

There is an anatomical cause for the discrepancy