Conceptualizing Subjective Experience.

[Agent Intellect]

It's a futile task, but there is no reason not to try: I want to describe the subjective of experience of being a conscious, sentient being. I am of the opinion that subjective experience is not exactly the same for everybody. I think different personalities and people of different intelligence experience consciousness in very different ways. First, I am going to make a loose hierarchy of how I see the subjective experience:

Identity:
The sense that there is a self to whom thoughts and perceptions belong. It is "I" that owns the thoughts that occur to me. This is the a priori sense that when events occur, they are occurring for/to me and not someone else. It is a first person experience for which I am the one to whom these experiences are happening.

Perception:
Sensing the non-self via the senses (sight, sound, smell, tactile, taste, balance). The organism is oriented to their current situation through their perception of it. An organism can sense something but be unaware that there is a self to whom these sensations are occurring to (similar to blindsightedness).

Feeling:
The sense that an emotion is being experienced by me. An emotion can be described in how it is displayed to the external world, and I may not even be aware of this emotion, but a feeling is my awareness that I am the proprietor of this emotion.

Core Consciousness:
The sense of self-in-the-world. Consciousness is the self (identity) in relation with the non-self, and my core consciousness is the fundamental sense of myself (identity) having a relationship with the world through perceptions of that which isn't me but that belong to me. Core consciousness is the unspoken, non-linguistic narrative of events in the world as they occur to me in the present, where I (my identity) is the protagonist. This is something many organisms possess.

Extended Consciousness:
Being conscious of the mental arena. Extended consciousness is how I can recall memories, it's how I can place mental representations to symbols (a person to a name). Extended consciousness is being conscious of this internal, non-symbolized thought. If I say the word "rock" you know the existing object that the word "rock" symbolizes.

Understanding:
This goes beyond knowing. Knowing is the apprehension of a fact; understanding is the internal synthesis of this knowledge with my own consciousness. Understanding is moving past the symbol shunting of John Searle's Chinese Room to being inseparable from the meaning of the symbols - the symbols become meaningful. By understanding something, my very identity is changed on a fundamental level - I can identify with the knowledge that is understood, even if I disagree with it's meaning.

Attention:
Internally (mentally) "zooming in" on salient information or perceptions; dedicating cognitive processing power to to a more focused or smaller subset or a larger concept. This is the negation of everything within a conceptual set in order to make mentally salient only particular things from a set - it's going from thinking in broad, general, or abstract down to thinking in particular, concrete, or specific.

Intuition:
The ability to make connections. I can conceptualize the relationship between two things using intuition. By understanding the isomorphisms between two or more objects/phenomena/events/concepts I can relate them and use this relationship to synthesize new conceptual frameworks (what might be considered Ni) or make conceptual leaps to novel concepts (what might be considered Ne).

Imagination:
While I would liken Intuition to making connections in the real world about real facts/observations, Imagination is both making connections internally and generating novel counterfactual mental schema. Interestingly, imagination is what I would consider to be where the mental hierarchy loops back down for humans. When we are interacting with our surroundings, it requires imagination to complete the mental framework of our surroundings - I am aware of things in my room that I'm not actively sensing because my imagination can construct things that, subjectively speaking, I don't even know they are still existing right now. Imagination is how I can throw my consciousness around - even at home, I can imagine myself at school, I can take an imaginary walk through the parking ramp or the library without actually being there. Imagination is how I can experience the completed world while I'm not currently experiencing it.

----------------------

Here is what I find interesting about subjective experience: think of someone who is a genius. I'm not sure how many people here have ever had the chance to actually talk to someone who is a genius. There are people who can hold several discussions at a time and be able to mentally engage in all of them; there are people who can become fluent in a new language over the course of a month; there are people who can sit down at a piano and music just "magically" forms in their mind; there are people who can read a scientific paper and come up with 5 new experimental ideas.

My point is, how reasonable does it seem that someone like this, and someone of low (or even average) intelligence have a subjective experience that are anywhere close to equivalent?

Or how about two people of very different personalities? I was just noticing today the difference between me and my dad. He is a construction worker, and because of the economy he sometimes doesn't have any work to do. When this happens, he finds a bunch of other things to do; when I have a day off, I spend it in front of my computer reading and generally not saying physically very busy. I've also noticed that there are things I won't even notice that are very salient to him - the mess in my car is almost invisible to me (mentally) but he can't help but notice.

Aside from the fact that different subjectivities belong to different people, could they be said to be equivalent? By this I mean that, you and I can both have a computer, they can be the same make and model, and even though they are different things-in-themselves, they are equivalent in how they process information, in what their function is etc. Is subjectivity the same?

It would seem to me that me and my dad have very different computers. Most people assume that when they say they are happy, that someone else knows what they mean by happy because they can empathize with it - your happiness and my happiness are equivalent, even if they belong to different people. But can something like understanding, or attention, or intuitition as defined above be experienced the same between a genius and an idiot, or an INTP and an ISTJ? If a genius understands a simple concept, and an idiot understands the same simple concept, is their understanding of this same simple concept experienced equivalently between the two?

Could the foundations of empathy and human understanding even be comprehensible if mental states are not equivalent between any two people? If happiness by one person is experienced differently, how can I say that I understand how they feel?

Maybe none of this makes any sense, or maybe I'm over-complicating something that's trivial and simple, but it's just something I've been thinking about, and I know how much you all wanted to scroll past a wall-o-text before deciding it's too long and hitting the back button (I understand how you feel!)

 

[Da Blob]

Actually, I believe it is a rather noble quest to explore the largely unknown Subjective Universe and one that might prove to be beneficial to both you and Others. We have tiptoed around the issues you raise on other threads and perhaps some basic assumptions can be gleaned from those. Although I do note something new. Why is that every One experiences the Subjective Universe differently? Is there one Subjective universe or a multitude - if multiple then how many? If only one, what can explain the tremendous variations of subjective phenomena - such as Self, Identity, social identity and the 'gifted'?

BTW - this Matrix I made might prove to be useful as a tool...

http://www.intpforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=162453

 

[Black Rose]

The path to limitless power (wisdom) is to believe in yourself and let go of your illusions, you must learn the skill of learning.

This turtle is a genius.

YouTube - Nothing is impossible!

 

[Stoic Beverage]

I've oft thought about this, but there's an issue. If someone had different perspective, there's no way I can think of to accurately project what it's "like". I mean, if someone's brain is wired completely differently, how could we even comprehend it? Though the metaphor may seem odd, it's kind of like trying to tell someone how to wiggle their ear. If you can't do it, you just don't get how they go about it. If someone were to say "I contract the muscles behind my ear, and it is pulled back. Just do that." I can almost guarantee this would be of no help. That example is extremely simple, as it is of a physical nature. Trying to explain to someone how you process your world, when they don't think same way... I think it would be an easier task to teach trigonometry to a monkey. Without speaking.
(If someone posts a link to a monkey that taught itself trigonometry...)

 

[JarNew]

Awesome! Best of luck. You may find that your change in consciousness will also affect the ones you love/respect/are close too which may lead to some confusing shit.

I started doing this unconsciously when I first got into spirituality. Just recently I've realized I've conceptualized everything and it's my minds a pretty big mess right now.

Best of luck on your journey

Edit: I agree with pretty much eveverything you said. Your system makes sense.

People may end up judging you a narcissist too.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Actually, I believe it is a rather noble quest to explore the largely unknown Subjective Universe and one that might prove to be beneficial to both you and Others. We have tiptoed around the issues you raise on other threads and perhaps some basic assumptions can be gleaned from those. Although I do note something new. Why is that every One experiences the Subjective Universe differently? Is there one Subjective universe or a multitude - if multiple then how many? If only one, what can explain the tremendous variations of subjective phenomena - such as Self, Identity, social identity and the 'gifted'?

What is a subjective universe, exactly? There is a certain being-in-the-world or Dasein, for which I am the focal point of everything that I'm currently present to - is this a subjective universe? Is the subjective universe the mental construct I've built to complete my experience of the world (see the Imagination section in OP)?

I would assume there would be multiple subjective universes by this definition, yet many of them blur into one another. I find the idea of mirror neurons interesting in this sense, as there is an evolutionary adaptation to being able to share bits and pieces of our subjective universe with one another.

I still wonder how equivalent different subjective universes would be. Some might only exist within Plato's cave, while others have been able to exit; some of them might be "multi-dimensional" while others are "single-dimensional."

I've oft thought about this, but there's an issue. If someone had different perspective, there's no way I can think of to accurately project what it's "like". I mean, if someone's brain is wired completely differently, how could we even comprehend it?

I think people are capable of altering their own subjective experience. Aside from drugs, alcohol, and hallucinogens, I also think we are capable of exercising downward causality - with enough will, it might be possible to change the physiological substrate of experience (think of the placebo effect, but willingly).

Though the metaphor may seem odd, it's kind of like trying to tell someone how to wiggle their ear. If you can't do it, you just don't get how they go about it. If someone were to say "I contract the muscles behind my ear, and it is pulled back. Just do that." I can almost guarantee this would be of no help. That example is extremely simple, as it is of a physical nature. Trying to explain to someone how you process your world, when they don't think same way...

The best metaphor would be trying to describe color to someone who was born blind.

I think it would be an easier task to teach trigonometry to a monkey. Without speaking.
(If someone posts a link to a monkey that taught itself trigonometry...)

Nope, chimps are still working on Arithmetic.

 

[JarNew]

What if one's only use of imagination... Is in their dreams?

What if one has modified their ability to dream so that their dreams solve for them the problems which the brain knows is important, yet doesn't have the desire to solve during the day?

Say for example a problem which requires raw emotion? The rational mind or logical mind can not fully understand something which can't be explained by words. So therefore in dreams it does this.

Say one changes their dreaming process, so that it solves exisential problems and personal problems? Can a Chimp do this?

How would dreams fit into your model of subjective experience?

Well I guess dreams could possibly fall under intuition. But even so, wouldn't this be a form of super-intuition? Since of course usually dreams of people who watch tv or have obsessive interests are related to those interests.

But dreaming with the intent of uncovering secrets of the past which have influenced who you are today, or dreams of uncovering fears/ phobias anxieties. Could one even train themself to act according to instinct in certain situations and KNOW WHAT TO DO?

What happens when you allow your right brain to entirely take over your intuition?

What happens? I know what happens.

I guess the secret for my ultimate success is to develop my left brain to work entirely throughout the day. Then train my right brain to work only at night

FASCINATING

 

[Da Blob]

I believe that Subjective Universe could be defined as the set of human experience, with a number of overlaps ands subsets. , such as the Objective Universe, various and sundry types of phenomena predominately of a nonhuman nature (sub or super - human) etc.
I think that one of the major overlaps is with the set of the human brain and that neurological structures can be the basis for discussion of the more ethereal aspects of subjectivity. I also believe that there is overlap with the science of information-processing and some of the observations made about computers is valid for human information processing as well.

However, to define the boundaries of the set of human experience by negation, I would suggest that there is very little overlap of the Subjective Universe with current science, psychology, modern philosophy and perhaps modern society itself to a certain extent.

I believe I can establish this, simply based upon the observation that neither Humanity as a concept or the Humanities as Art (expression of Humanity) is politically - correct at this time. Art and Music programs are being eliminated from the educational system and replaced with more Science and Math.

Again I am a proponent of structuralism, in that I feel, that anything that exhibits anti-entropy qualities does so because of a structure that has been put into place. Order is a byproduct of structure, while Chaos is not a product at all.

As a side note, personally, I do not think that dreams, experienced during sleep, are the product of imagination - rather they are a form of communication between left and right hemispheres (at the least) and are part of the process of recording long-term memories of a day's events.

 

[Agent Intellect]

How would dreams fit into your model of subjective experience?

I rarely remember any dreams that I have, so I really don't give them much thought, to be honest. I know a lot of people around here like to see meaning in them, but to me they're just the random images and emotions generated by the brain firing neurons - I'm sure it has a physiological purpose, but I don't see anything subjectively meaningful in them. Of course, I could be wrong (and this is only my own subjective interpretation of dreams).

I believe that Subjective Universe could be defined as the set of human experience, with a number of overlaps ands subsets. , such as the Objective Universe, various and sundry types of phenomena predominately of a nonhuman nature (sub or super - human) etc.

Would this be more like a subjective multiverse?

I still think our interpretation of the relationship between the subjective and objective universe still differs. After having read about Kant and his take on the noumenon and phenomenon, my views seem to agree with his in many places. I don't see subjective and objective as overlaps, but instead as two sides of a single synthesis.

I think that one of the major overlaps is with the set of the human brain and that neurological structures can be the basis for discussion of the more ethereal aspects of subjectivity. I also believe that there is overlap with the science of information-processing and some of the observations made about computers is valid for human information processing as well.

You seem to suggest that these things are overlapping, yet separate "entities"?

However, to define the boundaries of the set of human experience by negation, I would suggest that there is very little overlap of the Subjective Universe with current science, psychology, modern philosophy and perhaps modern society itself to a certain extent.

I don't think such fields can really study subjectivity.

I think the human brain has it's own sort of language, which neuroscience hasn't even really began to translate - and this is made much more difficult in that each brain has anywhere from a slightly different dialect to this language to being completely different (like comparing English the the African clicking languages).

This, I suppose, is the crux of my post. If different brains have a different language which they use to process information, how can we compare the "words" (thoughts) between them? There is no English translation for a word like schadenfreude - how can my brain have a translation for how you experience existence?

I believe I can establish this, simply based upon the observation that neither Humanity as a concept or the Humanities as Art (expression of Humanity) is politically - correct at this time. Art and Music programs are being eliminated from the educational system and replaced with more Science and Math.

Education is geared towards utility. There is no money to be made in expressions of humanity - even music has become a business. I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness so much as the economic superstructure of western civilization. Ironically, I think this is a very true expression of how humans think and behave.

Again I am a proponent of structuralism, in that I feel, that anything that exhibits anti-entropy qualities does so because of a structure that has been put into place. Order is a byproduct of structure, while Chaos is not a product at all.

Nothing exhibits anti-entropy qualities.

ΔSuniv = ΔSsys +ΔSsurr > 0

If the system decreases energy, the surroundings increase. It's a transfer of entropy, similar to a transfer of heat. Order is a byproduct of looking at things as a closed system, when they're not.

 

[Da Blob]

I rarely remember any dreams that I have, so I really don't give them much thought, to be honest. I know a lot of people around here like to see meaning in them, but to me they're just the random images and emotions generated by the brain firing neurons - I'm sure it has a physiological purpose, but I don't see anything subjectively meaningful in them. Of course, I could be wrong (and this is only my own subjective interpretation of dreams).

One can train one's Self to become a lucid dreamer, I have been a lucid dreamer since I was 18 months old and I still remember the recurring nightmare that forced me to take an active role in my dreams...

I recommend it as a skill with a number of beneficial applications...

BTW - i apologize for the late reply, I have been without internet access since Thursday...



Would this be more like a subjective multiverse?

I still think our interpretation of the relationship between the subjective and objective universe still differs. After having read about Kant and his take on the noumenon and phenomenon, my views seem to agree with his in many places. I don't see subjective and objective as overlaps, but instead as two sides of a single synthesis.

Perhaps, but I believe it is a matter of a shift in perspective. There is an analogy and a metaphor that seem to work. Indeed, our reality can be likened to the two sides of the same coin, but instead of Heads and Tails, there are Subjective and Objective sides. The problem being is that of the miniscule thickness of the coin for it is within that plane we exist as thinking entities with an orientation "looking out' from the Objective face of the coin - with our 'backs' towards the Subjective Universe.

Obviously, there is just one way to observe our own "backside' - via reflection and not just one reflection, but two. One has to be between two reflecting "surfaces" to observe one's backside and even then, in the resulting geometric progression, half the images will be of the Objective " 'face".

The analogy of mirrors has a number of applications to this basic structure of Subjective and Objective universes. However, I believe that the concept of reflected signals via applied signal theory/Fourier transforms/wavelets within one's brain/mind may be more than just an analogy...(?)



You seem to suggest that these things are overlapping, yet separate "entities"?

Yes, but I do not see it as a typical overlap, but rather a geometric relationship where the whole is more than the sum of the separate parts...





I think the human brain has it's own sort of language, which neuroscience hasn't even really began to translate - and this is made much more difficult in that each brain has anywhere from a slightly different dialect to this language to being completely different (like comparing English the the African clicking languages).

This, I suppose, is the crux of my post. If different brains have a different language which they use to process information, how can we compare the "words" (thoughts) between them? There is no English translation for a word like schadenfreude - how can my brain have a translation for how you experience existence?

I agree and there is a thread around here somewhere that explains the situation in the terms of the Tower of Babel...



Education is geared towards utility. There is no money to be made in expressions of humanity - even music has become a business. I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness so much as the economic superstructure of western civilization. Ironically, I think this is a very true expression of how humans think and behave.

The Economy is an inhumane machine that uses humans as expendable components, it is a great evil and perhaps The Great Evil. Some day soon we may have a truly efficient Economy that feeds on the misery of 99% of the humans in the world. Human Rights are just impediments to the economy and those who run it.



Nothing exhibits anti-entropy qualities.

ΔSuniv = ΔSsys +ΔSsurr > 0

If the system decreases energy, the surroundings increase. It's a transfer of entropy, similar to a transfer of heat. Order is a byproduct of looking at things as a closed system, when they're not.

I disagree, the very concept of "system" implies boundaries of structure. If there were no boundaries, there would be nothing beyond a steady state of entropy and even chaos would be subdued...

 

[Agent Intellect]

One can train one's Self to become a lucid dreamer, I have been a lucid dreamer since I was 18 months old and I still remember the recurring nightmare that forced me to take an active role in my dreams...

I recommend it as a skill with a number of beneficial applications...

BTW - i apologize for the late reply, I have been without internet access since Thursday...

I have recently (as in, today) begun a regimen of mucuna pruriens, which is supposed to help with lucid/vivid dreaming.

Perhaps, but I believe it is a matter of a shift in perspective. There is an analogy and a metaphor that seem to work. Indeed, our reality can be likened to the two sides of the same coin, but instead of Heads and Tails, there are Subjective and Objective sides. The problem being is that of the miniscule thickness of the coin for it is within that plane we exist as thinking entities with an orientation "looking out' from the Objective face of the coin - with our 'backs' towards the Subjective Universe.

Obviously, there is just one way to observe our own "backside' - via reflection and not just one reflection, but two. One has to be between two reflecting "surfaces" to observe one's backside and even then, in the resulting geometric progression, half the images will be of the Objective " 'face".

I prefer the analogy of the coordinate plane we used in the thread "Presence of Self." The dimensions of human experience don't really make sense without both the objective and the subjective. The objective would be the X-axis, the subjective the Y-axis, and the self at the point where the X-axis and Y-axis converge. Subjective experience happens as a function of objective reality.

What's interesting is that the coordinate plane of human experience would be on a finite number line rather than an infinite number line - and perhaps the Y-axis would vary in size between individuals.

Humans are not able to experience everything at once - we are, as Sartre said, a detotalized totality. We have to use our imagination (see OP) to fill in the blanks: I imagine the parts of my house I'm not currently experiencing as still existing, and it completes the mental model of the house. This is done without further input from objective reality via the five senses - so the Y-axis of subjective reality would be a larger (but still finite) number line than the X-axis, which could only represent what is currently being input via the five senses (and therefore could fluctuate as my attention (see OP) changes).

This is just an analogy, though. I think the Kantian view of phenomenon and noumenon works well. The noumenon, or thing-in-itself, can never be known in-itself, except for the self. The self is all that is experienced in-itself, as Dasein. All we experience of objective reality is the phenomenon, which is the noumenon made comprehensible by our subjective experience of it. All we can say of the noumenon is that it is.

The analogy of mirrors has a number of applications to this basic structure of Subjective and Objective universes. However, I believe that the concept of reflected signals via applied signal theory/Fourier transforms/wavelets within one's brain/mind may be more than just an analogy...(?)

Care to expand on this? How is this more than an analogy? I understand the recursive relationship between objective reality and subjective experience, but not as a literal Fourier transform?

Yes, but I do not see it as a typical overlap, but rather a geometric relationship where the whole is more than the sum of the separate parts...

So something like a fractal:

Or Cellular Automaton:

The Economy is an inhumane machine that uses humans as expendable components, it is a great evil and perhaps The Great Evil. Some day soon we may have a truly efficient Economy that feeds on the misery of 99% of the humans in the world. Human Rights are just impediments to the economy and those who run it.

The economy is an emergent property of human populations. We are as expendable to the economy as one of the cells that flake off the surface of your skin and collect as dust in the corner.

I disagree, the very concept of "system" implies boundaries of structure. If there were no boundaries, there would be nothing beyond a steady state of entropy and even chaos would be subdued...

The boundary would be the origin of spacetime. Entropy is the increase of possible microstates as a function of time. The universe itself would be a closed system - closed in space and time, which means we don't know what exists outside the system. Probabilistically, it would be possible for entropy to decrease in a fluctuation large enough to create the singularity before the big bang (given an infinite amount of time) but it's also possible that something outside the system (the universe) could be responsible for the initial condition of it's entropy state.