Do you believe it is possible to experience a state of pure awareness?

[FunctionalAtheist]

Only physical phenomena are observable from the third-person perspective because they are objective. Mental phenomena are not. Mental phenomena are only observable from the first-person perspective (a subjective perspective) because they are inherently subjective, not objective. But whether subjectivity (the first-person perspective) itself is even observable from the first-person perspective is the topic of this thread.

Wrong. If that were true then 'yellow' would not be considered to be observable. Yellow, as a color, is purely subjective. You and I may agree as to what is yellow, but that is because we have 'related' (relative) my meaning and your meaning to the physical observation of a specific wave length. That does not mean that my experience and your experience are the same, only that we understand the physical manifestation that leads to my subjective 'yellow' and the your subjective 'yellow.'

I know when I experience yellow, there is a particular wave length involved. I know when I experience consciousness there are particular brain activities involved.

You assume, a priori, that mental phenomena are not physical. You are mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface

If there was no objectivity in thought, then how could it be mechanized and transmitted in a signal?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yellow, as a color, is purely subjective. You and I may agree as to what is yellow, but that is because we have 'related' (relative) my meaning and your meaning to the physical observation of a specific wave length.

The label "yellow" is subjective, but the experience of colour vision is objective in the sense that it's directly related to a particular set of wavelengths which are interpreted in a predictable way by the brain. If this wasn't the case then colour coding wouldn't work and being an electrician would be a lot more hazardous.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The label "yellow" is subjective, but the experience of colour vision is objective in the sense that it's directly related to a particular set of wavelengths which are interpreted in a predictable way by the brain. If this wasn't the case then colour coding wouldn't work and being an electrician would be a lot more hazardous.

No, the wavelength is objective. The sensation is subjective, it is experienced by a single mind at a time and there is no reason to believe everyone's sensation was the same. Much like a ringing sound, when someone can't quite here the high or low registers. The same sound waves produce a different experience for each observer. An electrician knows what yellow looks like to him, not what it looks like to the next guy. In fact, there are numerous people that can't see any color, or only some colors, or some colors look different to them than to others. I know because i am one of them.

Every single experience a person has is objective...DUH, that's the point. Objectivity comes from the cause of the experience, not the interpretation of the experience.

If two points are 6" away from each other, one person may think that's further and another thinks it's not quite so far. Objectivity comes from an external standard (a ruler) not from the personal interpretation. Just like yellow, the objectivity comes from measuring the wavelength, not form the individuals interpretation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

An electrician knows what yellow looks like to him, not what it looks like to the next guy. In fact, there are numerous people that can't see any color, or only some colors, or some colors look different to them than to others. I know because i am one of them.

I don't agree. Leaving aside people with colour blindness, people do basically agree on colour, that's why colour coding is used so extensively. It's the same with sound, music works because people do generally hear in the same way. Colour perception and tone perception are a product of human biology so there is objectivity here.
I used to work as an electrician and for obvious reasons you have a colour perception test before you can start training. I also used to do stage lighting, and there are over 100 different named colours in the gel book - with experience you can discriminate colour to this level of detail ( gels are the colour filters that go on spot lamps ).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If two points are 6" away from each other, one person may think that's further and another thinks it's not quite so far.

I also used to work in the building trade too, and I can assure that with practice you get very good at accurately judging distance. Again this is related to human biology, ie binocular vision.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I also used to work in the building trade too, and I can assure that with practice you get very good at accurately judging distance. Again this is related to human biology, ie binocular vision.

One can become very good at a great many things, and many people agree on pure aesthetics. You'll have to run by me again how you think this somehow makes it objective.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

ne can become very good at a great many things, and many people agree on pure aesthetics. You'll have to run by me again how you think this somehow makes it objective.

This was just a supplementary point on using binocular vision to judge distance.

I think post #124 explains my basic point clearly, that there is objectivity based on human biology.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

That sounds like seeing yourself in a mirror without a mirror.

Actually, it sounds more like he's asking if it's possible for the mirror to reflect only itself.

Note: I am not asking you if it is possible to experience self-awareness.

Isn't he asking you if it's possible to negate one's self-awareness without forfeiting awareness altogether?

...

I suppose that the first step in seeking to answer that question is to not ask yourself if it's possible?

 

[Gambit]

Actually, it sounds more like he's asking if it's possible for the mirror to reflect only itself.

Yes, more or less.

Isn't he asking you if it's possible to negate one's self-awareness without forfeiting awareness altogether?

Yes. Consciousness is generally defined as awareness of something. I'm asking if it is possible for awareness to be aware of itself.

I suppose that the first step in seeking to answer that question is to not ask yourself if it's possible?

Actually, I'm asking the question because I'm trying to understand how exactly I experienced it.

 

[roger1440]

Do you believe it is possible to experience a state of pure awareness? That is, do you believe it is possible to experience a state of consciousness in which awareness is only aware of itself?

Note: I am not asking you if it is possible to experience self-awareness.

Are you referring to what is commonly refereed to as an mystical experience?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I'm asking if it is possible for awareness to be aware of itself.

Without a physical brain to create the awareness in the first place? Not likely.

 

[Gambit]

Are you referring to what is commonly refereed to as an mystical experience?

Yes. This is definitely considered a mystical experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm asking if it is possible for awareness to be aware of itself.

I don't think so. That would be like seeing the back of your eyes.

I'm still not sure what we mean by "pure" awareness.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I'm still not sure what we mean by "pure" awareness.

It probably has something to do with delusions of the supernatural.