I am not an identity: not ideas, not neurones, but the world itself

[atanu]

Huge.

Riccardo Manzotti has a PhD in Robotics and degrees in The Philosophy of Mind and Computer Science. He teaches Psychology of Perception at IULM University, Milan (Italy), and has been a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at MIT. He has specialized in AI, artificial vision, perception, and, most of all, the issue of consciousness. After working in the field of artificial vision, he focused his research on the nature of phenomenal experience, how it emerges from physical processes and how it is related to objected perceived. His book "The Spread Mind: Why consciousness and the world are one" was published in November 2017. Manzotti argues that consciousness is not a “movie in the head”: it is the actual world we move in. Manzotti propounds 'Externalism', which is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which argues that the conscious mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain) but also what occurs or exists outside the subject. It is contrasted with internalism which holds that the mind emerges from neural activity alone. Externalism is a belief that the mind is not just the brain or functions of the brain.

In the interview linked below, Ricardo Manzotti describes self (identity) as 'not an identity': not ideas, not neurones, but the world itself. Consciousness has always been hidden in plain sight. We are the world that surrounds our body and the body itself as known; we are the objects we see, hear, smell, taste, touch. The rest is hot air.

The following interview is the last in a series of several interviews and is the culmination of his main thesis.

Consciousness and the World


...

 

[atanu]

But why does it taste and smell so much like Advaita?

 

[author leon xiv]

Solipsism?

 

[atanu]

Solipsism?

No.

 

[metis]

Huge.

Riccardo Manzotti has a PhD in Robotics and degrees in The Philosophy of Mind and Computer Science. He teaches Psychology of Perception at IULM University, Milan (Italy), and has been a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at MIT. He has specialized in AI, artificial vision, perception, and, most of all, the issue of consciousness. After working in the field of artificial vision, he focused his research on the nature of phenomenal experience, how it emerges from physical processes and how it is related to objected perceived. His book "The Spread Mind: Why consciousness and the world are one" was published in November 2017. Manzotti argues that consciousness is not a “movie in the head”: it is the actual world we move in. Manzotti propounds 'Externalism', which is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which argues that the conscious mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain) but also what occurs or exists outside the subject. It is contrasted with internalism which holds that the mind emerges from neural activity alone. Externalism is a belief that the mind is not just the brain or functions of the brain.

In the interview linked below, Ricardo Manzotti describes self (identity) as 'not an identity': not ideas, not neurones, but the world itself. Consciousness has always been hidden in plain sight. We are the world that surrounds our body and the body itself as known; we are the objects we see, hear, smell, taste, touch. The rest is hot air.

The following interview is the last in a series of several interviews and is the culmination of his main thesis.

Consciousness and the World


...

Reminds me of "I am That"/"We are That".

 

[author leon xiv]

No.

Or 'hivemind/groupthink' with a "first among equals" approach?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Huge.

Riccardo Manzotti has a PhD in Robotics and degrees in The Philosophy of Mind and Computer Science. He teaches Psychology of Perception at IULM University, Milan (Italy), and has been a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at MIT. He has specialized in AI, artificial vision, perception, and, most of all, the issue of consciousness. After working in the field of artificial vision, he focused his research on the nature of phenomenal experience, how it emerges from physical processes and how it is related to objected perceived. His book "The Spread Mind: Why consciousness and the world are one" was published in November 2017. Manzotti argues that consciousness is not a “movie in the head”: it is the actual world we move in. Manzotti propounds 'Externalism', which is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which argues that the conscious mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain) but also what occurs or exists outside the subject. It is contrasted with internalism which holds that the mind emerges from neural activity alone. Externalism is a belief that the mind is not just the brain or functions of the brain.

In the interview linked below, Ricardo Manzotti describes self (identity) as 'not an identity': not ideas, not neurones, but the world itself. Consciousness has always been hidden in plain sight. We are the world that surrounds our body and the body itself as known; we are the objects we see, hear, smell, taste, touch. The rest is hot air.

The following interview is the last in a series of several interviews and is the culmination of his main thesis.

Consciousness and the World


...

But then why is the world I experience alike to the world that others experience in so many multiple trillions of ways? Each of us cannot be the only actor who creates other, imaginary "actors" in his head. So, that would mean that I am the sole actor, and I have just created everyone else - because that is exactly how the "world" then appears to me. However, if that were true, then why would so many people's reactions to so many things be actions I would never expect? Wouldn't things tend to conform to my conscious mind's expectations, and have a limit in the extent of my imaginings? But they don't.

I notice that it states that this Manzotti character (yes, I read the part where you said he has advanced degrees and works in robotics, that he likes studying what he can of consciousness etc. etc. etc. - my shoulders shrugged a bit after reading all that, and that's about as far as it went) "argues" for his position. Which I took to mean that he doesn't actually have any evidence.

 

[atanu]

But then why is the world I experience alike to the world that others experience in so many multiple trillions of ways? ...

Because consciousness is common. Because consciousness is true. We are like many waves of the one without a second awareness. (My half a cent).

 

[atanu]

Or 'hivemind/groupthink' with a "first among equals" approach?

It is not an approach from the 'ego' -- "I am this body" -- perspective. It is akin to a wave realising that it's reality is one ocean. So, it is not solipsism.

 

[Thief]

we are the objects we see, hear, smell, taste, touch.

oooops

having served as an auto body repairman

Chevy red is a particular ….red

but as you and I stand to look into the shiny paint.....
we might argue....

It looks more like blood red
or maybe....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because consciousness is common. Because consciousness is true. We are like many waves of the one without a second awareness. (My half a cent).

Yet we each have a different space and time we occupy - such that while I may experience the same "tree" that someone else could also experience, they may never, simply because they live on another side of the planet. They are a thread, completely separate from mine, and yet I am 100% sure that if I invited them to come and lay their hands on the tree in my front yard, their experience of the tree would be much like my own. They would describe the same dimensions, convey the same aspects of how it feels, etc. What we call the "tree" exists independent of either of our minds, and when we die and lose our consciousness, the same tree may yet stand. The only thing about the tree that is actually dependent on our consciousness is the interpretation of what is the "tree" that we get from our brains. That's all... an interpretation - qualia. Our personal qualia are the only things that can be definitively stated to be dependent on our consciousness as pertains the tree (or any other separate, inter-subjectively experience-able entity throughout the entire universe).

 

[atanu]

Yet we each have a different space and time we occupy - such that while I may experience the same "tree" that someone else could also experience, they may never, simply because they live on another side of the planet. They are a thread, completely separate from mine, and yet I am 100% sure that if I invited them to come and lay their hands on the tree in my front yard, their experience of the tree would be much like my own. They would describe the same dimensions, convey the same aspects of how it feels, etc. What we call the "tree" exists independent of either of our minds, and when we die and lose our consciousness, the same tree may yet stand. The only thing about the tree that is actually dependent on our consciousness is the interpretation of what is the "tree" that we get from our brains. That's all... an interpretation - qualia. Our personal qualia are the only things that can be definitively stated to be dependent on our consciousness as pertains the tree (or any other separate, inter-subjectively experience-able entity throughout the entire universe).

Parsimonious is the explanation that we all are avatars of a shared consciousness, even as waves in an ocean share the water.

...

 

[MNoBody]

we are all quatumly entangled apparently, but if you have ever had one of those moments where it's all too beautiful and you are aware of the all lucid awe and wonder, well, it is pretty incapacitating as there is no singular focus
which is apparently the purpose of attention
which apparently seems to be the one button anybody has in this game of life.
what does one pay attention to.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Parsimonious is the explanation that we all are avatars of a shared consciousness, even as waves in an ocean share the water....

I don't see it as parsimonious. To my mind it raises a lot of questions that pertain to how such an idea coincides with the reality we are able to experience. And if it does not coincide with the reality we are able to experience, then how are we ever to claim we have assessed any aspect of it?

Saying "we are like separate waves sharing the same water" may sound deep and interesting... but in the end it does nothing to actually tie hypothesis to evidence. It's just something that sounds nice. Unfortunately, that kind of thing draws a lot of people in, and they tend to easily think there is a profound "truth" behind something that merely sounds nice. As a simple example - when I was a child, much of the music on the radio sounded so good, I figured the lyrics being spoken in the songs MUST be some profound thing in order to have been chosen to go along with all that wonderful music. As I got older, and re-listened and discovered those lyrics, many of them were quite drab, and some even outright foolish. And the only ones that didn't sound drab or entirely foolish were those that maintained an air of poetry and mystery - but that only because they left the meaning up to the imagination, and so there was no "answer" about them one way or another. That's how the clever song writers get you. They keep it such that your mind always feels like the child's mind when attempting to unravel the "profundity" of the lyrical content of the song - and it is very much because there is no real "truth" there to be found - just interpretation and interesting meanderings. It keeps you coming back, looking for the answer... an answer you will never find. It is, in essence, a clever trap.

 

[atanu]

I don't see it as parsimonious. To my mind it raises a lot of questions that pertain to how such an idea coincides with the reality we are able to experience. And if it does not coincide with the reality we are able to experience, then how are we ever to claim we have assessed any aspect of it?

Saying "we are like separate waves sharing the same water" may sound deep and interesting... but in the end it does nothing to actually tie hypothesis to evidence. It's just something that sounds nice. Unfortunately, that kind of thing draws a lot of people in, and they tend to easily think there is a profound "truth" behind something that merely sounds nice. As a simple example - when I was a child, much of the music on the radio sounded so good, I figured the lyrics being spoken in the songs MUST be some profound thing in order to have been chosen to go along with all that wonderful music. As I got older, and re-listened and discovered those lyrics, many of them were quite drab, and some even outright foolish. And the only ones that didn't sound drab or entirely foolish were those that maintained an air of poetry and mystery - but that only because they left the meaning up to the imagination, and so there was no "answer" about them one way or another. That's how the clever song writers get you. They keep it such that your mind always feels like the child's mind when attempting to unravel the "profundity" of the lyrical content of the song - and it is very much because there is no real "truth" there to be found - just interpretation and interesting meanderings. It keeps you coming back, looking for the answer... an answer you will never find. It is, in essence, a clever trap.

Wow. You write a lot but it is all opinions and anecdotes. Have you even read the Riccardo interview? I doubt.

That the whole universe of forms could be an ongoing process of consciousness is a well thought out philosophical position, propounded by eminent scientists and philosophers.

There are several empirical evidences favouring this worldview. I have recorded those in several posts. Please consider reading those and then discussing the evidences piece by piece instead of pronouncing your wide brushed judgements, which I have no use of.

If you are averse to a patient study of alternate views, as it appears to be the case to me, then please at least try to explain ‘brain plasticity’ through your materialistic model of consciousness. And explain how the physical ultimates characterised by parameters such as mass, momentum, charge, etc., combine to generate the competence to know, feel, and imagine.

...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Wow. You write a lot but it is all opinions and anecdotes.

What I wrote was an example of a simple mind being won over to thinking something was profound just because there were nice sounds accompanying it. It was not really an anecdote. And there was only one such example... it isn't like I produced "anecdotes" for you to peruse, etc. You're simply trying to brush aside anything I say just because "anecdote." It's ridiculous.

Have you even read the Riccardo interview? I doubt.

No... I have absolutely no qualms admitting that I haven't. Do you think this a strike against me? That I haven't read some obscure transcript of some interview? I'll go read it, I suppose... though my spidey-sense is tingling and telling me it is likely a complete waste of time.

That the whole universe of forms could be an ongoing process of consciousness is a well thought out philosophical position, propounded by eminent scientists and philosophers.

Honestly, all I believe this would mean is that consciousness is a very fundamental thing and not "special" in any way. And in the end, isn't that what spiritual-isms are all about? Trying to make one feel "special" about their place in the universe? I mean... I get that everyone thinks it much more profound and dressed up than that, but fundamentally, what else is there to it?

There are several empirical evidences favouring this worldview. I have recorded those in several posts. Please consider reading those and then discussing the evidences piece by piece instead of pronouncing your wide brushed judgements, which I have no use of.

Where are these "several posts?" This is a rather large site, comprised of a lot of content. No small amount of which is yours (@14,000+ messages posted). I am not sure how I am supposed to find these "Several posts."

If you are averse to a patient study of alternate views, as it appears to be the case to me, then please at least try to explain ‘brain plasticity’ through your materialistic model of consciousness.

Do I need to have an explanation of this, do you think? What happens if I don't? You already don't have to listen to a word I say, and there is no effect on my life for me to accept or reject your proposition. If you could actually show me some difference that can be used by me, in my life, that comes from the knowledge you are proposing is the truth, then do you understand how much better your position would look to anyone and everyone? As it stands, there is no difference, either fundamentally or nuanced. Nothing.

And explain how the physical ultimates characterised by parameters such as mass, momentum, charge, etc., combine to generate the competence to know, feel, and imagine.

This isn't about me having an alternate explanation - I withhold such until I feel the evidence I have been presented matches reality to such a degree as it cannot rationally be denied. For example, I suggest you look up "endogenous retroviruses" (while we're suggesting things for one another to read up on - hahahahahahaha) as pertains to their providence of evidence for common descent - if you haven't already. Note - I do not have any idea what you think of evolution, and I do not care. What I am presenting here is a caliber of evidence that is exactly what I described - something that cannot be rationally denied once its implications are understood, and with the real-world mechanisms at play being what we understand them to be. It is merely an example of the type and caliber of evidence I am talking about.

Now... let me go and see if this "Riccardo interview" is of the same caliber.

 

[Koldo]

What I wrote was an example of a simple mind being won over to thinking something was profound just because there were nice sounds accompanying it. It was not really an anecdote. And there was only one such example... it isn't like I produced "anecdotes" for you to peruse, etc. You're simply trying to brush aside anything I say just because "anecdote." It's ridiculous.

No... I have absolutely no qualms admitting that I haven't. Do you think this a strike against me? That I haven't read some obscure transcript of some interview? I'll go read it, I suppose... though my spidey-sense is tingling and telling me it is likely a complete waste of time.

Honestly, all I believe this would mean is that consciousness is a very fundamental thing and not "special" in any way. And in the end, isn't that what spiritual-isms are all about? Trying to make one feel "special" about their place in the universe? I mean... I get that everyone thinks it much more profound and dressed up than that, but fundamentally, what else is there to it?

Where are these "several posts?" This is a rather large site, comprised of a lot of content. No small amount of which is yours (@14,000+ messages posted). I am not sure how I am supposed to find these "Several posts."

Do I need to have an explanation of this, do you think? What happens if I don't? You already don't have to listen to a word I say, and there is no effect on my life for me to accept or reject your proposition. If you could actually show me some difference that can be used by me, in my life, that comes from the knowledge you are proposing is the truth, then do you understand how much better your position would look to anyone and everyone? As it stands, there is no difference, either fundamentally or nuanced. Nothing.

This isn't about me having an alternate explanation - I withhold such until I feel the evidence I have been presented matches reality to such a degree as it cannot rationally be denied. For example, I suggest you look up "endogenous retroviruses" (while we're suggesting things for one another to read up on - hahahahahahaha) as pertains to their providence of evidence for common descent - if you haven't already. Note - I do not have any idea what you think of evolution, and I do not care. What I am presenting here is a caliber of evidence that is exactly what I described - something that cannot be rationally denied once its implications are understood, and with the real-world mechanisms at play being what we understand them to be. It is merely an example of the type and caliber of evidence I am talking about.

Now... let me go and see if this "Riccardo interview" is of the same caliber.

Spoilers: It is not.

 

[atanu]

...
Honestly, all I believe this would mean is that consciousness is a very fundamental thing and not "special" in any way. And in the end, isn't that what spiritual-isms are all about? Trying to make one feel "special" about their place in the universe? I mean... I get that everyone thinks it much more profound and dressed up than that, but fundamentally, what else is there to it?

This is the only part that I feel needs a response. Please rest assured that there is no appeal to any 'specialness'. That is your feeling, not mine. I do not why post after post you harp on this. Get rid of this, please. It is journalistic type science lovers who exude the specialness -- as if they know fully how life-consciousness wors.

The point I wish to make (often repeatedly) is that we evidently have the power to overcome the automatic instinctive drives and brain structures. That goes well with what Riccardo is proposing or what idealistic worldview has always held. you may wish to read the linked interview.
..

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is the only part that I feel needs a response. Please rest assured that there is no appeal to any 'specialness'. That is your feeling, not mine. I do not why post after post you harp on this. Get rid of this, please. It is journalistic type science lovers who exude the specialness -- as if they know fully how life-consciousness wors.

The point I wish to make (often repeatedly) is that we evidently have the power to overcome the automatic instinctive drives and brain structures. That goes well with what Riccardo is proposing or what idealistic worldview has always held. you may wish to read the linked interview.
..

I read the interview - and you are right, I should have at the start. But having read it, I must now ask - why didn't you simply correct my misconstruing of the situation earlier? From what I read, this "Riccardo Manzotti" is not proposing that we are the creators of the world at large through our consciousness. That idea is not at all present in what he stated. I basically agreed with almost all of what he said, because it was mostly just very fundamental descriptions of what actually goes on with us as we experience things. He covered memory, and assimilation of new information and ideas, qualia becoming a "something" to our minds that we can then recall, share, communicate with, etc. I don't see anything, at all, groundbreaking here. He did use fuzzy language like "we are the world" - but he did not mean that we were consciously manifesting the world in any way. He seems to recognize that the spider is the spider, and only an aspect of the spider becomes a part of us through our experience - but, of course, he had to use strange language again, by saying "I am the spider." And I know what he was trying to convey - that in the moment the spider becomes a part of your experience, it has altered you that slight amount, and therefore it is a part of you in some way going forward. And this I agree with. However I do think his descriptions and ideas are mostly just a way to slip in the idea that we are "one with the world." That old idea that supposes that everything is connected in some spiritual way. What he speaks of, however, is only that we are all simply connected fundamentally through the fact that we are all here, and everything we come in contact with affects our experiences. The main problem being something like the fact that, even by Riccardo's standards, I am not the light post on the other side of the world in China that I have never experienced or come in contact with, and am not even sure exists or not. I am not that thing... or, perhaps now it HAS affected my experience because I just mentioned it on this forum, but there are trillions upon trillions upon quadrillions of other things in existence that I have never (and will never) have become part of my experience. And my only point has been trying to make sure it is understood and accepted that those things exist and have properties, and are affecting other people's experiences, regardless whether my experience is involved or not. Hence it is proven then that I am not nearly "the world."

 

[atanu]

....And my only point has been trying to make sure it is understood and accepted that those things exist and have properties, and are affecting other people's experiences, regardless whether my experience is involved or not. Hence it is proven then that I am not nearly "the world."

Even 95% of oneself is beyond one's conscious mind. What to speak of the whole universe? That is not the point.

When it is said that "I am this world", it does not mean that "I, this body-mind, is the world". No. It means that "I am" is the general manifestation of consciousness and all beings are particularized forms of that consciousness.

The point is that "I am" is not the limited body of mine or yours. The point is that whatever is known directly or through the report is within consciousness. The consciousness is hiding in plain sight as the whole world.

...

Please take time.