Presenting the observer - Discussion
This is a 2d photograph (nothing special, just a plain photograph), would it then be meaningful to say that the pixels of the red dot "observe" the pixels of the blue dot? I suppose you agree that it wouldn't. Pixels are pixels, and pixels don't observe anything. They are just there painted.
Let's say now that instead of a 2d photo we have this 3d hologram (nothing special, just a plain 3d hologram), would it then be meaningful to say that the pixels of the red dot (front plane) "observe" the pixels of the blue dot (deeper plane)? I suppose you agree that it wouldn't. Pixels are pixels, and pixels don't observe anything. They are just there painted-projected.
But this second image is like the space of conscious experience, and when we say that an observer "here" (red dot position) observes a window "there" (blue dot position) is like saying that pixels observe other pixels, and this doesn't make sense (does it?).
But this second image is like the space of conscious experience, and when we say that an observer "here" (red dot position) observes a window "there" (blue dot position) is like saying that pixels observe other pixels, and this doesn't make sense (does it?).
Now let's see an other image that it will help us see more clearly that this is indeed the case.
We perceive the experience, of seeing for example, under the impression that there is an observer in the region behind our eyes (red dot), and we perceive it reasonably we would think, considering that the eyes do the seeing. But in reality the eyes DO NOT do the seeing, the eyes just receive light. It is the BRAIN that does the seeing. So even if we only grasp it intellectualy, we agree that the placement of the camera in the hologram of our experience (the observer at the red dot) is influenced by the false conception about the seeing and therefore it is arbitary. So where is the observer if not behind the eyes?
We perceive the experience, of seeing for example, under the impression that there is an observer in the region behind our eyes (red dot), and we perceive it reasonably we would think, considering that the eyes do the seeing. But in reality the eyes DO NOT do the seeing, the eyes just receive light. It is the BRAIN that does the seeing. So even if we only grasp it intellectualy, we agree that the placement of the camera in the hologram of our experience (the observer at the red dot) is influenced by the false conception about the seeing and therefore it is arbitary. So where is the observer if not behind the eyes?
The same goes for thinking. Our experience of thinking (1st image) is influenced by our physiological conception that thinking is happening in the brain (image 2), but in reality these two ARE NOT related and so again our perception of placement is arbitary. The brain could be very well transplanted to another region of our body, let's say to our torso, and (if we didn't know about the trasplant) this wouldn't affect our perception of where the thinking takes place at all. The arrising of mental images in the supposed cranial space, as the first image depicts, is obviously an illusion.
So again, even if we only grasp it intellectualy, we agree that the placement of the mental images in the hologram of our experience is influenced by the false conception of thinking and therefore it is arbitary. So where does the thinking take place if not in the imagined empty cranial space?
So again, even if we only grasp it intellectualy, we agree that the placement of the mental images in the hologram of our experience is influenced by the false conception of thinking and therefore it is arbitary. So where does the thinking take place if not in the imagined empty cranial space?
