I wouldn't describe him as thinking in terms of an...

2009-07-04T16:10:28.166-04:00

I wouldn't describe him as thinking in terms of anything 'unreal' but rather agreeing with you, along the lines of his comments on the ineffable. The electrical activity that constitutes his 'ego tunnel' that is our subjective "I" is palpable but can't be made tangible, call it what you like.

As an amateur thinker of the nature of human being...

2009-07-04T13:31:18.068-04:00

As an amateur thinker of the nature of human being, I liked Metzenger's book a lot and recommend it; not only is he insightful, his writing is enjoyable to read.

I think my only disagreement with him, is his conclusion: where he wants to think of a self in terms of a myth (unreal) I would classify a self in terms of an experience (intangible but real).

Let me illustrate by analogy: A poet recognizes that the reality and power of a poem, though contingent on its underlying text, can't be distilled to its assembly of words, syntax etc. When a poem feels formulaic, a poem fails to achieve that "something else" that poetry is capable of: a poem's reality is intangible- but it is palpable.

Maybe the question here is: What is the nature of reality that is palpable, compared to the reality that is tangible?

I recognize that a self is something complex- certainly more than some non-contingent essence. Yet considering a self as something utterly mythical also fails to capture our experienced reality.

What happens when we consider a self in terms of a poem instead of a myth- or illusion? Any thoughts from you Neuroscientists?

Comments on Deric Bownds' MindBlog: Metzinger: Consciousness technologies and the imag...

I wouldn't describe him as thinking in terms of an...

As an amateur thinker of the nature of human being...