Yes - its the vested interest syndrome perhaps.
As laughably weak an example of an ad hominem
argument as I've ever seen.
It is "self-evident" to JLN and myself that observer and observed are inextricably related. It follows for us that the status of "observational evidence" depends on "consensus".
, given twyvel
's dismal performance on the "Non-Contradiction" thread, I had hoped that you might have something more to offer than a bland assertion that your position is "blatantly obvious." Imagine my disappointment, then, when I discover that your epistemology is just as barren as twyvel
's. Where twyvel
rests on "blatant obviousness," you rely on "self-evidence" to support your assertions. But, in the end, the result is the same: the sole foundation for your position is a bare ipse dixit
, a feeble "sez me."
Any research worker in perception will verify that the "problem" is deciding which are the "significant" features within a "physical" signal that the brain NEEDS to abstract.
OK, this must be some kind of elaborate prank, right? I mean, in a previous post you declined to explain the nature of "knowing" because . . . well, because of something having to do with "paradigms" (which, in itself, is the paradigmatic response of someone who has nothing to say but who wants to say it profoundly). But then here you are clearly relying on an empirical
basis of knowledge, something that you specifically rejected
before as somehow not fitting in with your "paradigm." Hence we see yet again the selective sort of cherry-picking
of the evidence that has been a hallmark of the non-dualists.
Nobody can tell you because "significance" and "need" are negotiable. We can guess, and therefore "find neural circuits which appear to do the job" but generally this is reductionist tinkering rooted in naive realism. My very usage of the words "circuit" or even "brain" delimit my evidence gathering activities. It is generally accepted ( with a few exceptions like Pinker) that even a "single perception" may involve the total life experience and genetics of the observer both as a member of a species and as an individual, and may involve more than superficial neural transmissions.
More empirical evidence, more cherry-picking.
So although the paradigm does allow for "normal logic" when consensus is available, the interesting questions about "reality" transcend this position.
How do you know that?
Oh, wait, I know how you know: it's "self-evident," right?