Experiment no. 2


In this experiment we need to find the master controller of the body. We need to get a fix on where "you" is located.So first of all one would assume that a master controller would be in the brain. Where exactly is it?
In the centre, to the left or the right hand side of the brain.

Where exactly are you located?
 At the front towards the back?

This may seem a little obvious but if you exist then where are you? The body exists, the brain exists, the world outside your body exists, thought exists, feelings exist. But if there is a "you" to think where are you?
What physical properties do you have?

The problem here is we again create a dichotomy. If you exist, it has to be a quantifiable object in reality. The brain exists, we can prove this by cutting open someones skull and inspecting the contents. Imagine if we started to scoop out the insides, where are you located exactly?
You see in this physical universe, for something to exist, we have to be able to see it. If we cannot see it, or observe it or measure it in anyway, its safe to say it doesn't exist for the most part.

We cannot see atoms with the naked eye, we could prove they existed but this was only a strong belief until we had a mass spectrometer. Then once and for all we could see what was theorised was what was in reality. It was predicted that this was the case due to repeated experiments, providing a consistent correlation between results. The atom bomb was theoretical but due to the model of reality that particle physicists and chemists had formed, we could use a chemical or mathematical formula and we could predict an outcome. The outcome itself was evidence that the theory was true.

Eventually with the advent of electron microscopes we could see with our own eyes what we thought to be true was in fact happening. This just confirmed what our observations told us.

Quantum theory is based in mathematics. What is observed is the collapse of a wave function. Whilst this is
mathematically possible, some has been proven to be true already by concurring with direct observations. Unless it is seen directly it can only be a belief, although well founded. Incidentally quantum theory hasn't been proved to be wrong once. But there again... it usually deals in theoretical physics.

We must use the same logic in this deduction here. Since we cannot find tangible direct evidence of a "you", it must be conceeded that it is just a well founded theory. Without physical evidence of a you, you have nothing to prove that you do exist. Its just circumstantial evidence. We don't even have pages of the maths of quantum theory and a wave function.

What about the outcome of chemistry and particle physics, we didn't need to see an atom to know it existed. Well lets take another mammal, lets take a bird for instance. Do birds have a thinker doing the thinking? Or is their brain so small that they just run on instincts? If we look at outcomes in reality, animals do things, they hunt or forage for food, find shelter and reproduce. Do animals have thoughts then? Well they have the capacity to see hear, taste and touch. There is a basic pattern matching faculty involved, we have seen pigeons learn to repeat tasks.

What is to say that the neurons in a birds brain are not capable of producing primitive thought patterns? Wether we think this is the case or not, we can see that there is instinct and the actions of moving towards survival and moving away from danger and a very limited learning capacity. This happens with even a brain the size of a marble.

What about thought? How can we prove that thoughts exist then?

Ok, our objective experience dictates that we have thought. So just as 6,000,000,000 claim there is an "I", the same amount will claim to have had thoughts so we have that to begin with. Thought forms exist in visual, auditory and kinaesthetic forms. We know about these because we have the faculties in our body.

If we cut someone open we can find the nerves that make up the nervous system with some skilled blade work and the eyes and the auditory system can be easily located on the average human. We know we have sight, sound and sense data, we have already observed that in reality.
We also have a memory recall function, which we proved is heavily reliant on stimulus. Our memories by experience are in this format and if your really lucky, you can even remember tastes and smells.

We already know that the brain comprises of neurons that are fired and different parts of the brain serve different functions like short term memory, long term memory, pattern matching, motor skills and monitoring of feedback like body temperature etc... This has been done by testing different parts of the brain and looking at the scan, which part of the brain is activated when doing certain things.

So, whilst we can't actually put a thought on the table to show you, we can slop the apparatus used to have a thought down on the table. Like a TV picture isn't technically  real, it does in fact exist in reality because we can see it. Its probably beyond our technology to put thought on to a screen but I dare say one day we will find a way to do it, hopefully we won't be using a puddled mess of slop and a car battery connected to a TV to do so... Try not to think about that image.

In our brain example we couldn't find a you. So we have to attribute you with something. Either you are thought, you are motor skills or some entity in the brain. Or maybe you are all of these things?

Remember there has to be a physical property to you, to prove a thinker exists. Again we run in to a problem with what to identify with. What is it that we control? Basically our heart, body temperature, water retention, wether or not to be hungry and all that kind of stuff, is all automatic.
There is no concious decision of the BPM of the heart (although it can be influenced ~ does it require a you though?), how much water we should retain etc... We can't really identify with this, its not a faculty of a thinker its out of the domain of conscious control. The you are thought idea doesn't work too well either from our previous discussion. You like to think you are the one having thoughts.

Maybe you are pure energy? I can see how this would work, but theres actually no you, so all the spiritual and new age claptrap about this, is just a load of baloney, it doesn't even fly.

Sure life requires energy, you could even say that experience is energy itself but there is still no you whatsoever, there is just life and energy. Then this premise works.
What about motor skills and movement then? Ok lets take a look....

Experiment no. 3

Popular Posts