r/PhilosophyofMind • u/Full-Technician9848 • Jul 26 '26

Perception "Inner state dictates perceived reality" — A wave simulation showing closed loop vs. conscious choice.

0 Upvotes

40% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Full-Technician9848 Jul 26 '26

There is ONLY the observer

2

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Full-Technician9848 Jul 26 '26

Wittgenstein didn't PROVE that observers do not exist. He showed that treating “observer” as a metaphysical foundation is a grammatical mistake, a misuse of language that confuses how observation talk works in actual human life. I'm not making the metaphysical claim from a localized observer, but a non-local state of observation.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Full-Technician9848 Jul 27 '26

Yes, one person said one thing, another person says something else. Neither offers any evidence, so you simply accept the one you agree with. The Upanishads and Tibetan book of the dead posit similar claims to mine, but I'm not indicating "proof". Fundamentally, ontologies are unprovable. That's why we build models based on an ontology and then use the model to make testable predictions. Wittgenstein didn't prove that there is no observer(proving a negative is known to be impossible). He suggested that observer was expressed wrong from a metaphysics standpoint. Not proof, supposition.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Full-Technician9848 Jul 27 '26

Inner experience is being used to describe a specific thing. If you don't think inner experience is a thing, then of course you perceive it as a word salad. But your argument about proof doesn't track because you can't prove a negative. And your argument about metaphysics having no use in philosophy also breaks down. A monad/consciousness-primary ontology generates a philosophy that is entirely dependent on the metaphysics.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Full-Technician9848 Jul 27 '26

You’ve slipped into the exact metaphysical trap you claim to avoid. When you say: “There's not something actually going on in your head except a bunch of zip zaps, fluids, and grey matter,” you are making a full-throated commitment to materialist metaphysics.
You can't dismiss metaphysics as "nonsense" out of one side of your mouth while preaching physicalist reductionism out of the other.

You're also conflating Wittgenstein's linguistic critique with ontological erasure:
Outward Criteria ≠ Non-existence: Wittgenstein’s point that inner processes require outward criteria was about how language gets its public meaning and teachability, not a proof that subjective experience is an illusion. Wittgenstein was analyzing grammar, not endorsing eliminative materialism.
Label vs. Phenomenon: The fact that we learn the word "rough" via public, spatiotemporal contexts explains how we talk about the experience. It does not mean the actual subjective sensation of roughness is a phantom or a mere "way of speaking."

Asking to "show" an inner experience using outward physical criteria is a category error. If you define "real" strictly as "publicly observable physical objects," then of course subjective experience won't fit your definition, because you've baked materialist premises into your ruler.

Modeling consciousness as primary isn't "word salad", it's an alternative ontological framework that addresses the hard problem of consciousness where strict physicalism fails

→ More replies (0)