My advice to you would be to concentrate on thinking about why you have difficulty recognising the existence of your own brain. — universeness

My advice to you is to inquire into the significance of this piece of meat you obsess about. Notice that it doesn't have as much control as it thinks over basic functions like the circulation of blood, including heart-rate, the digestive system, body temperature, reproductive system, - all the important stuff is controlled elsewhere, leaving the brain to play fingers on keyboards and make funny noises at other brains.

Looks good to me! I like the predicted exponential growth towards the rather more concerning Omega point. Concerning as Omega is the last greek letter in that particular alphabet and usually signifies an ending. There is also a depiction of what looks like an explosion. I hope that's just misinterpretation on my part and this is an Alpha point (or the end of human inequality), a beginning celebrated by a firework going off.

My advice to you is to inquire into the significance of this piece of meat you obsess about. Notice that it doesn't have as much control as it thinks over basic functions like the circulation of blood, including heart-rate, the digestive system, body temperature, reproductive system, - all the important stuff is controlled elsewhere, leaving the brain to play fingers on keyboards and make funny noises at other brains — unenlightened

Well, as I have often said, I might disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it, as long as you are not inciting violence.

I'm somewhat underwhelmed by your generous respect for my right to be wrong. "Don't keep fighting the good fight!" he says, inciting the end to violence.

You get It! totally! — universeness

I wonder how we have travelled from agreement to conflict?

I might disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it, as long as you are not inciting violence. — universeness

I'm somewhat underwhelmed by your generous respect for my right to be wrong. "Don't keep fighting the good fight!" he says, inciting the end to violence — unenlightened

I am not trying to under/overwhelm you. I am simply discussing points with you. The fact that I think you are wrong and have a bizarre relationship with your own brain, is my opinion. It's not an opinion you share, I would be surprised if you did, as if you agreed with me on the point discussed, our opinions would coalesce. The fact that I agreed with your initial commentary does not mean I agree with the thinking process you used to arrive at it.

I wonder how we have traveled from agreement to conflict — unenlightened

Now who is choosing to use the word 'conflict'(like a boxing match perhaps?).
I would prefer to label it good-natured dialogue, unless my 'bizarre' label has upset you too much.

Ah, I see, now. It was my comment about brain-speak that is a problem for you. My apologies. If I might explain just a little, what I have been concerned with is what you put in the title "look to yourself" which I have been calling 'insight.' Now when I do that, I do not find a brain. And I think when other people do it they do not find a brain either. A brain cannot experience itself. So when someone speaks of 'my brain' doing this or having this structure or thinking such and such, they are not looking to themselves at all, but theorising according to what they have been taught.

Now the reason I think this is important is that a theory is a way of looking, and while that is no problem when one is looking outwardly, when one looks inwardly, the theory that one has is part of the thing one is trying to look at; it is part of oneself. and this means that the theory through which one looks cannot account for itself and one can only have a partial incomplete view of oneself.

This is the source of the triune aspect of the mind; not the structure of the brain, but the structure of outward looking turned inwards; the observer, the observed and the theory. The winner the loser and the referee, the id the ego and the superego, etc, etc. Here is the challenge: if I have a true insight, then I see the whole - all three. But if all three are seen, who is seeing?

Looks good to me! I like the predicted exponential growth towards the rather more concerning Omega point. Concerning as Omega is the last greek letter in that particular alphabet and usually signifies an ending. — universeness

My reference was not to the Greek alphabet, but to the evolutionary theory of paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Other scientists, such as Frank Tipler, have used the same name for the notion of upward progression of evolution toward some final resolution. I haven't made any detailed study of the process, so my use of the "Omega Point" is pure conjecture.

However, the Inflationary instant at the beginning of the universe is also a hypothetical conjecture with no empirical evidence. Hence, the question mark. If the universe is just one phase of an eternal cosmic cycle, then the Omega Point would be the end of one rotation, and the beginning of another. But, if our universe is one-and-done, then the final state is either extinguishment, or the birth of a gestating deity -- some call it the "Cosmic Christ" -- as deChardin surmised. I don't claim to know which is correct, but I have made my guess. In any case, if evolution is indeed progressive, it should also be in the process of creating something new & different & better, in some sense. :cool:

The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Ok, thanks for the extra detail, it made your position clearer to me.
I think we have a lot of commonality in this particular area of discussion.

A brain cannot experience itself — unenlightened

Sorry I took so long to respond to you, I was in PM chat with a few other members.
Ok, just some crossed lines then, no problem. My background is not mainstream philosophy so if the philosophy jargon gets too heavy then I am prone to misinterpreting it. This is a philosophy site and I admit to being a retired interloper from the computing world but I am just interested in any common ground between philosophy and science.
Based on the quote above, I would say well that is what I would call 'self-awareness,' I think a brain does
experience itself.

one can only have a partial incomplete view of oneself — unenlightened

I agree that at any moment it time when I am not concentrating on external sensors. If all my senses were momentarily blocked for example then I could still think and be aware of self and brain etc but I can conceive of your point here that it would be a series of snapshots of the whole and therefore an incomplete view. If that's what you mean?

if I have a true insight, then I see the whole - all three. But if all three are seen, who is seeing? — unenlightened

Yeah, I have always really liked this one and struggled with it for a while but I became 'content' with the conception that I am not able to see the whole of 'me, myself and I' at any instant in time. I think the human brain is capable of many parallel processes but my brain cannot access every part of itself at the same instant in time. Aspects of its workings are serial, not parallel. Perhaps this is currently just untapped ability. Science does claim that in our lifetime we do only use around 20% of our brains capacity. So perhaps we will discover how use our brains fully in the future.
I think that self-awareness gives a brain the ability to articulate its own functionality in the way I just have, when typing this response and I can I can still produce output even if all my senses were blocked. I mean, even reduced down to a brain in a box.
If the rest of me was removed and science could still maintain just my brain and interface with it then "I" may well still 'exist' in a very real way. How would you define what you are calling insight in the thought experiment I describe as a brain in a box or even more so, a downloaded consiousness. Not even the presence of a physical brain? Do you think such will ever be possible?

. A brain cannot experience itself. — unenlightened

There is a way: open up your skull and look in the mirror. You can look directly into your brain.

Ouch, but Hannibal Lecter would approve. I think he actually does this to one of the characters in those movies played by Ray Liotta! Yeuch!

I became 'content' with the conception that I am not able to see the whole of 'me, myself and I' at any instant in time. — universeness

So you are content with I {the seer} see myself {the seeable}, and theorise me {the unseeable} -- or thereabouts? Fair enough, if you are content. I simply say to anyone who is not content, that there is another way, that does not begin with thought and theory, and also does not struggle, but is willing to see whatever is there and accept it. Seeing can see itself whole, and it is instantaneous. I hope you all will come to it.

If the rest of me was removed and science could still maintain just my brain and interface with it then "I" may well still 'exist' in a very real way. — universeness

I don't think this will ever be possible. Only your body fits your brain. You can't take your brain out and place it in a vat, supplying it with information that your body would provide for you normally. The brain and body are unseparable. Even you dreaming can't be accomplished in this way. Separating your brain from the body is just as impossible as separating the world around you from it. The brain, body, and physical world are inseparable.

So you are content with I {the seer} see myself {the seeable}, and theorise me {the unseeable} -- or thereabouts? — unenlightened

Well no, for me, that just doesn't fit well. The term 'see' is something your eyes do as an input sensor. So I don't think 'seer', 'seeable' and 'unseeable' have much validity.
My self-awareness is made up of three components of a single presence. I think the three components are manifestations of my triune brain. I don't mind how these three manifestations are labelled really but I am aware of three 'contributors,' in my head, when I am involved in 'thinking' or 'decision making.'
I am sure a 'brain expert' could tell me a lot more about the science behind these three manifestations but it's always good to get philosophical views as well.

I don't think this will ever be possible. Only your body fits your brain. You can't take your brain out and place it in a vat, supplying it with information that your body would provide for you normally. The brain and body are unseparable. Even you dreaming can't be accomplished in this way. Separating your brain from the body is just as impossible as separating the world around you from it. The brain, body, and physical world are inseparable — Schootz1

Well, we could start the process by removing arms and legs, there are humans who live lives without these. So how much more is separable from your brain without destroying "I." We can take genitalia, eyes, nose, ears, tongue. We know humans can live as a self-aware, sentient person without one or more of these. Heart, Lungs, Kidneys etc and many other parts can be replaced with transplants.
How much more deconstruction will science be able to achieve in the future?
If science can find replacements for everything I have mentioned above then we have a cyborg but one who is still "I". In the real-life examples of people who live without some of the parts mentioned above, would your opinion be that such people are less self-aware than someone who has all their preferred parts in place from birth?
Are you sure that a human brain in a box or a cybernetic body is impossible?
I think you are dead wrong.