Quantum entanglement question

 
Lol I understand.

 

 
Please, friend, try too... I would like to understand your ideas, my fellow blade.
 
Are you familiar with the object/subject (outer/inner) dichotomy? The brain being the former, the mind being the latter... so what I think you said earlier pertains to the idea that we are experiencers of our own mind, i.e., subjects of the inner (who go on to survey the physicality of the outer); if that's what you mean... then I totally agree. Going back... I think that's exactly what you meant.

 

 
1.) The object/subject dichotomy simply demonstrates that our knowledge of reality is two-fold, i.e., we have access to both sides of the coin (outer-object and inner-subject); while we only have access to one side of the coin when looking out at objects amidst the external.
 
2.) Yes, exactly. The brain provides sense-data while the mind can digest the brain's phenomenon however it deems fit. For example, I see the intricacy of reality (of the tangible and intangible) and believe that God is foundation for all of it; you see the intricacy of reality and believe that's just how reality is... now, our brains are providing us with the same data, we just process it differently due to our own subjective ideas and beliefs.
 
Here is a concise argument to demonstrate the actuality of the internal subject...
 
"Now if we say that 'thought takes place in our heads', what is the sense of this phrase soberly understood? I suppose it is that certain physiological processes correspond to our thoughts in such a way that if we know the correspondence we can, by observing these processes, find thoughts. But in what sense can the physiological processes be said to correspond to thoughts, and in what sense can we be said to get the thoughts from the observation of the brain? I suppose we imagine the correspondence to have been verified experimentally. Let us imagine such an experiment crudely. It consists in looking at the brain while the subject thinks. And now you may think that the reason why my explanation is going to go wrong is that of course the experimenter gets the thoughts of the subject only indirectly by being told them, the subject expressing them in some way or another. But I will remove this difficulty by assuming the subject is at the same time the experimenter, who is looking at his own brain, say by means of a mirror. Then, I ask you, is the subject-experimenter observing one thing or two things?"

 

I think the idea is that everything we perceive, is perceived within the mind. It is a well known fact that we cannot prove that anything exists outside ourselves, yet we experience things nonetheless. We think that we share an experience with other conscious beings... But how do we prove that?
 
All sensory experience originates in the mind, at least our personal and aware experience of it. We establish an understanding of an outer world through these perceptions, but perhaps we are living in illusion. Some eastern philosophers would propose that we do live in illusion, the world is a product of our own conscious experience of it.

 

 
Yes, but he is observing his own brain, through the conduit of his senses, in order to find a correspondence between the physiological processes of the brain and his thoughts. Meaning, he is observing the outside, from the inside, in order to find a correlation between the two... so, who is it that has access to this dualistic reality? The soul, the mind, the subject.

 

 
No, but we have the power to alter and change how we, the subject, interact, react, and respond to these illusions, that is, we can't change reality, but we can change and decide how to respond to reality (which is a form of control in-itself).

 

 
I think this is where the idea of quantum consciousness kind of comes into play. A lot of people don't seem to acknowledge that quantum mechanics has provided a more accurate model of our reality than any scientific school of thought that came before it.
 
Eastern philosophy would go so far as to assert that no Other exists, as all exists as an extension and segregation of the self. When one brings the awareness away from the senses, one reaches a state of non-duality.
 
This means that right and wrong, good and bad cease to exist as objective truths. Rather each right is right, each wrong is wrong, each right is wrong and each right is right. The basis for this is that language is simply a marker for ideas that cannot be entirely communicated between beings with the faulty and limited language that we use.
 
Through realizing the true nature of the self and spreading this awareness, far greater communication can occur and we can in fact act as a singular being instead of several separate beings.
 
An example is that of the human body. Through precise communication, synergy and harmony between countless cells, the human comes into being. This being feels as though it has one thought process, but in fact, this is one awareness made up of and consisting of countless though processes.
 
I think perfect communication is the end product of our universe, basically resulting in a very malleable reality in which case egos shall separate and merge into One at will, simply to express creation on different levels and in different ways.

 

 
What do you mean? The object/subject dichotomy is dualistic, i.e., external and internal (outer and inner).
 
Again, think about that argument I just posted... the guy was observing his own brain through a mirror in order to find correlations between his thoughts and the physiological processes of his sensible brain. Now, if there was no real difference between the physiological processes of his brain and the thoughts of his mind... how could he ever observe a correlation? He observes that this certain thought he has in mind, a thought about his mother, corresponds to a certain physiological process of the brain (meaning, when he thinks about his mother it corresponds to a certain brain process)... so who is it that is observing these correlations?

 

 
This quote from Leibniz may help illustrate the point... of brain (object) and mind (subject).
 
"One is obliged to admit that perception (subjectivity) and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception (i.e., the subject)."

"But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads (or atoms) of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience (the subjective) refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this 'I' or 'x', i.e., the subject, which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception (subjectivity) cannot be explained by figures and movements."

 

 
Exactly.

 

 
No, I helped you to explore your mind for awhile...