Where is your experience?

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I hope we're both wrong, but yeah I'm smelling a "Woo Gotcha" setup as well.

These sorts of questions about "where our thoughts come from and where do they live?" ...etc Always seem to end in woo. I understand why, it's a strange concept our consciousness. To ponder one's own thoughts origins or what makes us up and to then imagine that it isn't a "place" like there isn't a thought bank waiting to spit out thoughts in our heads, but it's just a bunch of little parts doing their jobs....well, it's a complex ,yet oddly simple, thing to ponder.

But just because something is weird to imagine, doesn't mean that it isn't the truth. Especially when we have the evidence to back it up. Much more evidence than any woo explanation I have read anyway.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I hope that's not what this is all about, cuz yeah, who I am is in my noggin (well and the penis, musn't forget that) lol

I promise - absolutely promise - to never call you a pecker head.

[IMST]

Originally Posted by pilsan

I wonder if we feel our consciousness to be behind our eyes because sight is the strongest sense with which we experience the world.
It would be interesting to know if someone who has been blind all their lives, and use other senses to compensate, feel their consciousness to be elsewhere.

Phil

I don't know, and it's an interesting question. My guess, though, is that it'd stay in about the same place since our strongest sense in hearing is located in about the same plane.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

The experience that makes you feel you, its inside your head?
.

specifically experience is a function of memory

short answer :memory is stored in the brain

long answer : human memory is twofold, there is short term (where did I leave my keys) and long term (what is my name)

Originally Posted by wiki

Short-term memory is supported by transient patterns of neuronal communication, dependent on regions of the frontal lobe (especially dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and the parietal lobe. Long-term memories, on the other hand, are maintained by more stable and permanent changes in neural connections widely spread throughout the brain. The hippocampus is essential (for learning new information) to the consolidation of information from short-term to long-term memory, although it does not seem to store information itself. Without the hippocampus, new memories are unable to be stored into long-term memory, and there will be a very short attention span.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

/end thread

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I promise - absolutely promise - to never call you a pecker head.

I just put it on a tee for ya didn't I?.......sigh....

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks for all the replies, first of all, I have to address some posts that (following the long tradition at JREF) insist in wanting to see an attempt to bring some "supernatural" claims regarding consciousness as (maybe) something "magical" (in the sense that it can't fit current theoretical models that work well with scientific endeavors)... or maybe see me attempting to bring some kind of "dualism" to the table, that would attempt to introduce an obscure "substance" different to "matter"... Well, I'm very sorry to disappoint such highly anticipated expectative.

Something else calls my attention, most of the answers I have received predictably fit a unsophisticated account of reality called "naive realism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism and http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/th...naive-realism/ for references). So... right from the start, no, things are not as easy as some want to see them.

First of all, let's give a little review to the (I believe) accepted current paradigm... The "mind" is some kind of software that runs on a computer, which is the brain. It has been mentioned that it is a process, not a thing, and in that sense, it also can be adequately said that, if it runs on the brain, then if I wanted to point out where it is I should point to the head. So far so good. But simple experiments show that that account is very unrealistic and a naive approach.

Remember that I asked about where is your experience located, the "sensation of being you". Well, let's think about this for a moment, every time you "feel yourself" you are contained in an specific place... and that place is linked to your senses. There are multiple experiments in which (this was accurately pointed out by someone in the thread) your senses are cheated by using videocameras for example, and the "sense of you" is drastically altered.

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we have the technology to extract your brain from your body, and that we can put it in a machine and link this machine with your body through your senses... In this way, your seeing, proprioception, your hearing, everything, would be transmitted from your body to your brain. Let's say that you are not aware of this operation and so, when we wake you up you feel exactly normal, so, we give you a ticket and you take a train...

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Lobotomies wouldn't turn people into drooling vegetables.

They didn't, really. At least not in general. If this was the case, they wouldn't have been performed.

[steve s]

Originally Posted by SezMe

That sounds really interesting. Do you have a linky?

Here it is on youtube. It's called a brinicle.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Steve S

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

Again, my brain. That is where my conscious experiences occur.

It is clear from your condescending tone as you imply our lack of sophistication, naïveté and desire to oversimplify the issue that you feel that you have raised some very clever point that has countered the observation that consciousness occurs in the brain. But you have not accomplished this.

In your hypothetical experiment involving remotely sending sensory data to a disembodied brain to give it the sensation of being somewhere that said brain is not, the conscious experience is still taking place within the disembodied brain, is it not? Just what do you think you have demonstrated?

We are well aware that our senses can be fooled. What does that have to do with consciousness taking place within the brain?

[SezMe]

Bodhi Dharma Zen, the brain-in-a-vat scenario has been extensively explored in philosophical and fiction writing. Anyone who has done more than cursory reading in these topics has come across it more than once. As Foster Zygote suggests, you have not put anything new on the table. To answer your question that is the title of this thread, our experience is in our brain. Do you have a different place for it that you can express without getting on your high horse?

[MuDPhuD]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Something else calls my attention, most of the answers I have received predictably fit a unsophisticated account of reality called "naive realism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism and http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/th...naive-realism/ for references). So... right from the start, no, things are not as easy as some want to see them.

Your link to the "theories of knowledge" page on naive realism is to a poorly written and brief page. While the link to Wikipedia doesn't work for me, their entry on naive realism is at least coherent. By this description naive realism is not "unsophisticated" as you suggest, but it would seem "scientific realism" might be more in line with the common view held by the posters above ( with which I agree). Speaking for myself, perceived colors are obviously dependent on the genetics of our visual pigments, and on lighting conditions. This doesn't change the constancy of the objects (i.e., an apple) independent of our observation of them. That an apple may be both red, and grey depending on the level of light does not change the apple itself, only the brain's perception of it differs.
This model only breaks down at the atomic level and not all physicists apparently believe that it must.

What is your preferred alternative to scientific realism?

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

They didn't, really. At least not in general. If this was the case, they wouldn't have been performed.

Close enough. Very little difference between lobotomy and murder. It's killing the person, either way. The former just replaces them with a different one.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

<snip for brevity>
Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

I think the most accurate answer in the case of localization of the "neural correlates of consciousness" relies on the dissertation by Cristof Koch in "The Quest for Consciousness" which I highly recommend reading. I have a feeling BDZ that this conversation isn't going to move forward without some heavy reading at some point =\

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Thanks for all the replies, first of all, I have to address some posts that (following the long tradition at JREF) insist in wanting to see an attempt to bring some "supernatural" claims regarding consciousness as (maybe) something "magical" (in the sense that it can't fit current theoretical models that work well with scientific endeavors)... or maybe see me attempting to bring some kind of "dualism" to the table, that would attempt to introduce an obscure "substance" different to "matter"... Well, I'm very sorry to disappoint such highly anticipated expectative.

Something else calls my attention, most of the answers I have received predictably fit a unsophisticated account of reality called "naive realism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism and http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/th...naive-realism/ for references). So... right from the start, no, things are not as easy as some want to see them.

First of all, let's give a little review to the (I believe) accepted current paradigm... The "mind" is some kind of software that runs on a computer, which is the brain. It has been mentioned that it is a process, not a thing, and in that sense, it also can be adequately said that, if it runs on the brain, then if I wanted to point out where it is I should point to the head. So far so good. But simple experiments show that that account is very unrealistic and a naive approach.

Remember that I asked about where is your experience located, the "sensation of being you". Well, let's think about this for a moment, every time you "feel yourself" you are contained in an specific place... and that place is linked to your senses. There are multiple experiments in which (this was accurately pointed out by someone in the thread) your senses are cheated by using videocameras for example, and the "sense of you" is drastically altered.

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we have the technology to extract your brain from your body, and that we can put it in a machine and link this machine with your body through your senses... In this way, your seeing, proprioception, your hearing, everything, would be transmitted from your body to your brain. Let's say that you are not aware of this operation and so, when we wake you up you feel exactly normal, so, we give you a ticket and you take a train...

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

It's right where it feels like it is. The whole process is a completely arbitrary illusion. We can demonstrate that. It's not like your mind is magically leaving your body, it's all part of the emergent illusion we call perception. If you transfer your frame of reference to a machine while your body is somewhere safe transmitting your sense of self through a complex system of connections, then your sense of self is actually going to be in the machine. It's still being generated by the brain. Your sense of things is no more tangible than a photograph or movie is actually the reality it captured via a record of light and sound that has been encoded.

You seem to be obfuscating this issue for some reason. At this moment, barring technology and tricks with neural plasticity and immersion and disassociation, we're all in our heads behind our eyeballs. So you would point at our eyeballs.

You seem to be asking a question to make a point, and you seem to be waiting for a certain answer. Why?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

You seem to be asking a question to make a point, and you seem to be waiting for a certain answer. Why?

Yes, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to state a claim and support it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Again, my brain. That is where my conscious experiences occur.

It is clear from your condescending tone as you imply our lack of sophistication, naïveté and desire to oversimplify the issue that you feel that you have raised some very clever point that has countered the observation that consciousness occurs in the brain. But you have not accomplished this.

In your hypothetical experiment involving remotely sending sensory data to a disembodied brain to give it the sensation of being somewhere that said brain is not, the conscious experience is still taking place within the disembodied brain, is it not? Just what do you think you have demonstrated?

We are well aware that our senses can be fooled. What does that have to do with consciousness taking place within the brain?

Originally Posted by SezMe

Bodhi Dharma Zen, the brain-in-a-vat scenario has been extensively explored in philosophical and fiction writing. Anyone who has done more than cursory reading in these topics has come across it more than once. As Foster Zygote suggests, you have not put anything new on the table. To answer your question that is the title of this thread, our experience is in our brain. Do you have a different place for it that you can express without getting on your high horse?

err, who said I was bringing some sort of a "new theory"? so at least you two (don't worry I'm sure you are not alone), after performing the extraction of your brain, would be in the train, right next to me, and would say, well, "my sensation of being me is in a vat in a laboratory"... right. Sure, sure.

Of course, the scenario is not new by any means, (I never claimed it to be ) that doesn't make those experiments any less interesting, and excuse me but, I enjoy thinking about this topics, as they do test our beliefs about what we are, where are we located, what constitutes the "sense of being", and so on.

And so, you are confused, the "sensation of you being you" is in your senses (as it is obvious)... now, it is linked to your brain, and arguably it is produced by the relation between your brain and your senses... that's another matter, but at least you two failed miserabily in locating your experience, further confirming my belief about your model of reality is based on naive realism.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

err, who said I was bringing some sort of a "new theory"? so at least you two (don't worry I'm sure you are not alone), after performing the extraction of your brain, would be in the train, right next to me, and would say, well, "my sensation of being me is in a vat in a laboratory"... right. Sure, sure.

Of course, the scenario is not new by any means, (I never claimed it to be ) that doesn't make those experiments any less interesting, and excuse me but, I enjoy thinking about this topics, as they do test our beliefs about what we are, where are we located, what constitutes the "sense of being", and so on.

And so, you are confused, the "sensation of you being you" is in your senses (as it is obvious)... now, it is linked to your brain, and arguably it is produced by the relation between your brain and your senses... that's another matter, but at least you two failed miserabily in locating your experience, further confirming my belief about your model of reality is based on naive realism.

You have to remember who you are on this forums XD. You don't seem to be humbled by just how linked the senses are to your brain. Propriorecepters are quite uninformative without the brain...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by MuDPhuD

Your link to the "theories of knowledge" page on naive realism is to a poorly written and brief page. While the link to Wikipedia doesn't work for me, their entry on naive realism is at least coherent. By this description naive realism is not "unsophisticated" as you suggest, but it would seem "scientific realism" might be more in line with the common view held by the posters above ( with which I agree). Speaking for myself, perceived colors are obviously dependent on the genetics of our visual pigments, and on lighting conditions. This doesn't change the constancy of the objects (i.e., an apple) independent of our observation of them. That an apple may be both red, and grey depending on the level of light does not change the apple itself, only the brain's perception of it differs.
This model only breaks down at the atomic level and not all physicists apparently believe that it must.

What is your preferred alternative to scientific realism?

It is unsophisticated and naive, a scientific account is preferable (and I would believe that it is preferred by JREF members). There is a fine line between naive realists and scientific realism, and of course, every naive realist I have found acts like if what he/she REALLY is a scientific realist, but it is rare. I can understand that, of course, as naive realism is all that is needed for daily life. Its like keeping figures of speech like "the sun rises" even when we believe otherwise (that the earths rotation creates the appearance of the sun rising).

Now as for my own stance, well, I have argued extensively about it, and it is difficult to explain it in few words. Here, this would be a good introduction to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[BravesFan]

Just like I thought, self grandizing wooish nonsense........yawwwwn

"I am so wonderful because me goofy idea is so much more sophisticated than you unwashed horde of miscreants. look at me pet the golden unicorn..."

If i had a quarter for every time I've heard that spiel on this site I'd have about $42

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Just like I thought, self grandizing wooish nonsense........yawwwwn

"I am so wonderful because me goofy idea is so much more sophisticated than you unwashed horde of miscreants. look at me pet the golden unicorn..."

If i had a quarter for every time I've heard that spiel on this site I'd have about $42

Actually model dependent realism isn't too controversial. The woo that can stem from it is that model dependent realism has to eliminate the experience altogether and because of that elimination woo's believe it must mean free reign for weird ideas.

A good example is when me and BDZ and some other guy (I can't remember his name) were discussing how what you "see" via the faculties you have isn't truly what you see based on the theory of model-dependent realism. I would argue that the apple is green because the light reflecting off of it is of a particular wavelenth(s) that my brain summates as being green, and that this is relatively consistent throughout whatever I see (ie: Green is green because that wavelength is transduced into a specific signal) but Model Dependent realism can't even rely on this as an accurate assessment on if the apple is green because I am not even "seeing" the light, I am only interpreting the light; that is that the experience I feel isn't necessarily the reality that exists, because all I can perceive is based solely on my faculties even if they are consistent and the experiences themselves are understood based on their mechanics. THIS is why it's considered "naive" realism; it's not meant to be a petulant slap, just that really the word naive fits, even if it may be used as a pejorative.

Because of THAT gap (I consider it a gap in communication) there are woo's that have free reign. I don't think BDZ is a woo though. Have I explained it BDZ or did I miss something? I can't say that I'm convined of naive's realism as anything more than a "caveat emptor" towards the theory of realism, and I am not sure if you've been able to dismiss the answers the OP question "Where is our experience" as being in the brain, but I will admit I'm piqued by model dependent realism.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

If you transfer your frame of reference to a machine while your body is somewhere safe transmitting your sense of self through a complex system of connections, then your sense of self is actually going to be in the machine. It's still being generated by the brain.

You seem to be asking a question to make a point, and you seem to be waiting for a certain answer. Why?

Really, it never ceases to amaze me the insistence of (some) members of this forum to pretend to see, or expect at any costs, some claim about something "supernatural" going on... come on... is that really all you are expecting? Here you rise a straw man "It's still being generated by the brain." Well, duh, where in my post do you see any indication of my claiming that the brain has nothing to do with it? In my example would it be generated then by the engine on the train?

Still, at least you understood what is going on, contrary to the first responses I got, you managed to realize that the sense of self is in the senses, so, in the train example if I wanted to point at your "sense of being you" I would point to your body, and it would be correct. You are located at a different location than your brain and I believe it is an interesting fact.

Of course, interesting things can be drawn from that mental experiment (to those who like to think this is) and so, your "it is still being generated by the brain" starts to be seen as an incomplete answer, as that it is not actually the brain (alone) what "causes the mind"... the senses are needed to, and that in a sense, consciousness cannot exist without the senses. No, again, is not that I'm discovering something new, revolutionary, something nobody have thought before... I just like to think about this kind of things and I'm interested in what people here think.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Just like I thought, self grandizing wooish nonsense........yawwwwn

"I am so wonderful because me goofy idea is so much more sophisticated than you unwashed horde of miscreants. look at me pet the golden unicorn..."

If i had a quarter for every time I've heard that spiel on this site I'd have about $42

I dare you to point at the "wooish nonsense"... come on... please illustrate me... Be as detailed as you possible can... if you can, of course.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Actually model dependent realism isn't too controversial. The woo that can stem from it is that model dependent realism has to eliminate the experience altogether and because of that elimination woo's believe it must mean free reign for weird ideas.

By saying that our description that experiences are processed in ou brain is unsophisticated and naive sounds like dancing the border of woo to me.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

By saying that our description that experiences are processed in ou brain is unsophisticated and naive sounds like dancing the border of woo to me.

I edited to try to illuminate it a bit. Don't take the words "naive" as an insult or a loaded word (I used to as well) it's just that model dependent realism HAS to leave that possibility of naive realism open.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

I dare you to point at the "wooish nonsense"... come on... please illustrate me... Be as detailed as you possible can... if you can, of course.

Nice , a personal attack.....that's going to win you argument points, it was totally unwarranted....


By saying that our experiences, what makes us who we are, is in the senses would be to state that someone with no limbs , no hearing and no sight has no experiences. But I would argue that by thought alone they are experiencing their own existence.

Are people in coma's not experiencing? When i am asleep am I not experiencing what happens in my dreams, though they are not being conveyed to me by my senses? My brain makes me who I am, I can lose any part of my body and I still exist until my brain shuts off.

Yes, I think attempting to link "self" to "senses" is a gateway to wooish thinking as stated so eloquently above by LowPro.

[BravesFan]

Might I add that I am of the opinion that trying to link philosophy with science makes both studies worse and neither better.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Might I add that I am of the opinion that trying to link philosophy with science makes both studies worse and neither better.

Well as I said before, naive realism seems to be a bit more of a "caveat emptor" consideration that is within model-dependent realism and that's where woo's can latch onto it. I still think the OP question of where experience is with respect to a human subject has been answered; it's localized in the brain and probably nowhere specific as the inclination leads us to believe. "Self" is extremely illusory, and I think illusory is the best term too...

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Well as I said before, naive realism seems to be a bit more of a "caveat emptor" consideration that is within model-dependent realism and that's where woo's can latch onto it. I still think the OP question of where experience is with respect to a human subject has been answered; it's localized in the brain and probably nowhere specific as the inclination leads us to believe. "Self" is extremely illusory, and I think illusory is the best term too...

Well, not to get involved in this, but one could say that all "self" is , is a measure of experiences. So , one could say that "we" reside in our brain too...


But I digress, I'm not really feeling discussing this anymore tonight...where are some crazy people to laugh at ?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Well, not to get involved in this, but one could say that all "self" is , is a measure of experiences. So , one could say that "we" reside in our brain too...


But I digress, I'm not really feeling discussing this anymore tonight...where are some crazy people to laugh at ?

I agree it resides in the brain, but that itself opens a can of worms. If the self resides in the brain as a measure of experience, what's the threshold for it then? Because of that, and the fact that there actually IS a naivete (again, not used a pejorative, just descriptive) in that there is at least historically been a perception of self, and I would believe that perception is now more accurately defined as consciousness. We can at best assume* a dead body is not conscious and therefor that perception is eliminated, but then it makes for an interesting investigation at which point you can flip the switch from dead to "conscious"

Again, I love plugging Christof Koch's book "The quest for consciousness" because he addresses this specific concern between being a precious zombie and being conscious. He doesn't answer it, but he lays the groundwork for a preliminary investigation.

*The reason I say "assume" is because while we do have a good understanding of the mechanics that describe perception, and through that we can say a dead body doesn't perceive at all because the machines that do the perceiving are nonfunctional AGAIN when we go back to model-dependent realism that naive realism has to kick in. It's not meant to be a "going nuclear" field leveling argument though, at the least all it does is reduce conviction from 100% to <99.9%. For woo's their conviction may be devastated to a much lower number...

[BravesFan]

What exactly do you mean when you say "flip the switch from dead to conscious?"

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

What exactly do you mean when you say "flip the switch from dead to conscious?"

I'll try to be both accurate and succinct because the entire idea encompasses a 400+ page book. Koch descibes a "zombie within" which is essentially that consciousness obviously doesn't require every single bit of your brain. You can suffer a gunshot wound to the head and survive the surgery and have a particular area so damaged that you can no longer speak but you can sing perfectly (it happens, and it's hilarious). But are those patients "conscious" is the question. Obviously they may think they are even without particular faculties. This means that perhaps if they suffered a similar trauma prenatally and NEVER developed speech but could still sing then consciousness may not require that particular neural correlate. Sure that particular subject may be perceiving his or her own consciousness ABSENT of their ability to speak (and thereby having a naive consciousness; again we ALL have a naive consciousness because it's dependent on the faculties you have that's the entire point!)

But that makes it interesting! Which Neural Correlates are the ones involved in "just" consciousness, that is, if you remove them you become just "the zombie within"

It's not woo as it's just preliminary and utilizes scientifically understood concepts. It's just interesting to think of what trauma would be required to be between dead and "non-conscious" basically flipping switches within the brain to find that magical point or points.

[BravesFan]

Ahhhhh, I see, hmmmm......... I would say that the proper answer is probably :

'we don't know yet"

Though, I would take a guess that if we decided to hack some poor guy up (and I doubt that would be allowed to happen since it's pretty much murder)we would find that it's a war of attrition. That there isn't a "spot" or "part" that houses it all, but rather a cumulative effort of billions of different little bits working together and as you weaken the links between them, less and less of "you" is there until finally one link too many is cut, and you would cease to be.

Or, I could be totally wrong , and it's in the hippocampus.... lol Neurology was never my strong suit.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Ahhhhh, I see, hmmmm......... I would say that the proper answer is probably :

'we don't know yet"

Though, I would take a guess that if we decided to hack some poor guy up (and I doubt that would be allowed to happen since it's pretty much murder)we would find that it's a war of attrition. That there isn't a "spot" or "part" that houses it all, but rather a cumulative effort of billions of different little bits working together and as you weaken the links between them, less and less of "you" is there until finally one link too many is cut, and you would cease to be.

Or, I could be totally wrong , and it's in the hippocampus.... lol Neurology was never my strong suit.

That's why it's so interesting it becomes even more dubious when you realize that cutting one link may sever entire faculties for only half your brain; you have to remember each lobe, which communicates with eachother, houses different faculties.

Imagine the fountains of grant money one could pour into researching it...

[BravesFan]

I would rather they spent that money researching particle physics!!! lol That's what I like talking about!

[Mr. Scott]

The OP question is like asking "where is the leader in a flock of birds?" or "where on the spectrum is black?"

Experience is an illusion created by the brain, like the illusion of leadership in a flock of birds.

I think Yoda might put it as, "there is no where -- there is only is."

[marplots]

It's not as hard as one might think. Try it this way -- if I asked you to point to where you think "me" is happening, where else could you point? What are the other candidates?

Either it's a malformed question, or you point to my brain.

[Finn McR]

Well, the heart is certainly not the center of personality, since plenty of people have had heart transplants and come out of surgery with the same basic outlook on life. The same can be said for: lungs, liver, kidneys and for removed, but not replaced organs such as: gall bladder, spleen, appendix. Otherwise the personality, the "you" has to remain in parts that have never been altered in modern medical practice (to which any physician members can more ably contribute), such as skin, musculature, and bones. However, there are plenty of good arguments based on people that have lost significant amounts of skin, muscle, bones, etc. and have not had personality changes that are not as well attributable to other reasons, to say that those are not the seat of personhood. On the other hand, look at brain injury cases. They can show significant changes in personality (e.g. Phineas Gage).

All of the above does not alter the possibility that we each have an invisible unicorn that safeguards our "self".

... Just to be clear.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Though, I would take a guess that if we decided to hack some poor guy up (and I doubt that would be allowed to happen since it's pretty much murder)we would find that it's a war of attrition. That there isn't a "spot" or "part" that houses it all, but rather a cumulative effort of billions of different little bits working together and as you weaken the links between them, less and less of "you" is there until finally one link too many is cut, and you would cease to be.

Kinda like the scene in 2001 where HAL's brain is being pulled one board at a time. HAL doesn't stop at any one point, he just gets foggier and foggier.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Kinda like the scene in 2001 where HAL's brain is being pulled one board at a time. HAL doesn't stop at any one point, he just gets foggier and foggier.

Ha! Good one!!! That's EXACTLY what I mean!

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

It is unsophisticated and naive, a scientific account is preferable (and I would believe that it is preferred by JREF members). There is a fine line between naive realists and scientific realism, and of course, every naive realist I have found acts like if what he/she REALLY is a scientific realist, but it is rare. I can understand that, of course, as naive realism is all that is needed for daily life. Its like keeping figures of speech like "the sun rises" even when we believe otherwise (that the earths rotation creates the appearance of the sun rising).

Now as for my own stance, well, I have argued extensively about it, and it is difficult to explain it in few words. Here, this would be a good introduction to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

So, in line with model dependent realism, where would you point to indicate where your experience is?