# The Aesthetical Jesus, Part I **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611 "2009-05-16T03:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/81 "2009-05-20T16:14:13Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > It necessarily is, and analogy is always suspect anyways. It’s not a case of hen[sub]1[/sub] giving birth to hen[sub]2[/sub]. But consciousness[sub]1[/sub] perceiving the actions of consciousness[sub]1[/sub] and, in turn, having that perception evaluated by consciousness[sub]1[/sub], and that evaluation perceived and then evaluated by consciousness[sub]1[/sub], and so on. That’s the case if there is, in fact, a strange loop, which may be a possible resolution to the homunculus problem. But neither is it the only possible one, nor is it necessarily the correct one. My analogy was not between hens and consciousnesses, it was between hens and levels of (ap-)perception. These may close back in on itself to form a strange loop, but they don’t have to by any means. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/82 "2009-05-20T16:34:06Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, pointing out our ignorance on the matter was my sole intention; Which matter is that exactly? There are many things we don’t know about the mind, but some things we do. > [@](#): > > the fact remains that this ignorance prohibits you from categorically stating that thought must be perceived in the same way everything else must be for us to be aware of it I didn’t say that, exactly… just that there’s no reason to believe the mind has a magical ability to gain knowledge (even knowledge of itself) without perception. > [@](#): > > Also, just because you or I can’t think of any other options, it doesn’t mean that there are none Other options for what? I’ve given the only reasonable option for one thing (the minds knowledge of itself) and the other black box you seem so concerned about is entirely beside the point. > [@](#): > > it was once thought that, regarding the hens, either god did it or the whole thing came together by chance, until Darwin pointed out that there’s this whole evolution thingy that explained matters rather neatly. Perhaps our present ignorance just means that we are in need of a similar breakthrough regarding a theory of consciousness. There are 2 common descriptions of consciousness (I wouldn’t call them theories). One is that the brain knows itself through magical (known to be impossible) means. The other is that a homunculus with it’s own mind accomplishes the task (though no explanation is given for how the homunculus does it, or why it’s method, whatever that may be, couldn’t work just as well for a human mind alone without the need for any homunculus at all) We are NOT at a loss for other explanations. What I offer, as does anyone else with a clue, is the simple straightforward theory that the mind gains knowledge of itself not through magic or homunculus, but through perception. Does this explain everything about the mind? Nope. It isn’t intended to. It’s mearly a rational alternative to believing in nonsense like magical self-knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/83 "2009-05-20T16:49:50Z")
Aw, c’mon now. The homunculus is used as an illustration of why it can _not_ be simple perception that leads the mind to acquire knowledge about itself! It’s not a theory of consciousness, or even a description thereof. (Anyway, this hijack’s probably gone far enough; if there’s further interest in a discussion, maybe we should open a separate thread.) ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/84 "2009-05-20T17:10:30Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The homunculus is used as an illustration of why it can _not_ be simple perception that leads the mind to acquire knowledge about itself! That may be what you’d like it to be, but that’s not what it is. > [@](#): > > It’s not a theory of consciousness, or even a description thereof. I suppose my description was something of a caricature. I meant the word homunculus to stand in for any completely undefined (but not necessarily magical or impossible) process. > [@](#): > > (Anyway, this hijack’s probably gone far enough; if there’s further interest in a discussion, maybe we should open a separate thread.) I don’t think this is a hijack. A thread has to have a topic of it’s own before it can be hijacked. 🙂 I would call this an ‘emergent topic’. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/85 "2009-05-20T17:26:11Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > That may be what you’d like it to be, but that’s not what it is. Actually, the only thing I’d like it to do is to go away, so if you have anything to invalidate it, I’d love to hear it. My problem remains that, if, in order to be aware of something, it needs to be perceived, that perception itself, in order to be aware of it, needs to be perceived, and so on and so on, which runs on forever without getting anywhere. > [@](#): > > I don’t think this is a hijack. A thread has to have a topic of it’s own before it can be hijacked. 🙂 > I would call this an ‘emergent topic’. 🙂 Heh. 🙂 I can work with that. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/86 "2009-05-20T17:36:40Z")
It doesn’t have to run on and on forever unless the person in question is supposed to have 100% awareness of his own mind. Nobody does. You are not consciously aware of all the thoughts in your own mind. You are not consciously aware of all your perceptions. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/87 "2009-05-20T18:13:05Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > **MrDibble** : > What I found was all in the area of AI, and was obviously referred to as ‘virtual’ due to being a part of a computer simulated mind rather than a human one. This is a clearly different concept than the one you described. No, it’s not. Just ask Daniel Dennett. > [@](#): > > (and every now and then, someone uses it to refer to normal human perception in a virtual environment) But that’s what I’m talking about - using the perceptive faculties that normally apply to your sense organs, and applying them to the virtual senses arising in your own mind. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/88 "2009-05-20T18:28:51Z")
That’s not what I mean, or what anyone else means, by the words: [virtual environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_environment). ETA and there are no virtual senses arising in your own mind! gawd, did we just go through all that homunculus stuff for nothing? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/89 "2009-05-20T18:35:52Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > It doesn’t have to run on and on forever unless the person in question is supposed to have 100% awareness of his own mind. Nobody does. > You are not consciously aware of all the thoughts in your own mind. > You are not consciously aware of all your perceptions. I’m sorry, but I don’t see it. If, in order to be aware of something (any one, singular, thing), I need to perceive it; and, in order to be aware of my having perceived it, I need to similarly perceive my perception; and on and on – then, at no point do I actually become aware of it. I don’t see how different degrees of awareness even enter into it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/90 "2009-05-20T18:57:12Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I’m sorry, but I don’t see it. If, in order to be aware of something (any one, singular, thing), I need to perceive it; and, in order to be aware of my having perceived it, I need to similarly perceive my perception; and on and on – then, at no point do I actually become aware of it. I don’t see how different degrees of awareness even enter into it. Not having read the entire discussion… I would say that there is seeing, then “perception” - which is really something more like “recognition”. As in, your brain is given access to your ocular data, and then it either does, or doesn’t, recognize particular details in the image and incorporate that recognized knowledge into the cognitive knowledge base - thus becoming aware of it. And that’s all there is to it. The brain also has access to data about the cognitive process itself. It then either does, or doesn’t, recognize particular details about its own thoughts and incorporate those details into its own knowledge base. But this isn’t a necessary step to become aware of the details of the ocular data; that’s already happened. The brain can _also_, in review it’s ingoing cognition, note that it had a thought about it’s thoughts. But this isn’t a required step to have the first thought in the first place; the later thoughts about the first thoughts are completely separate thoughts from the first thoughts. Which is to say, a person can have the thoughts: “That dot is red.” “Hmm, I’m thinking about a red dot.” “Why am I worrying about whether the dot is red?” but the first thoughts don’t depend on the later thoughts occuring at all. So I don’t see any loop at all. Data is available to the brain, and the brain does (or doesn’t) process it and have thoughts about it. No further steps are necessary. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/91 "2009-05-20T19:04:28Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I’m sorry, but I don’t see it. You do not need to perceive your awareness to be aware of something you perceive. > [@](#): > > – then, at no point do I actually become aware of it. I don’t see what’s stopping you. Let’s start at the beginning: 1 you perceive **X**. 2 you are, as a result, aware of **X**. Congratulations you are now aware of **X**! No “_and on and on –_” required. You are not aware of your awareness unless you go on to perceive it, but that is in no way required to be aware of **X**. Without awareness of your awareness, you would not be sentient, probably couldn’t even be called conscious, and I wouldn’t be surprised if all kinds of other vital processes of the mind broke down without it, but none of it is required for the awareness of **X**. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/92 "2009-05-20T19:09:29Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > That’s not what I mean, or what anyone else means, by the words: [virtual environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_environment). Once again - are you just in this to play semantic games? A virtual environment _in the context of a discussion about cognition_ is obviously a not-real one _in the same way_ a computer simulation is not a real environment. Only rather than running in a machine, this simulation runs in your head. > [@NoJustice](#): > > ETA > and there are no virtual senses arising in your own mind! Are you claiming that you can’t close your eyes and “see” things in your imagination? > [@](#): > > gawd, did we just go through all that homunculus stuff for nothing? You and some other people went through that homunculus stuff. It’s got nothing to do with me. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/93 "2009-05-20T19:20:34Z")
So what are these “senses” and “perception” of which you speak? Along the theme of words having meaning, I wonder how much of the argument above is occurring because no one has agreed on what “flavor” of the words to use. In common parlance, “perception” often means awareness. So in that sense, sure, you must perceive a thought in order to be aware of it. But that argument seems rather circular, and circles don’t have points. In cognitive science, however, it specifically refers to our experience of sensation. And although “sensation” in the vernacular encompasses a wide range of experience (e.g., “a sensation of dread”), in cognitive studies it refers specifically to phenomena involving the sensory organs (sight, sound, taste, touch smell - and our sense of balance, which most of us tend not to think about until something goes wrong with it - and sometimes proprioception, the sense of neighboring parts of the body, which tends not to be talked about as much because it’s rather mysterious and confusing). But anyway, by that definition, I don’t think it’s correct to say we perceive our own thoughts. To extend the definitions of perception and sensation that far, in my opinion, saps them of their usefulness in scientific contexts. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/94 "2009-05-20T19:36:33Z")
Which is why I’ve carefully tried to outline the non-real nature of the “perception” taking place. Perhaps a better term would be apprehension or introspection ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/95 "2009-05-20T19:53:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Once again - are you just in this to play semantic games? A virtual environment _in the context of a discussion about cognition_ is obviously a not-real one _in the same way_ a computer simulation is not a real environment. But the virtual environment I spoke of was _ **NOT** _ in the context of a discussion about cognition! That was what I was saying when I mentioned it! It was in the context of an article about virtual reality which I came across trying to chase down some meaningful interpretation of your “virtual perception” thing! Who’s playing semantic games? Are you really trying to change the meaning of everyone else’s words to suit yourself? > [@](#): > > Are you claiming that you can’t close your eyes and “see” things in your imagination? Pretty much. You can perceive images, but it would be irrational to propose that the mechanism by which this is done is in any way analogous to seeing with your eyes. > [@](#): > > You and some other people went through that homunculus stuff. It’s got nothing to do with me. It does now… because _you_ have just made a homunculus argument. I guess after going to all that trouble to explain what is _not_ a homonculus argument, I now have to start all over and explain what _is_. _sigh_ on preview: I have to agree with one thing… whatever this virtual perception thing is you speak of, it’s definitely non-real. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/96 "2009-05-20T20:24:03Z")
Remembering a memory, or a song, or imagining a woman naked are all as real as feeling angry. Having a thought or a mental image is absolutely real perception, it is simply not real vision. Further, the claim that cog sci only focuses on sensory input when it talks about perception is simply wrong. It’s silly to act as if cog sci only talks about sensory organ perception when [there is a very clear delineation between P-consciousness, A-consciousness, S-consciousness and M-consciousness.](http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.block.html) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/97 "2009-05-20T20:26:36Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > You can perceive images, but it would be irrational to propose that the mechanism by which this is done is in any way analogous to seeing with your eyes. I disagree, and it’s not irrational. I believe that both visual perception and introspection of visual mental models use the same area of the brain - Baddeley’s “visio-spatial sketchpad”. The reason I believe this is because it is well-known that visual perception is already a short-term memory thing, not an as-it-happens thing. The disjunct between the eyes’ reacting to light and the brain’s forming the image you perceive is notorious as both requiring time and being only an approximation mostly built up from internal data. It’s like I said in my second post to this thread: Your senses are not really your senses like a camera or a Dictaphone, they’re what you brain _tells you_ you sensed. So drawing a line between one sort of internal brain process and another strikes me as excluding quite a bit of middle for no real reason. Unless you want to start throwing cites around that say different, of course? ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/98 "2009-05-20T21:04:21Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I believe that both visual perception and introspection of visual mental models use the same area of the brain - Baddeley’s “visio-spatial sketchpad”. Who or what is ‘looking at’ that sketchpad? > [@](#): > > The reason I believe this is because it is well-known that visual perception is already a short-term memory thing, not an as-it-happens thing. The disjunct between the eyes’ reacting to light and the brain’s forming the image you perceive is notorious as both requiring time and being only an approximation mostly built up from internal data. This is not a fallacy of believing without evidence. This is a fallacy of _speculating_ in ways which can only lead you further from the truth. That’s right. It’s irrational to even speculate about these virtual senses of yours! > [@](#): > > It’s like I said in my second post to this thread: Your senses are not really your senses like a camera or a Dictaphone, they’re what you brain _tells you_ you sensed. When you’re brain tells you what you sensed… who or what receives that message? > [@](#): > > So drawing a line between one sort of internal brain process and another strikes me as excluding quite a bit of middle for no real reason. I am not _excluding_ the middle, just accepting it as the Black Box that it is. > [@](#): > > Unless you want to start throwing cites around that say different, of course? Logic does not need a cite. I am however working on an explanation of the homunculus problem… But it’s taking some time since I have to take into account all your meaningless terms and shifting definitions. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/99 "2009-05-20T21:44:38Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > Who or what is ‘looking at’ that sketchpad? Nothing is “looking at” it. It’s just a name for a connected series of brain regions related to visual memory and perception.. > [@](#): > > This is not a fallacy of believing without evidence. This is a fallacy of _speculating_ in ways which can only lead you further from the truth. That’s right. It’s irrational to even speculate about these virtual senses of yours! You have yet to prove any irrationality. Argument by assertion.. > [@](#): > > When you’re brain tells you what you sensed… who or what receives that message? You do. > [@](#): > > I am not _excluding_ the middle, just accepting it as the Black Box that it is. But it’s not a black box. We can see the brain at work. > [@](#): > > Logic does not need a cite. Assertion certainly does. > [@](#): > > I am however working on an explanation of the homunculus problem… But it’s taking some time since I have to take into account all your meaningless terms and shifting definitions. I don’t have a homunculus problem. I don’t believe it exists. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/100 "2009-05-20T22:09:15Z")
I’m off to bed. PDF link for anyone interested in mental imagery vs. sense perception: [http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~kwn/Kosslyn\_pdfs/2003Wraga\_EncycOfCogSci2\_Imagery.pdf](http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~kwn/Kosslyn_pdfs/2003Wraga_EncycOfCogSci2_Imagery.pdf). Lots more [here](http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/%7Ekwn/KosslynArticles.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611.md?page=6)