September 2021
What am I?
A hard trick set by the brain
私とは何か？ 脳によって仕掛けられた難解なトリック
By 白石 茂
Shigeru Shiraishi
There is the Japanese version. If you are interested in it, please check the following URL.
https://www.what-am-i-j.comThere is the Smartphones version. If you use smartophnes, please check the following URL.
https://www.what-am-i-s.comThe paper presented at the following URL explains in more detail the path to the conclusion of this paper. I appreciate it if you would take a look at it as well.
https://www.www.where-mind-e.comContents
PartⅠ The apparent world
Chapter 1 Introduction
1-1 The answer to the problem that "What am I?"
1-2 Self-introduction
Chapter 2 The world which is seen before our eyes
2-1 Counterexamples
(1) Counterexample of color
(2) Counterexample of sense
2-2 How are the counterexamples considered?
2-3 The inverted retinal image
(1) Three steps of the act of looking at
(2)A double image
(3) Two verbs, "look" and "see"
(4) Dual meanings
(5)The answer to the inverted retinal image
Chapter 3 The apparent world
3-1 The apparent material world
3-2 The apparent physical body
(1) The boundary between the apparent physical body and the apparent material world
(2) The synchronization of the body which is seen before our eyes and the physical body
(3) Existence of senses around our body which is seen before our eyes
(4) The thought of “self” (self consciousness) coexists with the body which is seen before our eyes.
3-3 The apparent mind
(1) What is the result of looking at?
(2) The mind in a narrow sense and in a wide sense
(3) The apparent mind
(4) The difference between “the mind” and “the world of the mind”
Part 2 What am I?
Chapter 4 Three hurdles that disturb understanding of "self"
4-1 The trick1; "I am here, and I am looking at an object".
(1) The analysis about the thought "I am looking at"
(2) The analysis of the thought "I am listening to"
4-2 The trick2: "I am looking at an object and become to know the existence"
. the (1) Recognition(2) Definition of the word "recognition"
(3) Two steps of recognition
(4) The first step: "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes"
(5) The second step: "I become to know the existence"
4-3 The world of the mind which is shown from the viewpoint of "recognition"
Chapter 5 What am I?
5-1 Reconsidering of the existence of "self"
5-2 The answer to the problem that "What am I?"
5-3 Self-consciousness
5-4 Why do "I" exist in the world of my mind?
Epilogue
Part 1 The aparent world
Chapter 1 Introduction
Judging from the title, "What am I?", you might think it is a kind of spiritual lecture, but it is not so. The purpose of this paper is to clarify "What am I?", neither from philosophy nor religion but from science. Of course, it does not aim to answer all of the questions about "What am I?" It just clarifies or shows the core of the problem.
We have been interested in the relation between human beings and machines for a long time. Now, as the research of the artificial intelligence is advancing, “the existence of self” is newly paid attention. However, we cannot approach the true feature of it, if we stay at the common knowledge. I think it is the time to clarify the true features of the mind and the existence of self, and to make it a new common knowledge.
By the way, a paper titled "Where is the mind?" has already been up-loaded on the internet by the form of PDF file, and the answer to the problem that "What am I?", is also logically explained there.
Japanese Version: https://www.where-mind-j.com
English Version： https://www.where-mind-e.com
I would appreciate it if those who are interested in the problems would read this paper, and also appreciate it if the researchers whose specialty are psychology, cognitive science, and the artificial intelligence, etc., would read it.?
1-1 The answer to the problem that "What am I?"
First of all, I would like to start the paper from the conclusion. Maybe, you would think, "That is impossible". But it is neither a hypothesis nor "There might be such an idea". It is the conclusion that we can reach by logically tracing the subject, as it were, by solving an equation.
If we define "I" as being composed of "my body" and "my mind",
"I" = my body + my mind [1]
We think "my body" is the physical body, and "my mind" is an abstract one that is shown as intellect, emotion and volition. Of course, there is no problem if we define "I" like that. That is, it will be shown as follows:
"I" = my physical body + my mind (intellect, emotion, and volition)" [2]
I never oppose to define "I" like that. However, what we think as "my body" and "my mind" are quite different from those of the common knowledge. Concerning my mind, intellect, emotion and volition are important parts of the mind and they play important roles, but they are not all of the mind.
The objects which are seen before our eyes, for instance, a coffee cup, a desk, a newspaper, etc., exist there as the results of information processing of the brain, according to “the act of looking at”.
Though there might be various objections, if we define "the mind" as being the result of the information processing of the brain, not only the objects such as a coffee cup, etc., but also the external world which is seen before our eyes should be called as "my mind" or "the world of the mind".
The logic can also apply to “my body". "My body" which is seen before one’s eyes is also the result of “the act of looking at”, therefore it is the existence in "the world of my mind". In a word, the world which is seen before our eyes is not "the material world" but "the apparent material world", and the body which is also seen before our eyes is not "the physical body" but "the apparent physical body", as it were.
Let's consider "the mind" again. We would think that "the mind" exists in the inside of our face which is the opposite direction of our sight line. Please think it by the situation that you are reading this paper. I think you would have the impression, “There exists of“self” who am looking at this manuscript at the opposite direction of my sight line.”
We have the thought that my mind exists with my body. However, as it has been told now, the body we think as my physical body is the apparent physical body. The mind which we think accompanies with the apparent physical body is not the true mind but "the apparent mind", so to speak. Therefore, the previous diagram [2] will be rewritten as follows:
"I" = the apparent physical body + the apparent mind [3]
If change the expression,
"I am an existence which is created in my mind".
It looks like, so to speak, a nested.
You would think it is meaningless because it is the conclusion at the stage without the detailed explanation. Moreover, you might think, "You must have been lost in wild fancies", as it is too far apart from common knowledge. If I were you, I would surely think as you do.
Though it seems to be paradoxical, we cannot obtain any answer to the problem that "What am I?", if we pursue it from “the existence of self". We will fall into a hard trick, as the title of this paper shows.
First of all, we need to know the true feature of the world which is seen before our eyes. It is necessary for us to trace along a long way in order to reach the conclusion that "I am an existence which is created in my mind".
I will pursue the subject as concisely as possible. I would be greatly appreciated it if you would be interested in the subject and would read the paper. The amount of the manuscript is about 30 pages by A4 form. So, it is possible for you to go to "3 Download", and download the manuscript.
1-2 Self-introduction
You might think the story is pseudo science because it seems to be far different from common knowledge. Therefore, please let me introduce myself briefly.
My name is Shigeru Shiraishi, graduated from Waseda University(Tokyo/Japan), doctoral course (psychology), and have served as a part-time lecturer at a university in Tokyo for a long time.
I know well that even if a person who has received a professional training in his or her study, it doesn't necessarily assure that his or her idea is scientific. However, I have confidence in the logical pursuing of the question "What am I?", though it might be a little too boastful. I would appreciate it if you would read the paper critically.
Chapter 2 The world which is seen before our eyes
The expression, "the world which is seen before our eyes", was used in the previous paragraph, and the expressions, "the world which is seen before my eyes”, and “the world which is seen before your eyes", will also be used frequently from now.
Please look at Fig. 1. It is a strange composition because parts of hands and feet of someone are drawn. If you overlapped yourself with the person, you would understand that it is the scene which is seen before our eyes. It is "the world which is seen before our eyes", "the world which is seen before your eyes" and "the world which is seen before my eyes".
When we open our eyes, it appears colorfully, and when we close our eyes, it instantaneously disappears. In addition, it changes continuously in response to the movements of our sight line. The expressions, "the objects which are seen before our eyes, my eyes and your eyes", will also be frequently used from now.
The long way to pursue the problem that "What am I?", begins from the understanding that "the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world".
It has been discussed for a long time which is correct, materialism or idealism. My standpoint is neither materialism nor idealism. I am based on the assumption that there is the material world, so my standpoint is not idealism. At the same time, as I recognize that "the world which is seen before our eyes" is not the material world", I do not stand on materialism.
2-1 Counterexamples
There is a word "counterexample". It is used to deny definitions or propositions by showing contradictory examples against them. Let's examine some examples causing contradictions when assuming "the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world".
(1) Counterexample of color
Please look at the foliage plant colored green in Fig. 1 agaain. Color does not exist in the material world though you might be unexpected. It might be comprehensible when thinking it at the level of atoms or molecules. The surfaces of atoms or molecules are not green.
Plants absorb electromagnetic waves and reflect only the specific wavelength. The reflected electromagnetic wave reaches the retinas, the information is processed by the brain, and the color of green is created.
We see "green", created in the brain, on the surface of the foliage plant which is seen before our eyes. Color is not created at the retinas. It is, of course, not correct to think the green is in our brain. The foliage plant which is seen before our eyes is green. It is a contradiction if we think the plant which is seen green exists in the material world.
It is called "the contradiction of color" and has been shown in philosophy for a long time.
The reason why using "electromagnetic wave" instead of "light" is because light has close relationship with color. You could understand the reason if you paraphrase red light as red electromagnetic wave, because you would not have any image about color from the electromagnetic waves.
Some people may object to the conclusion by using the phenomenon of flame reaction, which is imagined from atoms or molecules. When metals are made into powder and are burnt, for example, copper shows green flame and lithium shows red flame, etc. When The electrons which compose atoms gain the thermal energy by combustion, they become the excited state, and they move to the outside electron orbit. But the state is originally unstable, so they return to the former energy level. At that time, they emit the electromagnetic waves of peculiar wavelength. It is the phenomenon of flame reaction.
It is true that there is an indirect relation between color and the electromagnetic wave. But, color is created after the information of the electromagnetic waves reach the brain and processed there. Color does not belong to the electrons, and it also does not belong to the electromagnetic waves.
In conclusion, color is a psychological phenomenon and does not exist in the material world.
The fact that the foliage plant which is seen before our eyes is green is the proof that the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world.(2) Counterexample of sense
Next counterexample is the one about sense. Let's assume that the surface of a table which is seen before your eyes is smooth. Please rub it with your finger. A feeling of smoothness must have been felt at the tip of your finger or at the surface of the table. You would think it to be natural because there are some sense organs at the tip of your finger.
Next, please hold a pencil, etc., and rub the table with the tip of it. How was it? I think you must have felt smoothness at the tip of the pencil, and it must be the same as when you rubbed with your finger. However, the sense organs do not exist at the tip of the pencil. This must be the evidence that the world which is seen our eyes is not the material world, because “sense” is a psychological phenomenon and does not belong to the material world.
You might object the conclusion by saying, "I only felt it". However, the sense of smoothness doesn't exist in your brain but at the tip of the pencil or the surface of the table. You might have doubt against the expression, "There exists the sense of smoothness", but it surely exists. Moreover, it exists at the tip of the pencil or at the surface of the table, which you think are “matter”
.In conclusion, if the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world, it must be contradiction because the sense which is “none-matter” exists in the material world.
Two counterexamples against common knowledge that "the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world", were shown. Did you feel some doubts?
Some philosophers have already insisted for a long time that the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world. However, their view has not been accepted because it is far from the common knowledge, and it has not been known to us so widely.
Some philosophers and a few scientists insist on such a view, but they have not explained the reason why it is so. That is because it is very hard task to explain it understandable.
2-2 How are the counterexamples considered?
Two counterexamples against common knowledge that "the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world" were shown. Have you felt some doubts? If you have not felt any doubts, you would not think about the problems.
Some philosophers have already insisted for a long time that the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world. However, their view has not been accepted because it is far from the common knowledge, and as a result, it has not been known so widely.
There are a few scientists who insist on the same view as philosophers. But the tendency to seriously examine it has not arisen yet.
Though some philosophers and scientists insist on such a view, they have not explained the reason why it is so. That is because it is very hard task to explain it easy to understand.
2-3 The inverted retinal image
At the previous paragraph, it was explained that the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world by using such counterexamples as "color" and "sense". However, most people do not accept the explanation. So, let's introduce the phenomenon of “the inverted retinal-image” for those people.
Our eyes are made of the convex lenses. Therefore, objects of the external world are reflected on the retinas upside down, and left and right reversed. But we see the objects of the external world upright. "Why?"
It is the problem called "the inverted retinal image". A lot of people feel doubts about it, because we don't think about it in daily life. It is very difficult to explain the reason of the problem.
First of all, it is necessary to analyze the two verbs; "look" and "see". They are generally explained that the verb "look" means "the action" and the verb "see" means "the state". However, the explanation is a little ambiguous. These two verbs are very important to clarify the true feature of “self”. Let's pursue the analysis.
(1) Three steps of the act of looking at
Let's think about "the act of looking at" by dividing it into three steps. The one is "the objects we are looking at", the second is "the body that does the act of looking at" and the third is "the results of the act of looking at". These words are not familiar with you. I hope you would get accustomed to them.
If we take a coffee cup as an example, "the object we are looking at" is the coffee cup which exists in the material world. "The body that does the act of looking at" means a series of processes of the information processing which starts by receiving information from the external world at our eyes and ends by producing a certain kind of physical or physiological condition at the cerebrum. By the way, "the body that does the act of looking at" is a little long, so let's shorten it to "the body acting to look at".
What does "the results of the act of looking at" mean? It is difficult to define it. It is neither the coffee cup which exists in the material world nor the information processing of the cerebrum. As a matter of fact, the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes is just "the result of the act of looking at".
"The result of the act of looking at" is also a little long, so let's shorten it into "the result of looking at".
(2)A double image
.jpg)
Let's explain the reason why the coffee cup which is seen before our eye is "the result of looking at" by using a double image.
As shown in Fig. 2(a), please hold a pencil before your eyes and look at it. Naturally, you see one pencil before two cups which are a little blurring.
Next, please pull your viewpoint backward and look at the coffee cup. Then, you will see two pencils which have been seen as one pencil. as shown in fig.2(b). These two pencils is the double image.
.jpg)
When we look at a pencil, it focuses on the corresponding spots of both retinas, and we see one pencil. On the contrary, when we turn our viewpoint, the pencil doesn't focus on the corresponding spots of the two retinas, and the information is carried to the cerebrum, and as a result, we see two pencil which are a little blurring.
It is not correct to think that a double image is seen at the stage of the retinas. A double image is seen only after the information is carried to the cerebrum. In a word, a double image is "the result of looking at".
If two pencils are "the results of looking at", how about the pencil which is seen as one? When we return our viewpoint from the coffee cup to the pencil, it is seen as one pencil again. As well as the two pencils which are "the results of looking at", one pencil is also "the result of looking at".
.jpg)
You might insist that "The two pencils are only images". However, both two pencils and one pencil are seen in the same space which is seen before our eyes. You would agree that the logic, "the one pencil is a real existence and the two pencils are images", doesn't hold good, if you pay attention to the fact.
Moreover, there might be a rebuttal, "We just see two pencils". However, it is necessary to connect the image at the retinas to the two pencils. In short, there is a relationship of cause and result between the images of the retinas and a double image. Therefore, we reach the conclusion that the objects which are seen before our eyes are "the results of looking at".
By the way, there exists only one pencil in the material world as shown in Fig. 2(c), whether we see one pencil or two pencils.
(3) Two verbs, "look" and "see"
I suppose there are a lot of people who do not accept the conclusion that "The world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world". I think there are two reasons why they would not accept the conclusion.
The one is “the existence of self" and the other is “the existence of my body". But, put them aside now, and let's analyze another cause, that is, two verbs; "look" and "see".
Two verbs, "look" and "see", are used concerning “the act of looking at”. We use them properly and skillfully according to the situation in daily life. However, the problem lurks in the fact that we use both "look" and "see" to the same objects which are seen before our eyes.
The verb "look" is to focus our eyes on the object which exists in the material world, and it is exactly the event in the material world. On the other hand, the verb "see" means "It is possible to see" as a result of“the act of looking at”.
For instance, when asked about the direction of the gap of the Randolph Ring at the visual acuity test, if it blurs, we answer, "I do not know", in a word, "I cannot see". That is not because the eye-test chart in the material world is being blurred, but because the image reflected at the retinas gets blurred and it is sent to the cerebrum. It is not an event of the material world. Whether our eyesight is good or bad, the state of the Randolph Ring in the material world is same and clear.
When we are looking at a pencil, and are asked, "What are you looking at?", we answer "The pencil which is seen before my eyes". And when asked "What do you see?", we answer "The pencil which is seen before my eyes".
We think the pencil which is seen before our eyes as "the object we are looking at" in one situation, and as "the result of looking at" in another situation. But the fact is that the pencil which is seen before our eyes is “the result of looking at”. Therefore, it is correct to use “see” in the world which is seen before our eyes, but it is false to use “see” in the material world. The verb, “look”, must be used only in the material world, because the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world
The two verbs, “look” and “see”, are skillfully and properly used in daily life to cover our misunderstanding that the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world. However, it occasionally reveals contradictions in the case like the inverted retinal image.
(4) Dual meanings
It is the starting point of clarifying "What is the mind?" and "What am I?" to make clear whether the objects which are seen before our eyes are "the objects we are looking at" or "the results of looking at". Therefore, let's think again about the pencil which is seen before our eyes from the standpoint of "matter".
Those who stand on the view that the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world would insist that the pencil which is seen as one is "the object we are looking at" and it is "matter". Now, how about the pencils which are seen as two pencils? They would insist, "They are only images"
.But, if they move their sight line back to the pencil, one pencil is seen again. If the pencil which is seen as one is matter, how does the pencil become when it is seen as two. It is necessary for us to admit that both one pencil and two pencils are seen in the same space which is seen before our eyes
The two pencils which are seen as two are not matter, and similarly, the pencil which is seen as one is not matter. The pencil which is seen as one is "the result of looking at" as well as the two pencils are "the result of looking at".
Though it is a similar story, let's return to a coffee cup. If asked, "What are you looking at?", you will reply, "The coffee cup which is seen before my eyes." If asked, "What do you see?", you would reply, "The coffee cup which is seen before my eyes".
As understood by the explanation up to now, both the coffee cup you say you are looking at and the coffee cup you say you see are "the results of looking at". The coffee cup which you say you are looking at is upright, and the coffee cup which you say you see is also upright. In a word, the coffee cup which is seen before your eyes is interpreted as "the result of looking at" at a certain situation, and as "the object of looking at" at another situation. It has, as it were, dual meanings. But the truth is the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes exists there as "the result of looking at"
(5) The answer to the inverted retinal image
The reason why we feel doubt about the inverted retinal-image is that we interpret the object which is seen before our eyes as "the object we are looking at", but when we face the problem of the inverted retinal-image, we interpret it as "the result of looking at. It is correct to interpret the object which is seen before our eyes as "the result of looking at", however.
On the problem of the inverted retinal image, we must discuss the relation between the image reflected on the retina and the original object in the material world. In fact, in the material world the inverted phenomenon occurs between "the object of looking at" and "the retinal image of the physical body". It is surely true.
However, the object which is seen before your eyes and you are trying to compare with the retinal-image is "the result of looking at". On the other hand, the body which is seen before your eyes is not your physical body but your apparent physical body as "the result of looking at". Any retinas do not exist at the apparent physical body, and as a matter of course, the reversed image does not exist there.
You think the external world is reflected inversely on “your retinas of your apparent physical body", but it is not correct. You feel doubt by comparing "the apparent retinal image", which does not exist from the beginning, with the object which is the result of looking at.
In a word, it can be said that the doubt about the inverted retinal image is caused by the facts that we interpret the world which is seen before our eyes as having double meanings and interpret the body which is seen before our eyes as the physical body.
We need to wait for "the interpretation of our body", which is talked in paragraph 3-2, in order to get rid of the doubt about the inverted retinal image. Therefore, if you read this paragraph again after paragraph 3-2, "The apparent physical body", you would understand the conclusion.
Chapter 3 The apparent world
The words, the apparent material world, the apparent physical body, and the apparent mind, have been used up to now. Let's explain the meaning of these three words again at this paragraph.
3-1 The apparent material world
Let's define again the world which is seen before our eyes as "the apparent material world", because the world is created by "the act of looking at".
Well, would you agree with the conclusion by the explanation which has been done until now? Perhaps, most people would not have accepted the conclusion. I would greatly appreciate it if you become to have doubt against the common knowledgethat "the world which is seen before our eyes is the material world", even if you do not agree about it.
By the way, even if you would think that "The conclusion might be true", at the same time, you might think that "I cannot accept the conclusion". It is quite natural.
That is because there is no inconvenience in daily life, even if we think the world which is seen before our eyes as "the material world ", excluding some special cases. In fact, we have two wrong convictions which are hard tricks, and hide the contradictions such as color and sense of touch, etc.
One of the reasons is that "The world which is seen before our eyes is so wide, therefore, is it really created by the activity of the brain?
Those who have experienced VR (virtual reality) will understand. By looking at the sight which is projected onto the screen in the goggle, we mistake it as if a vast space surrounds us.
There is a VR content to walk on a narrow board passed to the roof of high buildings Even if the user knows it is virtual, they instinctively cower because the feeling of height is so terrible It is the same as when we see the external world by using our eyes and when we see the sight by using a goggle, in the point of using the images that is reflected at the retinas. In a word, the brain processes the information based on the image of the retinas in both cases and creates the world which is seen before our eyes.
In addition to it, there are more troublesome reasons why we cannot accept the view that “the world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world.”
That is because, we have two wrong convictions which are hard tricks, and hide the contradictions such as color and sense of touch, etc.
The one is “the existence of self", and the other is “the existence of my body”. They are hard hurdles which disturb the understanding of the problem that "What is the mind?" and "What am I?" That is the reason why the subtitle of this paper is "A hard trick set by the brain". Let's pursue the subject.
From the thought of “the existence of self", the following conclusion is led, though it is wrong. "I am here and I am looking at the coffee cup which is seen before my eyes, therefore, the coffee cup must be "the object of looking at" and "matter". This is a very important point related to the problem that "What am I?"So, it will be explained in paragraph 4-1 and 4-2 of Part 2.
On the other hand, from the thought of “the existence of my body", the following conclusion is led, though it is also wrong. "The body which is seen before my eyes is my physical body. The world around my body is the material world. Therefore, the coffee cup which is seen before my eyes must be "the object of looking at" and "matter".
Even if you would realize that the objects which are seen before your eyes are the results which are obtained by the information processing of the brain, the following doubt would remain; Why does "the result of looking at" exist outside of my physical body?
It also took me considerably long time to clear the doubt. Actually, the body which is seen before our eyes is not the physical body existing in the material world, but "the apparent physical body" as "the result of looking at", which is created through "the act of looking at".
3-2 The apparent physical body
Now, let's think about our body which is seen before our eyes. We can easily reach the conclusion that our body which is seen before our eyes is "the result of looking at" as well as the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes is "the result of looking at", though it is unknown whether you would accept the conclusion.
By way of experiment, please put up one of your fingers before your eyes and look at it. You would see one finger. Next, please move your viewpoint forward or backward, and you will see two fingers now.
We reach the conclusion that the finger is "the result of looking at" and "the apparent finger" as well as the case of a pencil. Of course, it is not only a finger. We cannot see our face and back direct, but if we look around our body we can see almost all of it. It is "the result of looking at" and it can be called as "the apparent physical body".
Or, as another evidence, please look at your hands and feet which are seen before your eyes. You would see flesh-color at the surface of them. Color doesn't exist in the material world as told in paragraph 2-1 "Counterexamples". Color is created after the electromagnetic wave which is reflected at the physical body reaches the retinas and the information is processed by the brain.
From the facts, we also reach the conclusion that our body which is seen before our eyes is not the physical body but "the apparent physical body" as "the result of looking at".
However, there would be few people who agree with the conclusion from the explanation up to now. “I can move my body by my will. When I get hurt, I feel pain, and it even bleeds. This must be my physical body.” You would be convinced of your view.
There are still some reasons why we cannot consent to the conclusion.
(1) The first is that there is a boundary between our body and the external world which are seen before our eyes.
(2) The second is that our body which is seen before our eyes perfectly synchronizes with the external world.
(3) The third is that we feel some sensations at our body which is seen before our eyes.
(4) The fourth is that “the thought of self" belongs to our body which is seen before our eyes.
The PDF file, which was introduced at the top of this paper, explains the details of them. Please check the PDF file. So, let's just explain them concisely here.
(1) The boundary between the apparent physical body and the apparent material world
There is certainly a boundary between the physical body and the external world in the material world. The inside of the skin is our physical body, and the outside is the external world. The inside and the outside are surely divided.
However, there is no boundary between the body and the external world in the world which is seen before our eyes, because the body is the apparent physical body and the external world is the apparent material world. Both the body and the coffee cup which are seen before our eyes are the same kind of existence as "the results of looking at", though the meaning of them is certainly different from each other
(2) The synchronization of the body which is seen before our eyes and the physical body
The mechanism of the synchronization of both the apparent physical body and the physical body is not known, but they are designed to synchronize with each other. When our hand of the physical body begins to move toward a coffee cup in the material world, our apparent hand begins to move to the apparent coffee cup in the world which is seen before our eyes. The synchronization is maintained excluding some exceptions, for instance, when we use a comb looking at a mirror.
(3) Existence of senses around our body which is seen before our eyes
"We feel senses around our body which is seen before our eyes. Therefore, the body which is seen before our eyes must be the physical body", I think you have such a thought. Certainly, senses are located where it receives the stimulus. However, as shown in paragraph 2-1(2), the existence of sense doesn't become the evidence that the body which is seen before our eyes is the physical body, because we feel senses at the point of a pencil or at the surface of a table.
(4) “The thought of self” coexists with the body which is seen before our eyes.
“The thought of self" would connect with "self-consciousness". This is a core part of this paper, and it will be explained later in paragraph 5-3 "self-consciousnesses".
The number of the person who insists that the world which is seen before our eyes is "the apparent material world" is more than we think. They are not only philosophers but also some scientists.
On the contrary, the number of the person who insists that the body which is seen before our eyes is "the apparent physical body" is exceedingly few. It is certainly difficult to consent to the conclusion. But if we accept the facts that one finger is seen as two and it is flesh-colored, we surely reach the conclusion. We should not think, "It cannot be true". We should accept the conclusion to be true and pursue it logically.
From the conclusion that the world and the body which are seen before our eyes are the apparent material world and the apparent physical body respectively, we obtain new facts which are quite different from the common knowledge. Of course, it is the conclusion based on the assumption that the material world and our physical body exist. Let's consider, "What is the apparent mind?" before it advances to the explanation of the new facts.
3-3 The apparent mind
(1) What is “the result of looking at”?
As mentioned in paragraph 1-1, if we define the mind as the one being created by the brain, "the result of looking at" is part of the mind, though it is not the whole of the mind, because it is created by the activity of the brain.
We might think the mind as "intellect, emotion, and volition" in common knowledge, but the objects which are seen before our eyes are also part of the mind. That is the reason why we have used a coffee cup, which is an ordinary object, as an example to analyze the mind.
If we advance the conclusion that the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes is not "matter", we obtain a new conclusion that the world which is seen before our eyes is not "the material world", but, as it were, "the apparent material world", and the objects which are seen before our eyes are "the apparent matter". They are part of "the mind" or part of "the world of the mind" because they are created by the activity of the brain, though it would not be acceptable to you.
We sometimes hear the problem that "Where is the mind?" The apparent material world including your apparent physical body which is seen before your eyes can be defined as the world of the mind, though it cannot be said to be the whole of the mind.
This is also explained in detail in the paper, "Where is the mind?", which was shown previously. I appreciate it if you refer to it.
(2) The mind in a narrow sense and in a wide sense
You would not agree to the conclusion that the world which is seen before our eyes is part of the mind. It would be because that "we should include the advanced conscious activities such as intellect, emotion and volition, and the information processing of the brain as the mind". Therefore, let's define the mind which includes both "intellect, emotion, and volition" and "the information processing of the brain" as "the mind in a wide sense".
On the other hand, let's define "the world, including our body, which are seen before our eyes" as "the mind in a narrow sense". This paper is going to deal with only "the mind in a narrow sense". And furthermore, it focuses on "the act of looking at" especially. Even on such a condition, new facts that are far different from common knowledge will be clarified.
(3) The apparent mind
You would not agree with the conclusion that the world which is seen before your eyes is part of your mind. You would say, "The mind is more advanced existence. Why is the coffee cup which is seen before my eyes part of the mind?" So, let's examine what the mind we think as common knowledge is.
It is said that there are some people who think the mind is located at the heart, but it would be about emotion among intellect, emotion and volition. Actually, all of the expressions relate to emotion, such as "My heart leaped for joy at the good news", "My heart almost burst with grief", and "He has a strong heart", etc.
Generally speaking, it would be thought that the mind as common knowledge exists behind the face of our apparent physical body, and plays such roles as intellect, emotion and volition. In a word, we would think that "the mind" exists behind our sight line. In fact, we have the thought that we are looking at the external world from the position, though it is the apparent material world. By another expression, we have the thought that "I who am looking at the external world exist there."
However, as having clarified by the story up to now, the body we think as our physical body is the apparent physical body. The brain which is assumed to create the mind doesn't exist there. Therefore, we cannot assume that "my mind" exists there.
Let's define again the mind which is assumed to be located behind the apparent face as "the apparent mind", which results from the thought that "I am looking at the external world". And, let's treat "the apparent mind" as being different from both "the mind" and "the world of the mind", which have been told in paragraph 3-3(1)
By the way, our thought that "I am looking at the external world" will be explained in detail in paragraph 4-1(1). And the relationship between "the apparent mind" and "self" will also be explained in detail in paragraph 5-4.
(4) The difference of meaning between "the mind" and "the world of the mind"
The story became a little difficult to understand. Up to now, the words "the mind" and "the world of the mind" have been used. They have been used as almost the same meaning. In a word, both of them have been used to indicate the existence which are created by the activity of the brain
However, it will be necessary to clarify their difference because they will be used as having different meanings because "the apparent mind" was defined in the preceding paragraph. The world including our body which are seen before our eyes is defined as "the world of the mind" under the assumption that "the mind is created by the activity of the brain". This becomes the answer to the problem that "Where is the mind?" Though it is different from "the mind of common knowledge," this becomes "the world of the mind" and "the world of my mind" It will be used in this meaning from now.
"The mind" and "my mind" will be used as the existence accompanied by "the thought of self" as talked in paragraph.3-3(3), namely, it exists at the reverse direction of our sight line. It is "my mind.", or “my apparent mind, in a word. "My mind" is the one based on common knowledge and, on the other hand, "the world of my mind" has the meaning quite different from common knowledge.This will be explained again in paragraph 5-2.
2021 September, by Shigeru Shiraishi
Copyrightc2021 Shigeru Shiraishi All Rights Reserved
return to the top of this paper
Copyright(c) 2021 Shigeru Shiraishi All rights Reserved