Is brain the effect of vision as well, or is vision an added effect(purely the eyes)?
I’m trying to progress our understanding of used brain, so that we understand it’s experience.
I gather that vision is led on the brain, that seems to balloon outward. All vision is seated in the brain, but is a part of experience, not the complete experience.
It’s possible to gestate and select the brain, but in this operation, we minus vision.
Experience of used brain is like a hard-point behind and above vision. If you want to see the brain, you have to do an intrinsic move.
It is that vision is an added-effect because we let go of focus on what we see, to register brain, up and behind. However, note that vision relies on brain, vision is a part of the ‘I’.
I am my brain. My eyes produce vision as added-effect, but the absolution of sight is led on my brain, and the brain mirrors it.
To conclude, an eyes production is received by brain, which mirrors it, producing vision. Yet, because sight is part of the ‘I’-- and not the whole of ‘I’-- vision is an added-effect.
What I have learned since making the thread, is that we don’t use brain directly(as in gestate and select/carry the brain), but instead use it’s body, as that is the propagation of brains.
Ironically, you can’t feel your brain because it isn’t innervated. All the sensory nerves are outside of the brain with the giant exception of the eyeballs, which are part of the brain. If we stuff this bizarre creature into its spacesuit and hook it up to the endocrine system, we would still need to expose it to socialization in order for it to conceive of itself. Although, we don’t know exactly how it does that. We just know that it can’t do it sitting on the table like this:
We can by introspection probably find out real “I” but to say it before finding it out is absurd. See,to prove a proposition, we have to think out of its statement and construct a proof. Similarly, I think to know ourselves better (and what it implies to understand better, I don’t know, at least before becoming better) we must enquire differently every time to understand this “I” better.
The knowledge of Vision on the other hand becomes insufficient when consciousness is concerned in terms of the data it gives to our brain, this data makes our brain to believe and also enquire in reality and materials around us, but not the very “I” inside us.
Why ears ? All senses gives wrong idea or perception to our brain that this world is real. Hence the only motivation which drives this brain becomes external, if somehow we turned it inwards it would probably know itself.
I can’t explain it any further, I would be required to repeat myself. If a sense is pro-agility, it makes the perfect tool for conquering the environment, and that is true, in the case of ears, which help to gather data, balance, guides instinct etc-- whereas with eyes, it’s to throw you off, pleasure you, and so forth.
He would be more likely to fail, and succumb to what he sees, which, is not all the information he needs to survive.
Vision props up an image, and with ineffective other senses, this image would dominate his mind; there’d likely be problems- and he’d be forced to go with the flow.
Why you look left and right before crossing the road, this is more an ear command over eyes. You cross vision, with how you have listened.
Eyes are just sustenance, and they follow command of the other senses, like a soldier at the forefront of war.
I suspect that you, like all of us, are a bodymind, a whole thing, endlessly embedded or nested in other wholes (until you eventually embrace the entire Universe). You can divide and disect all you want, but if you discard what you leave behind, do you have enough left to even attempt understanding, I wonder? The trap of reductionism is that you lose the connections, yes?
