DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**joe-salton** · 05-24-2010, 08:03 AM

you find that the observer and the observed are the same thing

I am looking at a tree. This tree generates an image on my retina which is then sent to my occipital lobe which then interprets the image by relating it to an abstract "concept"/image of "tree". In this case how would you describe "observer" and "observed"? Does the tree exist if I don't see it - that is do I create the image, in which case the observer being the same as the oberved makes some sense to me.

I'm not sure this example is relevant.

I have no problem dispensing with the idea of a "soul" but I'm not able to get my brain around the idea that there is no "self"-that which experiences things, including ignorance.

05-24-2010, 08:03 AM	#5
joe-salton Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 464 Senior Member	you find that the observer and the observed are the same thing I am looking at a tree. This tree generates an image on my retina which is then sent to my occipital lobe which then interprets the image by relating it to an abstract "concept"/image of "tree". In this case how would you describe "observer" and "observed"? Does the tree exist if I don't see it - that is do I create the image, in which case the observer being the same as the oberved makes some sense to me. I'm not sure this example is relevant. I have no problem dispensing with the idea of a "soul" but I'm not able to get my brain around the idea that there is no "self"-that which experiences things, including ignorance.
	Quote