Several things. Firstly, there is no requirement for action and observation of said action to be simultaneous. I addressed this in the part of my post you chose to not respond to. Secondly, your use of the terms incoming and outide are meaningless on their face. While we all agree that we can observe others quite easily, it is a huge error to suppose that the accuracy of our observations of other people is anywhere near as accurate as our knowledge of our own mindset.RJG wrote: ↑March 16th, 2021, 8:54 pmRJG wrote:The "self" is an "experiencer". And logically an "experiencer" cannot experience him-self (X<X). So in this sense, any experience of self (e.g. true "self-awareness") is just an illusion.I don't disagree that we can experience many bodily sensations. But the experiencer of these sensations cannot logically experience himself (the self/experiencer himself), on at least two different fronts.LuckyR wrote:Everyone also knows that of the 5 senses, vision and hearing are geared externally whereas taste, smell and touch are at least partially internally directed. If you include other senses such as proprioception, which are entirely internal, we experience ourselves all day every day.
1. The subject (or the experiencer; self) cannot logically be in two places at one time. X<X is logically impossible. Since experiencing is a one-way (incoming) event, a subject cannot be outside of himself to then experience himself. He cannot be both the subject and the object (the observer and the observed) simultaneously.
2. Also, when we experience, we can only experience 'experiences' (sensations, feelings, urges, etc) and not actual 'things' or 'selfs', themselves.
Therefore, true "self-awareness" is a myth; illusion. An experiencer (a "self") can experience many things, but never itself, ...much like a stone can tap many things, but never itself.
Please parse the differences between your two sets in your #2. They seem arbitrary as written.