R. Jeffrey Grace asks about "Daniel Dennett's Heterophenomenology, which
maintains that all subjective states are ultimately objective states"
...
You may have to explain how you extract that from Dennett; it sounds
nonsensical to me, but then it's been several years since i read Dennett
on heterophenomenology. Anyway Dennett does not generally write in
semeiotic terms, so i think anything "similar to Peirce's view" would
have to be read into his texts with some effort.
[[ I also get the impression that what we call mind or subjective
experience is more objective or public than we realize... and this seems
to coincide with Dennett's heterophenomenology...the idea that an
objective observer might be able to read someone's subjective experience
better than
the subject him/herself. ]]
I think "mind" and "subjective experience" are entirely different for
Peirce. Anyway, the "idea that an objective observer might be able to
read someone's subjective experience better than the subject
him/herself" makes no sense to me. Since experience itself is not in the
public domain, how can you compare it with anyone's "reading" of it?
Even if we grant that one person can "see" another's experience in order
to read it -- which takes us already into a fictional realm -- how can
you compare a sign with its object? Certainly not without using another
sign. If you can't compare the "experience" with the "reading" of it,
then there is no basis for claiming that one "reading" is "better" than
another.
gary
}You and the world are embedded together. [Edelman]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
