In a message dated 10/15/08 11:25:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cheerskep, How about "sensing AS non-epistemic", "perceiving AS epistemic" instead of IS ? Luc In truth, Luc, I myself would never use the term 'epistemic'. As I've suggested in earlier postings, I thought I discerned that you use 'epistemic' and 'conscious' synonymously. If I'm right about that, then your suggestion above is an expression of your notion that that which is "perceived" is "conscious". That which is merely "sensed" is not conscious. But then I admitted it's not serviceably clear to me what you have in mind with "conscious" because your view is that we are not "conscious" of sense data. >From closer examination, I inferred perhaps you will call "conscious" only that notion which is the product of post-sense-data processing; for example, "identifying" the sense data. I myself balked at that idea as I understood it. I cited the example of when I was once served apple juice in a champagne glass. I was beguiled by the realization that the taste was extremely familar but I couldn't identify it. I think of tastes and smells and shadowy visual figures and noises and pains as sense data -- but they will often prompt the question, "What was that?" I balked because, by saying such sensations were not "conscious", you seemed to be saying -- to use a term I think of as synonymous with "conscious" -- I was not "aware of" them. I couldn't believe that could actually be your view. So if I was misunderstanding you when you used familiar terms, I had no chance of following the discussion with an obscure term like 'epistemic' in it. Since it appeared your notion of "epistemic" could be serviceably summoned up by the more familiar term, 'conscious', I tried that. Your explanation of "epistemic" -- "Sensorial process is non-epistemic in the sense that it does not bring any knowledge per se, just "raw material", "bare signs of the Real"; it is a non-conscious event." -- didn't work for me. (For one thing, I suspect I would also never use the term "knowledge per se".) I take it you accept "identifying" the taste -- "Apple juice! -- as the arrival of "knowledge per se", and therefore the "becoming conscious" of the taste. But I'd claim I was vividly "aware of" the taste before I could identify it. I couldn't believe you'd insist that before this moment I was completely unaware of the taste -- but evidently you WOULD say I'm not conscious of it. So maybe you'd say I am "aware of" it, but not "conscious of" it. You're allowed to use words any way you want, but I strongly suspect that when you use the word 'conscious' this way you will seldom convey to others what you have in mind. I'm unsure what communicative use such a notion of "epistemic/conscious" has. >From my distance, admittedly unsure of what's running through your mind, it seems there's something not thought-through here. ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
