Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 17:50 05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
I don't understand. To give you an objective response you force me to look up the dictionary:
Objectivity: the ability to express or deal with facts or conditions as perceived without without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretationsthe ability to observe independetly of one's own mental state.
Subjectivity: [the ability to perceive a reality as] related to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience; the ability to ... identify by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes...rather than as independent of mind.
Relativity: the state of being dependent for existence on or determined in nature, value, or quality by relation to something else.
Absolut[ism]: [the quality of ] being self sufficient and independent for external references or relationships
Therefore, subjectivity and objectivity are opposite, relativity and absolutism are opposite.
A first person perception is a subjective or relative experience.
A third person perception is an objective or absolute experience.
You have moved to a meta level: how do you deal with being a scientist. The paradox is that your research as a scientists should not be restricted by your need for communicating with other scientists. It's like Einstein worrying that his communication of the relativity theory would be corrupted by his relative motion with other scientists. We can assume for the time being that our frames of reference are sufficiently close that we can pretend to talk objectively about the first person or more precisely, that our relative talk about the first person will not be corrupted by our slightly different frames of reference.
So, when I propose an axiom, like "x + 0 = x", I can only hope it makes (absolute) sense.OK here we may have encountered the vocabulary problem. I would say it makes relative sense. As a proof, suppose my mental states are such that I interpret + as x. Then it would make sense to me that x+0 = 0.
But I can only
As I said, depending on the states of my mind, I may not agree with this propostion,. I could interpret "or" as "and", and then the proposition would be false.
Obviously the "yes doctor" proposition is more demanding, and that ispsychologists would not agree with that
by its very nature,
Does that make sense?
OK the discourse must be third person, we have no choice, but the content of the discourse must be first person.
Ah! About the gray hair problem, I think it is always the same problem, some lackhair dye?
- Re: First Person Frame of Reference George Levy