George wrote June 09, 2004 2:58 PM:
>I don't understand. To give you an objective
response you force me to look up the dictionary<
Dangerous exercise. Vocabularies usually list the historical common sense
versions of obsolete worldviews. Do ou have in your dictionary a definition for
"White Elephant/Rabbit" or "Q-suicide?"
>"A third person perception is an objective or
I am not meandering into sidelines like: "the 3rd p. perseption is the 1st
p. perception of a 3rd person" rather ask you: how do you absorb that "3rd p.
perception"? Only as a 1st p. perception of your own, otherwise you don't know
Your descriptions of Ob/Subjectivity make themselves oxymora (is this the
You can know anything only by your mindwork, as 'it' interprets the impact
otherwise unknowable. Impact: arriving to the mind or from inside.
Accordingly what you KNOW (as objective), is a subjective result. Cannot be
"independent of your mental state", or as you implied in the "subjective"
sentence: independent of your mind.
All that refers to the 'reality' as we can get knowledgeable about it, this
is why I equate the
"objective reality" with "subjective virtuality." Not in the oldie
I did not want to anticipate Bruno's (a 3rd pers.) response, I spoke for
myself (in first person).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:58
Subject: Re: First Person Frame of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 17:50 05/06/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
Let's me see if I can convince you to bridge the
gap and maybe take the relative formulation as a starting point. Like
Socrates, let me start with one question. How can you possibly know to
begin with this particular assumption:
>> I take as
objective truth arithmetical truth, and as third person objective
>> the provable arithmetical propositions
like "1+1=2", "Prime(17)", or "the machine number i
>> (in some
enumeration) does not stop on input number j", this + Church Thesis + the
>> act of faith is what I mean by comp.
Perhaps we have a problem of vocabulary. I
generally put objectivity and relativity
on the same par. The third
person view. And I consider subjectivity and absoluteness
on the same
par: the first person view.
I don't understand. To give you
an objective response you force me to look up the
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.
the state of being dependent for existence on or determined in nature, value,
or quality by relation to something else.
quality of ] being self sufficient and independent for external references or
Therefore, subjectivity and objectivity are opposite,
relativity and absolutism are opposite.
A first person perception
is a subjective or relative experience.
person perception is an objective or absolute
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, as a scientist (by which I mean "someone willing to be
understand as such"),
although I know my initial data are all subjective
and incorrigible---absolute, I can only
propose "theories" to my fellows
on this planet.
Now all theories come from and are ultimately addressed to
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
communicate such relative objective
statements. This is the price of science imo.
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
Now, could you reassure me: do you agree with proposition
like "x + 0 = 0", or prime(17)?
I guess and hope so.
Obviously the "yes doctor" proposition is more demanding, and
that is psychologists would not agree with that
why ultimately I eliminate it methodologically by interviewing a
sound universal Turing
machine instead of "grandmother", but such
an elimination is only "strategical". One of my
goal is to illustrate
that although the first person discourse is unscientific,
by its very nature,
we still can, by giving genuine
definitions and hypotheses build a pure third person discourse,
can be scientific (that is: modest relative and uncertain) *on* first person
discourses and views.
Does that make sense?
OK the discourse must be
third person, we have no choice, but the content of the discourse must be
Ah! About the gray hair problem, I think it is always the same
problem, some lack hair dye?
of knowledge in the field of logic. You are not the
only one (in the list and elsewhere),
let us think what to do about