> Le 08-août-05, à 17:49, Lee Corbin a écrit :
> > (True, we can also extend sympathy by believing it to be utterly
> > true that he is experiencing pain, but I think that John and I
> > (and many) are simply not comfortable with introducing a "reality",
> > namely, "subjective reality" to cover this simple situation.)
> This amounts to dismissing the first person.
As anything scientific, yes. I agreed with John's statement:
"Interpreted used as subjectivised. There is a fine line separating
solipsism from craziness..." at least insofar as I may read that
to mean that our subjective impressions actually turn out to be
less reliable than our efforts to understand things objectively
So I dismiss the 1st person, remarking that it's "existence" is
but only to be expected. If an ape or a parrot could talk, it
could yak on about it's impressions. And they'd be of little
but therapeutic value.
> I am sure you did have known to be living some "subjective reality".
Well, by that you mean what I'd call my own 1st person impressions
of the world. Yes.
> What exactly makes you not comfortable with the "other mind" reality?
I don't want to ascribe "reality" either to *my* 1st person whacked
out drug-mediated experiences, or anyone else's. I prefer to reserve
"reality" for 3rd person accounts. "the highest mountain in the world
is located in Tibet" or some similar conjecture.
> Is it the fact that it is not verifiable?
> In that case again, incompleteness theorem can be used as a cure,
> because it makes utterly clear that for the sound machine there are
> many truth which are guess-able but unprovable.
So you say. And I confess I haven't the energy (and probably not
the preparation) to study your thesis. So I'll wait for the experts
to acclaim you. No one will cheer louder: "I knew him *before*
the world saw the truth to COMP! He even knows who I am!".
> Is it the fact that once you accept the reality of the first person
> experiences, then we are led to that first person indeterminacy from
> which the physical laws emerges, assuming comp (which you accept)?
This might be a good time to ask what is meant by that word you
just used. Hal explained "computationalist hypothesis" as used
by philosophers, e.g., that a robot (that was just CPU driven)
could be conscious. I have believed that since 1966 when I used
to argue about it with people in high school. *Lots* of people
believe that. I have taken "COMP" to be Bruno's Thesis, in which
practically everything can be derived fundamentally from the
integers alone, using Gödel's results, and other rather recently
> You are neither a zombie, nor a solipsist, so what is the origin of you
> dismissing the reality of first person experiences. I am very curious,
> because, as you say, you are not the only one.
Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
on "1st person" has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). Even William
James, I think, did some of that. So far as I know, nothing
has ever come of it.
My friends and I (and probably Daniel Dennett and so on) believe
that people who demand a 1st person "account of the world" (e.g.
Chalmers) will never get anywhere. That the "hard problem" or
whatever is just a horrible consequence of the way sense impressions
traveling on neurons give rise to people thinking that their
own perceptions are a sort of reality independent of the physical
reality. We think that this is a sort of delusion, although the
very #?!&[EMAIL PROTECTED] structure of our language hideously leads from that
to "who or what is being deluded?".
That's it in a nutshell.
> Is it because you do feel some inconsistency with your physicalist
> assumptions, once we take seriously the "assumption" that others can
> feel genuine pleasures and pains.
Hmm? Well, what you write here doesn't seem at all wrong to me.
I regard the "assumption" (as you call it) that others can feel
pain and pleasure to be about as accurate as a statement as "less
light gets to the ground during the night". That is, pretty basic.
> Anyway. We are not supposed to search comfort, but to reason from facts
> and assumptions, isn't it?
It was just a figure of speech. You are free, of course, to use
the word "reality" any way you want. I'm not comfortable for using
it to describes one's subjective impressions, feelings, etc.