Chris writes

> >>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?). So far as I know, 
> >>nothing has ever come of it.
> Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy since the 1600's. It defines 
> the moment the 'scientific era' begins. In the realm of indubitable facts, 
> that I exist is one of them.

Name even *one* other indubitable fact.  I don't even think that *that*
so-called fact is indubitable, because you could be an AI, or I'm just
imagining having read something from you.

The first thing to get past is the yearning for *certainty*.  It doesn't

> It is established to me, for myself if not you, 
> just by the fact I have 1st person experiences going on. No doubt you know 
> this, perhaps it will incur your ire that Im reminding you of it, but this 
> subjective fact unfalsifiable though it is, has more certainty than any 
> 'objective' scientific truth. Why not build from this certainty?

Well, the ball is in your corner, and as I say, no one has produced *anything*
of value (except to the lone eccentric who proclaims it now and then).


> Private subjective experiences exist more certainly than the objective and 
> public world. It requires a satisfactory explanation, it isnt that 
> convincing to watch it continually ignored . Futhermore, in ignoring it, 
> disciplines that have every right to be described as scientific, rational 
> and illuminating suddenly become 'soft' and suspect.

Reply via email to