> >>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.