George Levy wrote:

> Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only
> relevent contingency is: If  the observed event will result in different
> probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing me, then
> our perceptions will be different.

I understand this way of putting it.

> Third person perception comes about when several observers share the
> same perception because they share the same environmental contingencies
> on their existence. In effect these observers share the same "frame of
> reference." I see many similarities with relativity theory which I have
> discussed numerous times on this list in the past. Let's be clear: all
> these observer have a first person perspective, however this first
> person perspective appears to be the same across observers, and
> therefore appears to be *independent* of the observers. This perspective
> can be called *objective* but we must keep in mind that it is the same
> only because the frame of reference is the same. Thus the concept of
> objectivity loses its meaning unless we raise the meaning to a higher
> level and accept that different observers will predictably see different
> things, just like in relativity theory different observers may
> predictably make different measurements of the same object.

Again I agree here. In the terminology I've been using, the frame of
reference would be communicated in terms of the 'shareable knowledge
base', or inter-personal (third person) discourse.  What you are saying
above seems consistent with Colin Hales' views both on 1-person primacy
and the nature of 3-person.  Any comments on those?

David

> David Nyman wrote:
>
> >George Levy wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Thus first person perception of the world comes about when our own
> >>existence is contingent on our observation.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hi George
> >
> >I think I agree with this.  It could correspond with what I'm trying to
> >model in terms of FP1 etc. Perhaps it might be expressed as:
> >
> >First person perception of the world comes about when our own
> >observation and existence are mutually contingent
> >
> >
> Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only
> relevent contingency is: If  the observed event will result in different
> probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing me, then
> our perceptions will be different.
>
> >
> >
> >>Third person perception comes about in situations when our own existence
> >>is not contingent on our observation.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Now here I'm not so clear.
> >
> >In sum, I'm not clear what sort of observation is *not* contingent on
> >our existence, except someone else's observation, and so far as I can
> >see this is always first person by your definition.  Do you simply mean
> >to define any observation not involving ourselves as 'third person'
> >from our point-of-view?
> >
> >
> >
> Third person perception comes about when several observers share the
> same perception because they share the same environmental contingencies
> on their existence. In effect these observers share the same "frame of
> reference." I see many similarities with relativity theory which I have
> discussed numerous times on this list in the past. Let's be clear: all
> these observer have a first person perspective, however this first
> person perspective appears to be the same across observers, and
> therefore appears to be *independent* of the observers. This perspective
> can be called *objective* but we must keep in mind that it is the same
> only because the frame of reference is the same. Thus the concept of
> objectivity loses its meaning unless we raise the meaning to a higher
> level and accept that different observers will predictably see different
> things, just like in relativity theory different observers may
> predictably make different measurements of the same object.
>
> George
>
> --------------090108010504010602090806
> Content-Type: text/html
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2970
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
>   <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>   <title></title>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> David Nyman wrote:<br>
> <blockquote
>  cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>  type="cite">
>   <pre wrap="">George Levy wrote:
>
>   </pre>
>   <blockquote type="cite">
>     <pre wrap="">Thus first person perception of the world comes about when 
> our own
> existence is contingent on our observation.
>     </pre>
>   </blockquote>
>   <pre wrap=""><!---->
> Hi George
>
> I think I agree with this.  It could correspond with what I'm trying to
> model in terms of FP1 etc. Perhaps it might be expressed as:
>
> First person perception of the world comes about when our own
> observation and existence are mutually contingent
>   </pre>
> </blockquote>
> Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only
> relevent contingency is: If&nbsp; the observed event will result in
> different probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing
> me, then our perceptions will be different. <br>
> <br>
> <blockquote
>  cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>  type="cite">
>   <pre wrap="">
>   </pre>
>   <blockquote type="cite">
>     <pre wrap="">Third person perception comes about in situations when our 
> own existence
> is not contingent on our observation.
>     </pre>
>   </blockquote>
>   <pre wrap=""><!---->
> Now here I'm not so clear.  </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <blockquote
>  cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>  type="cite">
>   <pre wrap="">In sum, I'm not clear what sort of observation is *not* 
> contingent on
> our existence, except someone else's observation, and so far as I can
> see this is always first person by your definition.  Do you simply mean
> to define any observation not involving ourselves as 'third person'
> from our point-of-view?  </pre>
>   <pre wrap="">
>   </pre>
> </blockquote>
> Third person perception comes about <u>when several observers share
> the same perception because they share the same environmental
> contingencies on their existence. </u>In effect these observers share
> the same "frame of reference." I see many similarities with relativity
> theory which I have discussed numerous times on this list in the past.
> Let's be clear: all these observer have a first person perspective,
> however this first person perspective appears to be the same across
> observers, and therefore appears to be *independent* of the observers.
> This perspective can be called *objective* but we must keep in mind
> that it is the same only because the frame of reference is the same.
> Thus the concept of objectivity loses its meaning unless we raise the
> meaning to a higher level and accept that different observers will 
> <u>predictably</u>
> see different things, just like in relativity theory different
> observers may <u>predictably</u> make different measurements of the
> same object.<br>
> <br>
> George<br>
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> --------------090108010504010602090806--


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to