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 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
