David Nyman wrote:
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?


Colin Hales remarks seem to agree with what I say. However, I do not deny the existence of a third person perspective. I only say that it is secondary and an illusion brought about by having several observers share the same frame of reference. This frame of reference consists of identical contingencies on their existence.

I have a little bit of trouble understanding your terms: "shared knowledge base" and interpersonal discourse. One way to force your nomenclature and mine to be identical is to say that "share knowledge base" and interpersonal discourse" are completely dependent on physical laws which are completely dependent of the shared contingencies. Thus our basic thinking process is rooted in the physical objects comprising our brain. These physical objects owe their existence to our shared contingencies. Here we are developing an equivalence between mental processes and physical processes. In other words I can imagine any process that the universe is capable of supporting, and it is possible to simulate in the universe any thought process that I am capable of imagining.


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