What you're referring to, is another problem, namely the "other's mind". how
we know that another human is experiencing what we do? We actually assume
that to be true, that everyone has consciousness.
But it doesn't justify the other mistake. This does not mean you can deny
your possible(!) consciousness.

"What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some sort
of behaviour.  When you claim that you have "the subjective experience of
first person", I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
behaviour.  You behave as if you have "the subjective experience of first
person".  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show up
the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see that
there is no "subjective experience", there are just a lot of electrical
fenomena interacting with each other.

There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience."

Once more here you've interpreted the situation from a third person point of
view. I don't care what YOU can conclude from MY behavior. It's ONE'S own
perception of his OWN experience matters! and it is more obvious than any
other fact.

On 6/19/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> >>  What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some
> >> sort of behaviour.  When you claim that you have "the subjective
> >> experience
> >> of first person", I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
> >> behaviour.  You behave as if you have "the subjective experience of
> >> first
> >> person".  And it is possible for an enough complicated computer to show
> >> up
> >> the exact same behaviour.  But in the case of the computer, you can see
> >> that there is no "subjective experience", there are just a lot of
> >> electrical fenomena interacting with each other.
> >>
> >>  There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
> >> person experience.
> >
> > In all your reasoning you implicitely use "consciousness" for example
> when
> > you
> > says "When you claim that you have the subjective experience
> > of first person, *I* can see that you are just showing a special kind of
> > behaviour."
> >
> > Who/what is "I" ? Who/what is seeing ? What does it means for you to see
> > if
> > you have no inner representation of what you (hmmm if you're not
> > conscious,
> > you is not an appropriate word) see, what does it means to see at all ?
> >
> > In all your reasonning you allude to "I", this is what 1st pov is about
> > not
> > about you (the conscious being/knower) looking at another person as if
> > there
> > was no obsever (means you) in the observation.
> >
> > Quentin
>
> Our language is very primitive.  You can not decribe the reality with it.
>
> If you have a computer robot with a camera and an arm, how should that
> robot express itself to descibe what it observes?  Could the robot say: "I
> see a red brick and a blue brick, och when I take the blue brick and
> places it on the red brick, then I see that the blue brick is over the red
> brick."?
>
> But if the robot says this, then you will say that this proves that the
> robot is conscious, because it uses the word "I".
>
> How shall the robot express itself, so it will be correct?  It this
> possible?  Or is our language incapable of expressing reality?
>
> We human beings are slaves under our language.  The language restricts out
> thinking.
>
> --
> Torgny Tholerus
>
>
> >
>


-- 

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh,
Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to