On Oct 16, 4:49 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > Craig. > I dislike thought experiments: they are figments to prove one's point > irrespective of other views (I refrain from writing 'truth' or even > 'experimental fact' etc.). > However: two people getting 'conjoined' as a SINGLE organism, both having > different perceived reality > (I will salute a better expression) - meaning acceptance of adjusted input > into their individually fashioned 'mind' working in a personalized genetic > built and in an already accepted experiential mini-solipsism of their > personally adjusted sum of the experiences (?) they received so far, - is > unlikely.
There are conjoined twins though. They share control of some parts of their body but have exclusive control over other parts. They synchronize wills effortlessly to cooperate but oppose each other in other ways. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKWApOAG2g (queasiness warning) > We all are differnt and not malleable into a comon relational mass. We may > have *similar* reflections, SOME, but the 1st pers. understanding is > personal, no matter what the 3rd p. communication contained. I agree. I like to think of human subjectivity as one of those giant soap bubbles that distorts and floats slowly compared to the subjectivity of simpler organisms with more champagne bubble 1-p awareness. Its so large that it's not always clear where we begin and where we leave off. Some of who we are seems completely private, some is shared socially and collectively. Each conjoined twin has their own psyche, but they share some of the same psychic resources as well. > (e.g. your: All experience is a manifestation of perspective.) > I.e.: partial and individual. > I see a fundamental agreeability with your position (not that is weighs too > much). My usage of a solipsistic perception (mini, as a matter of fact) > comes from Hales (Au) a long time ago. Thanks John, I appreciate that. Stephen and I are on the same page too, generally. I'm not familiar with Hales. Philosopher? > > It still does not point toward a 'will'. My point of the thought experiment is just to raise awareness of the paradox of asserting a universe without true intentionality, when that assertion itself can only be considered an intention, and we can only be considered part of the universe. If we set out to claim exclusive bottom up control, then what happens when when someone else's neurons use a machine to control our neurons? How can neurological determinism make sense when they are being superseded by someone else's neurology? What happens when we take control of our own neurology through such a machine? I think that will, like coincidence, is a matter of perspective. Subjectively it seems that we have some room for interpretation of how deterministic our behavior seems. That does not seem to support exclusive determinism at all. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.