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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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.

Reply via email to