On Oct 24, 4:27 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > *I* *interjected some remarks just for keeping order on the list*.- *JM > > * > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Oct 23, 4:14 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > *Craig,* > > > ** > > > *thanks for your explanation - B U T : let us accept the term Multisense > > > Realism (whatever that may cover) and let me ask:* > > > *satisfactory to whom? * > > > To whoever understands how it applies to the Hard Problem. > > * (JM: OK, I feel myself excluded from an explanation.)* > > > > > > *separation of what???? (OK, you call it an illusion). And I like your: > > > "range of experience" as a limited term. * > > > Separation of subjective experience and objective existence. > > ** > * (JM: I like such distinction. Problem is: I see only how to > realizethe OBJECTIVE existence? we can THINK about it. > *
It may be problematic to put subjectivity in objective terms, but isn't that what we should expect? Our natural experience has no problem reconciling meaning and mechanism. Our experience does not need to be realized, because it is already real to us. > > > > > > *Then again: to explain by "our awareness"? what is awareness and how > > does > > > it come from the mAmps-bloodflow EKG etc data? * > > > Awareness is primitive. It isn't explained, it is experienced first > > hand and cannot be explained without first hand experience. To explain > > is to translate something which is not experienced directly into a > > direct sense, so sense or awareness is always the beginning and ending > > - the elephant in every room. Our awareness doesn't come from physical > > phenomenon as much as both the physical and experiential phenomena are > > actually the same thing, but part of what that thing does is to make > > one side seem separate from the other. > > * JM: Newton became aware of some gravitation from physical phenomena > - experienced. So I can agree. What* > *I cannot see, however, how the two SIDES of the same thing can be > separated? Both are primitive. See the next line. * It is the relation that is primitive. Each side arises out of it's separation from the other. There is no object until a subject becomes privately separated from its world. There is always a subject though, from the subject's perspective, and the object has no perspective. Think of how we see a single image with two separate eyes, or hear a single sound with ears on opposite sides of our head, and how that bilateral symmetry opens our perception up to a deeper realism rather than a de-coupled redundancy. It is the stereo image or sound which is primitive, but it can only be realized through the sense organs on two sides of the head. It is strange to think about the stereo image being the deeper reality if you model it in objective terms (seems more like 3D images would have to be an illusion based upon 2D images), but when you test the truth of this proposition subjectively, it makes sense. We feel that we make sense of an external world, perceiving aspects of something which exists independently of our perception, rather than a collection of unrelated illusions that we string together in a narrative. Our access to this external world is made possible by our awareness of the invariance between our senses as well as the qualitative extension which each sense channel and each individual sensor contributes. 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.