On 2 January 2012 21:29, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Elided: past participle, past tense of elide (Verb): Join together;
>> merge: "the two things elided in his mind".
>
>
> "Elide" only means to join together two things by leaving out stuff in
> between them.  Its basic meaning is to leave out.  That's why I questioned
> it.

Confound will do just as well.

>> Moreover,
>> selection in this 1-p sense - as in "what is exclusively present at
>> any moment to a conscious observer" - must be distinguished from a
>> weaker sense which we use merely to isolate, in principle, specific
>> members of a 3-p ensemble.
>
>
> If we distinguish these two then we've lost the explanatory power because
> now we have to postulate some different kind of "selection" that depends on
> "consciousness", which was the concept we hoped to explain.

Sure, but isn't the problem precisely that (at least for some of us)
the first sense just doesn't seem to be adequately "explained" by
exclusive reference to the second?   If this were not so, there would
be no controversy.  So for those of us who may still be wondering
"hmm...", the loss of explanatory power might be an exclusively 3-p
paradigm running out of potency just before the final leap from
objective framework to subjective experience.

To others, this doubtless seems too much like giving up on explanation
itself.  Why should methods that have been so successful in so many
cases not ultimately lead to full and final elucidation in this matter
also, thorny though it may presently seem?  In the meantime, any
temporarily troublesome loose ends are likely as "illusory" as that
old phantom, vis viva.

In practice, since I am partially persuaded by both of these lines of
thought, it's fortunate that nothing compels me to premature
commitment to either.

David

> On 1/2/2012 12:57 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 2 January 2012 18:56, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> You mean "confused" or "confounded"...not "elided"?
>>
>> Elided: past participle, past tense of elide (Verb): Join together;
>> merge: "the two things elided in his mind".
>
>
> "Elide" only means to join together two things by leaving out stuff in
> between them.  Its basic meaning is to leave out.  That's why I questioned
> it.
>
>
>>
>>>> If consciousness were simply timelessly identical with some
>>>> supervenience base, there would be no such distinction to be made.
>>>> But if that were the case "time " would never be "inferred", or to put
>>>> it more simply, nothing would ever happen.
>>>
>>> You seem to be saying that time must be inherent in the 3p base,
>>> otherwise
>>> it could not be inferred.  But why can't time be inferred from any
>>> ordered
>>> sequence.  That's the theory frequently put forward here.  Numbers are
>>> timeless, but they are well ordered.  Frames of a movie film exist all at
>>> once, but they have an implicit order.
>>
>> No, that wasn't my point.  I agree that time "can be inferred" from an
>> ordered sequence, for example a coexistent ordered sequence of 3-p
>> states. But the 1-p observation, on which the relevant notion of
>> "inference" depends, supervenes on - without being identical with -
>> only a restricted *selection* from the 3-p ensemble.  Moreover,
>> selection in this 1-p sense - as in "what is exclusively present at
>> any moment to a conscious observer" - must be distinguished from a
>> weaker sense which we use merely to isolate, in principle, specific
>> members of a 3-p ensemble.
>
>
> If we distinguish these two then we've lost the explanatory power because
> now we have to postulate some different kind of "selection" that depends on
> "consciousness", which was the concept we hoped to explain.
>
> Brent
>
>
>> Unless, that is, we mean to say that
>> specific conscious moments, as experienced 1-personally, are uniquely
>> present only "in principle".
>>
>> ISTM inevitable that, short of outright denial of the singularly
>> present and selective nature of all 1-p experiences, contextualised by
>> a "history" of successive such moments, we are led to the intuition
>> that there is something else at work here, though what it is cannot
>> perhaps be captured more precisely than Bruno's hmm...
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>> On 1/2/2012 7:04 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2 January 2012 05:54, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand that?  Are you saying all the experiences are at
>>>>> different times so they can the experience of one soul that's
>>>>> traversing
>>>>> the
>>>>> experiences in sequence?   I'd say they all exist timelessly, or more
>>>>> exactly time is inferred from the relation of their contents.
>>>>
>>>> I'd agree, but keeping clear the distinction that consciousness (1-p)
>>>> is not identical with its putative supervenience base (3-p).  If we
>>>> refrain from calling the contents of the latter "experiences", it
>>>> might make it easier to isolate the 3-p sense in which they "all exist
>>>> timelessly" from the distinct 1-p experiential sense in which "time is
>>>> inferred" from the content of each unique moment.
>>>>
>>>>>> So we mustn't be misled into imagining
>>>>>> arrays of conscious moments as somehow sitting there "all together" in
>>>>>> timeless identity with their 3-p supervenience base, because to do so
>>>>>> would be to destroy all logical possibility of recovering the
>>>>>> uniqueness of the experiential moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so?  The uniqueness is inherent in the experience.  It doesn't
>>>>> depend
>>>>> on
>>>>> being embedded in spacetime.  Spacetime is a model inferred from
>>>>> intersubjective agreement of individual experiences.
>>>>
>>>> Again, I agree, but with the same distinction.  There is indeed the
>>>> 3-p sense of inherently distinguishable subsets of some co-existent
>>>> supervenience base.  But this mustn't be elided with the distinct 1-p
>>>> experiential sense of the "unique presence" of each conscious moment.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean "confused" or "confounded"...not "elided"?
>>>
>>>
>>>> If consciousness were simply timelessly identical with some
>>>> supervenience base, there would be no such distinction to be made.
>>>> But if that were the case "time " would never be "inferred", or to put
>>>> it more simply, nothing would ever happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be saying that time must be inherent in the 3p base,
>>> otherwise
>>> it could not be inferred.  But why can't time be inferred from any
>>> ordered
>>> sequence.  That's the theory frequently put forward here.  Numbers are
>>> timeless, but they are well ordered.  Frames of a movie film exist all at
>>> once, but they have an implicit order.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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