On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:31:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 9/17/2013 10:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
> Alright. Personal or 1p experiences are probably outside the realm of 
>> phenomena that can be investigated under Popperian science. I think 
>> this is something that many of us can agree with, independently of 
>> accepting/rejecting comp, for example. I think this is also what 
>> characterises hard-core positivists: they either find 1p reality 
>> irrelevant or even reject its existence. 
>>
>>  
> Which makes sense, since from that kind of fundamentalist 3p perspective, 
> we can only take consciousness for granted. From there, we can either admit 
> or deny that we are taking it for granted, and if we admit it, then we 
> would want to minimize the significance of that.
>
>
> I'd say that from the 3p perspective we don't take it for granted and 
> neither do we consider it's content 'real'.  We are well aware of illusion, 
> misperception, and hallucinations so that we try to construct a 3p model of 
> the world that resolves the differences in 1p perspectives.  
>

But illusions, misperceptions, and hallucinations are only presentations 
within consciousness. They have no meaning from a 3p model. An illusion can 
only be a mismatch between expectations from one context of 1p perception 
to another. There is no 3p 'illusion' because objects have no expectations 
at all.
 

> This not to deny the 1p experiences, but it puts them in the category of 
> descriptions, like written descriptions or photographs.
>

Again, 'descriptions' smuggle 1p phenomenology in. Does an atom have a 
'description'? How is that produced? What is the nature of this entity of 
'description'? This is what I mean by taking 1p for granted. It is to say, 
"We do not eat pumpkin pie, for we are full already of orange squash 
dessert".

 

>   For example if you ask are circles real, the answer is that (perfect) 
> circles don't exist in the world, but they exist as descriptions in brains 
> and computers and math texts.
>

Descriptions aren't literally "in brains" or "in computers" or even "in 
math texts" though. What you mean is that we record our 1p descriptions as 
physical changes in brains, computers, or publications, which we can 
transport and reconstruct through our awareness. Brains have nothing in 
them but microorganisms. Computer have only switches. Math texts only blobs 
of ink or pixel drawing instruction codes. Without a living person who can 
read or think, they are so much debris decaying in unconscious, invisible 
silence.

Craig


> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to