Hi Bruno,

Sure, "consciousness here-and-now" is undoubtable. But the p refers to the
contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many cases. "I am in
pain" cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but other felt sensations
can be doubted, e.g. see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956899/

Such illusions of experience can even be helpful, as in Ramachandran's
Mirror Box therapy for phantom limb sufferers, see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468806/

Illusions of experience are evidence that what we experience is of our
brains' constructions, like a waking dream, guided in healthy brains by the
patterns of information streaming from our sense organs.  Brains that are
defective in this manner result in schizophrenia and presumably other
dissociative pathologies.

For me it all casts doubt on whether Bp & p is an accurate formalization
for experience, but I might be missing something. Can you make sense of Bp
& p for a schizophrenic who hears voices?  How about your own salvia
experiences?

T

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On 10 Mar 2014, at 16:28, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> Question for you Bruno:.
>
> You say (with help from Theaetetus) that 1p experience is given by Bp &
> p. Yet, our experience is often deluded, as in optical illusions, or in
> various kinds of emotional & psychological denial. Can we ever really say
> that our knowledge, even 1p experience, refers to anything True?
>
>
> In public?  No.
>
> In private?  Yes.
>
> I would say.
>
> Then in the frame of theories about such 1p things, like consciousness, we
> can decide to agree on some "property" of the notion. Then,
> "consciousness-here-and-now" might be a candidate for a possible true
> reference, if you agree consciousness-here-and-now is undoubtable or
> incorrigible.
>
> Then we can approximate many sort of truth, by the very plausible, the
> probable, the relatively expectable, etc.
>
> If someone complains, is the pain real or fake? Eventually it is a
> question for a judge.
>
> The truth is what no machine can really grasp the whole truth, but all
> machines can know very well some aspect of it, I think, but very few in
> justifiable modes.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

-- 
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to