> On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:57 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 7/19/2014 10:38 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:11 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of meekerdb >>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows >>> >>> On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): >>> 1. I know >>> 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that >>> you knew.) >>> Are there any others? >>> >>> Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answer is yes >>> after just a few more iteration the answer will certainly be no because you >>> won't be able to follow even what the question means. And as a practical >>> matter at least 99% of the time you don't know that you know, you just >>> know. Most of the time it would be counterproductive anyway, if you were >>> fully aware of how you know that you know how to walk and chew gum at the >>> same time you'd fall flat on your face. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants who apparently >>> also 'know that they know'? You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" >>> because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first >>> place. Without self-awareness there is no self to inspect. You can can >>> question many things about the content of your consciousness. A cat can't. >>> There needs to be a 'knower', a 'self' or a 'subject'. Who or what is that? >>> What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you >>> to say "I know"? >>> >>> The language part. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> Let us not overlook those nifty opposable thumbs that made us superior tool >>> makers. >>> Chris >> >> >> How do language and/or opposable thumbs construct an experiencing subject? >> >> Clearly the subject precedes the existence of these things. > > No it's not clear at all. > >> Where does the self come from? What is it? A self constructs language and >> sees the value of opposable thumbs. The self is primary. > > Of course even without language animals have a self concept. They know where > they are, how they feel. But that doesn't mean they have the introspective > ability to say "I know." Once they have language they can articulate that > some people "know how", e.g. their parents know how to find food. With > language they can put "I" and "know" together. It's not that different than > mathematicians putting Peano's axioms and rules of inference together and > "knowing arithmetic". > > Brent
So are we happy with a definition of self as arising from language? Where does language arise from? Language has this magical ability to construct itself as well as the subject that experiences it? K > -- > 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. -- 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.
