On 13 August 2017 at 08:48, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/08/2017 12:04 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 at 4:52 pm, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 12/08/2017 1:42 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> First person experience is individual and private. The third person point >> of view is the view of an external observer. Suppose person A is observed >> laughing by person B. The behaviour - the laughing - can be observed by >> anyone; this is the third person point of view. Person A might be >> experiencing happiness or amusement; this is the first person point of view >> and only person A himself has it. Finally, person B has visual and auditory >> experiences and knowledge of the outside world (there are laughing entities >> in it), and this is again from the first person point of view. I would say >> that knowledge is a type of experience, and therefore always first person >> and private; information is that which is third person communicable. But >> perhaps this last point is a matter of semantics. >> >> >> If your knowledge is gained from someone else, it is necessarily >> communicable information, and thus third person. First person is your >> personal experience, which is not communicable. However, knowledge gained >> by experience is communicable, and thus third person. Otherwise, all that >> you say above is mere logic chopping. >> > > Most first person experiences are based on third person information, > namely sensory data. > > > How is sensory data 'third person information'? That would make everything > 3p, and you have eliminated the first person POV. If I experience the > pleasure of sitting in the sun on a fine spring morning, that is surely a > first person experience, and entirely sensory in origin. > > Even a priori knowledge, such mathematical knowledge, starts with learning > about the subjectvfrom outside sources. > > Returning to the point, why were you claiming that the subject on a > duplication experiment cannot have first person knowledge of duplication? > That would mean no-one could ever have first person knowledge of anything. > > > If you go into the duplicating machine without being told what it is, then > you are duplicated and come out in Moscow, you will know that you have been > transported from Helsinki, but how can you know anything about any > duplicates? As far as you know -- not knowing the protocol -- you could > simply have been rendered unconscious and flown to Moscow. How does 1p > experience tell the difference? > > This is why I think some 3p is being mixed in with 1p experiences in this > duplication protocol. The subject only knows the protocol by being told > about it. How does he know he is not being lied to? > This is the case with any experience whatsoever: you come to a conclusion about what has happened based on your observations and deductions, but you could be mistaken. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
