On 13/08/2017 9:05 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 13 August 2017 at 08:48, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

    On 13/08/2017 12:04 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 at 4:52 pm, Bruce Kellett
    <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> 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.

That would appear to put a large hole in Bruno's distinction between quanta and qualia. The sensation of the sun on my face is veridicial -- I might be mistaken about it being the sun, but the sensation is incontrovertible. But things that I am told about are in a different category -- I have no immediate incontrovertible experience associated with them. I am aware of words being spoken, but I am not immediately aware of their veracity.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to