On 13/08/2017 10:01 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:19 am, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


    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 feel the Sun on your face, see the Sun in the sky and make deductions about a hot, bright object in space. It is an analogous process when you hear human speech and come to conclusions about the world.

And I compare notes with other people so that I can be assured that I am not totally deceived. Thus such knowledge becomes 3p. It is not just what I suspect on the basis of immediate experience, but what can be agreed among a large number of people -- those who are independent of me.

First person, second person, and third person are basically grammatical categories: first person, I/we, second person, you/you, third person, him/them. The third independent person plays a central role in the interpretation of perceptual evidence in terms of reliable conceptual models of the world. What do you think 3p means?

Bruce

--
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