At 12:01 AM 4/7/2008, you wrote: >David, Marsha -- > > >[DM asks]: > > In the MOQ is there a distinction between the existence > > of individuals and subjectivity? Can one exist without the other? > >[Marsha responds]: > > If an individual were brain damaged with no brain activity, > > but family and friends still had a relationship with that body, > > would those inorganic and biological patterns suffice as > > an individual? Patterns, and even clusters of patterns are > > interrelated, so I would say yes. But I look forward to > > hearing what others think. > >I can't speak for the MOQ, of course. But individuals exist as objects for >others. Since knowledge is derived from experience, you cannot know me as a >"subject". So, in that sense, my body would be an individual object to you, >whether it is alive or dead.
Ham, I can't speak for the MOQ either, but individuals exists as ever-changing collections of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. (Not subjects and objects.) And that seems no less precious and profound. Marsha >Now, if by "individual" David means a cognizant person, then subjectivity is >implied by definition, and he makes a reasonable deduction that the >individual he experiences objectively has subjectivity -- i.e., is aware of >him/herself existing in the same space/time world as David does. > >This may seem like a simplistic question, but it is of profound significance >to epistemology and philosophy. For example, it raises other questions, >such as: Are animals capable of deducing that other creatures are subjective >entities, or only that they "behave" independently of other animated >objects? If a robot is constructed with all of the physical and behavioral >attributes of a human being -- and this is not beyond AI technology -- would >we infer that it was a subjective being? > >Subjectivity is the most precious thing we possess. And yet it is not an >"object"; it can't be localized, observed, or quantified. We identify it >with a particular person, and assume that it is what constitutes and >motivates that person, but this assumption can be no more than a deduction >on our part, since it cannot be empirically defined. We make fun of >Descartes' Cogito: 'I think, therefore I am'. But we can only know this >truth subjectively. Proprietary awareness is the profoundest of all >mysteries because, although it is the seat of consciousness, it is negated >from being. > >We cannot prove that subjectivity exists. Which is why, for the radical >empiricist, it must be explained away as a myth. > >--Ham > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ ************* DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
