Ham There is a good argument (eg Levinas) that we recognise the subjectivity of others before we later decide/realise that we must be subjects too, and this matches observations of childrens development.
DM > 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. > > 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/ > 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/
