> On 14 Nov 2019, at 19:35, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> A Defense of Experiential Realism: The Need to take Phenomenological Reality
> on its own Terms in the Study of the Mind
> Stan B. Klein
> Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
> University of California at Santa Barbara
> https://philpapers.org/archive/KLEADO-3.pdf
>
>
> Abstract
>
> In this paper I argue for the importance of treating mental experience on its
> own terms. In defense of “experiential realism” I offer a critique of modern
> psychology’s all-too-frequent attempts to effect an objectification and
> quantification of personal subjectivity. The question is “What can we learn
> about experiential reality from indices that, in the service of scientific
> objectification, transform the qualitative properties of experience into
> quantitative indices?” I conclude that such treatment is neither necessary
> for realizing, nor sufficient for capturing, subjectively given states (such
> as perception, pain, imagery, fear, thought, memory) – that is, for
> understanding many of the principle objects of psychological inquiry. A
> “science of mind” that approaches its subject matter from a third-person
> perspective should, I contend, be treated with a healthy amount of informed
> skepticism.
Nice!
>
> In my view, science needs to adopt a new, more inclusive, metaphysics, one
> in which reality is not reduced to only that which can be captured by current
> scientific methods.
In other terms: … one in which reality is not defined by what we see, observe,
measure.
In other terms: we need to come back on Plato’s skepticism on the idea that
matter is primary, perhaps, as enforced by taking Descartes and Turing
seriously into account.
No need of a new metaphysics: the preceding one was working very well, and the
Theaeteus’ nuance of belief versus knowledge leads to an arithmetical
interpretation of the five main hypostases of Parmenides and Plotinus. And the
Observable one is testable, and indeed gives rise two a triple of quantum
logics, with justifiable and non justifiable parts, knowable and not knowable
parts, as well as believable and non believable, with all the math to get
quanta and qualia.
Bruno
>
> I thank Galen Strawson for suggesting the quote at the beginning of this
> article, as well as for insightful comments on the text.
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cbdfe9b5-1664-4d79-8c32-53302dd57766%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cbdfe9b5-1664-4d79-8c32-53302dd57766%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/93808467-98CF-4C00-9C68-3BECBA363E27%40ulb.ac.be.
