David Nyman wrote:
>George Levy wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only
>>relevent contingency is: If the observed event will result in different
>>probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing me, then
>>our perceptions will be different.
>>
>>
>
>I understand this way of putting it.
>
>
>
>>Third person perception comes about when several observers share the
>>same perception because they share the same environmental contingencies
>>on their existence. In effect these observers share the same "frame of
>>reference." I see many similarities with relativity theory which I have
>>discussed numerous times on this list in the past. Let's be clear: all
>>these observer have a first person perspective, however this first
>>person perspective appears to be the same across observers, and
>>therefore appears to be *independent* of the observers. This perspective
>>can be called *objective* but we must keep in mind that it is the same
>>only because the frame of reference is the same. Thus the concept of
>>objectivity loses its meaning unless we raise the meaning to a higher
>>level and accept that different observers will predictably see different
>>things, just like in relativity theory different observers may
>>predictably make different measurements of the same object.
>>
>>
>
>Again I agree here. In the terminology I've been using, the frame of
>reference would be communicated in terms of the 'shareable knowledge
>base', or inter-personal (third person) discourse. What you are saying
>above seems consistent with Colin Hales' views both on 1-person primacy
>and the nature of 3-person. Any comments on those?
>
>David
>
>
Colin Hales remarks seem to agree with what I say. However, I do not
deny the existence of a third person perspective. I only say that it is
secondary and an illusion brought about by having several observers
share the same frame of reference. This frame of reference consists of
identical contingencies on their existence.
I have a little bit of trouble understanding your terms: "shared
knowledge base" and interpersonal discourse. One way to force your
nomenclature and mine to be identical is to say that "share knowledge
base" and interpersonal discourse" are completely dependent on physical
laws which are completely dependent of the shared contingencies. Thus
our basic thinking process is rooted in the physical objects comprising
our brain. These physical objects owe their existence to our shared
contingencies. Here we are developing an equivalence between mental
processes and physical processes. In other words I can imagine any
process that the universe is capable of supporting, and it is possible
to simulate in the universe any thought process that I am capable of
imagining.
George
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Aug 09 2006 - 19:38:59 PDT