John,
On 24 Nov 2008, at 00:19, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno,
> right before my par on 'sharing a 3rd pers. opinion:
>
>>> more or less (maybe) resembling the original 'to
>>> be shared' one. In its (1st) 'personal' variation. (Cf: perceived
>>> reality).
>
> you included a remark not too dissimilar in essence, but with one
> word in it I want to reflect on:
>
>> The third person part is what the first person variant is a variant
>> of.
>> I don't pretend we can know it. But if we don't bet on it, we become
>> solipsist.
>
> "Solipsist" !! I don't consider it a 'dirty word'. WE ARE solipsists,
The "first person" is solipsist. But in "science" we bet on sharable
thrid person view, and in cognitive science (and in everyday life once
we are grown up) we bet on the possibility of "other first person", at
least locally. I am betting right now that John Mikes has some inner
knowledge, despite I cannot prove it.
> only
> our 1st person understanding represents the world for us, nothing
> else.
> I got that (and accepted) from Colin and use ever since the term (see
> above as well): "perceived reality"
> (I did not refer to that to Kim's question - sorry, Kim).
> Our "variant" is a manipulated version of the portion we indeed
> received
> - in any way and quality - by our 'mindset': the previous experience
> we
> collected, the genetic makeup of reacting to ideas, the actual state
> of
> our psyche (Stathis could tell all that much more professional...).
> Yet THAT variant is our (mini?) solipsism:
> that's what we are.
Well that is what our first person are.
>
> So we should not fight being called a solipsist.
Every soul is solipsist, in that sense. Even the universal machine
agree on this (cf the interview). Only eliminative materialism denies
this.
But this is different of the doctrinal solipsism, that is, of the word
"solipsist" as used in philosophy. Such solipsism asserts that I am
the only first person which exists. This could be true for the
"universal soul" (S4Grz, the third hypostases, etc.), but not for each
of us right now, when entangled in a "more probable computational
history". I am not a solipsist just because I don't believe that you
are a zombie.
>
> Without such there would be no discussion, just zombies' acceptance.
Absolutely. But this means only that, thankfully, you do believe in
the existence of other first persons, other "solipsist". This means
you are not a doctrinal solipsist, which consider other as zombie,
actually as non existing at all, just fruits of their personal dream.
I think we agree.
Best,
Bruno M
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> John M
>
>
>
> On 11/23/08, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2008, at 17:41, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11/23/08, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> About mechanism, the optimist reasons like that. I love myself
>>>> because
>>>> I have a so interesting life with so many rich experiences. Now you
>>>> tell me I am a machine. So I love machine because machine *can*
>>>> have
>>>> rich experiences, indeed, myself is an example.
>>>> The pessimist reasons like that. I hate myself because my life is
>>>> boringly uninteresting without any rich experiences. Now you tell
>>>> me I
>>>> am a machine. I knew it! My own life confirms that rumor
>>>> according to
>>>> which machine are stupid automata. No meaning no future.
>>>
>>> (JM): thanks Bruno, for the nice metaphor of 'machine' -
>>
>>
>> It was the "pessimist metaphor". I hope you know I am a bit more
>> optimist, ... with regard to machines.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In my vocabulary
>>> a machine is a model exercising a mechanism, but chacquun a son
>>> gout.
>>
>> We agree on the definition.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> (JM): Bruno, in my opinion NOTHING is 'third person sharable' -
>>> only a
>>> 'thing' (from every- or no-) can give rise to develop a FIRST
>>> personal
>>> variant of the sharing,
>>
>> The third person part is what the first person variant is a variant
>> of.
>> I don't pretend we can know it. But if we don't bet on it, we become
>> solipsist.
>>
>>
>>
>>> more or less (maybe) resembling the original 'to
>>> be shared' one. In its (1st) 'personal' variation. (Cf: perceived
>>> reality).
>>
>> Building theories help to learn how false we can be. We have to take
>> our theories seriously, make then precise and clear enough if we want
>> to see the contradiction and learn from there. Oh we can also
>> contemplate, meditate, or listen to music; or use (legal) entheogen,
>> why not, there are many paths, not incompatible. But reasoning up
>> to a
>> contradiction, pure or with the facts, is the way of the researcher.
>>
>> Bruno
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Nov 25 2008 - 03:45:05 PST