Re: First Person Frame of Reference

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:02:38 -0700

John M wrote:

> George wrote June 09, 2004 2:58 PM:
> >...
> >I don't understand. To give you an objective response you force me to
> look up the dictionary<
>
> Dangerous exercise. Vocabularies usually list the historical common
> sense versions of obsolete worldviews. Do ou have in your dictionary a
> definition for "White Elephant/Rabbit" or "Q-suicide?"
>
> >"A third person perception is an objective or absolute experience."<
> I am not meandering into sidelines like: "the 3rd p. perseption is the
> 1st p. perception of a 3rd person" rather ask you: how do you absorb
> that "3rd p. perception"? Only as a 1st p. perception of your own,
> otherwise you don't know about it.

John, the concept of first person / third person has been debated for a
long time on this list. My interpretation is that two observers have a
common or objective or "third person" perspective of an event when this
event affects equally their probability of continuing consciousness. In
effect, these observers share the same frame of reference. This is why
they can talk about an objective reality, that is the reality they
believe they share in common. This is the reality that they believe a
hypothetical "third person" would perceive if such a person was present.
The event such as the decay of Carbon 12 may be driven by a physical law
that regulates such a decay. (In our world Carbon 12 does not decay)
Hence this law appears to be common to these two observers.

In contrast, two observers may perceive an event differently if this
event unequally affects their continuing consciousness. In this case, we
may call each observer's perception a first person perspective. It is a
relative perspective because it depends on the observer's frame of
reference.

A fascinating question is the similarity and differences of these
definitions with Einstein's relativity. The flow of time which varies
according to the velocity of Einstein's inertial frame of reference is
linked in my definition to "continuing" consciousness. It is as if
relative motion itself would "trim" some of our consciousness, allowing
only our remaining consciousness to experience the change in the flow of
time as described by Einstein.

These considerations lead me to think that our survival or death, the
trimming process, is ongoing, omnipresent, and inherently coupled with
the physical laws at the most fundamental level.

George Levy
Received on Thu Jun 10 2004 - 02:58:38 PDT