>Might you say a few more words about the method you refer to?
sure. Its known as doubt.
>I know that I may be asking a lot with the following so please ignore
>it if inconvenient: about this "method": is there a body of work
>based upon this method?
Yes. Science.
>>Is it at all falsifiable?
is anything?
>>What other practitioners have
>there been?
Anyone who has thought, "hmmm. Maybe its just me!" or "Goodness! That cant
be right".
Think of Descartes. On the way down he employs his method. Doubt, born of
subjectivity. THis part of his journey is successful. Its when he abandones
it and tries to re-establish the 'objective' realm that things go wrong.
Chris. ;)
>From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
>Reply-To: <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
>To: "EverythingList" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Subject: RE: subjective reality
>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:31:22 -0700
>
>Chris writes
>
> > I admire Descartes as a man [I would have said scientist and
>mathematician],
> > not so much as a philosopher. I admire his method more than his results,
> > he looked inwards.
>
>He also did a tremendous amount of good work in science and math.
>
> > Like Hume, Berkley , Locke and countless others. These people were the
> > forefathers of science, not the resistance to it. Europe, having been
>freed
> > from the authority of dogma by commerce and free enterprise, these
>people
> > voiced a challenge that had been long suppressed.
>
>Yes
>
> > Brent wrote
> >
> > > I think you are attacking a straw man "realist".
> >
> > Im challenging comments and attitudes I saw on this board. Introspection
>was
> > deemed an archaic relic of pre 16th century superstition, when in fact
>the
> > cogito was the cornerstone of the enlightenment and has been important
>ever
> > since.
>
>Interesting that you denigrate the guy's philosophy (so do I), but
>then say this. Yes, he did contribute to the foundations of rationalism.
>
> > Not just in substance but in method too. People might not be happy
> > about 'souls' and worse 'soul stuff', but really Descartes participated
>in
> > putting thinking and rationalising back on the map.
>
>Yes.
>
> > I doubt very much for instance that there would be cognitive psychology
>were
> > it not for the work of Descartes filtered through Chomskian Linguistics.
>Our
> > ‘conscious’ robot is a product of the idea that there are innate mental
> > structures. It’s the pattern and/or process – computable function - that
>has
> > become important in philosophy of mind - even if its at the most basic
>level
> > of a stimulated neural nets, weighted sums et al. We have reached this
>point
> > because in a subjective sense we all experience these intractable
> > ‘processes’ first hand, like finding a word once lost at the tip of your
> > tongue. How do we know about that? Because we experience it!
>
>Yes, that's right. That's how we first knew something was going on
>in humans. So far as I know, the best way to then investigate the
>phenomenon is not through further introspection---however helpful
>that may be in suggesting hypotheses---but by actual lab work in
>psychology.
>
> > It’s the method that’s worth saving, not the indivisible soul
>languishing
> > somewhere near the penal gland. Its not even whether souls provide a
>good
> > account of identity, it’s the method that Im defending, and the method
>that
> > I saw attacked. So far, I’m still convinced Im right, which is very
>rare.
>
>Might you say a few more words about the method you refer to?
>
>I know that I may be asking a lot with the following so please ignore
>it if inconvenient: about this "method": is there a body of work
>based upon this method? Is it at all falsifiable? (perhaps an
>unfair question---I don't know.) What other practitioners have
>there been?
>
>Lee
>
_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
Received on Thu Aug 18 2005 - 05:44:04 PDT