On 01 Feb 2014, at 18:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN
NO WAY is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a
crazy inference.
The fact is that 99.999% of everyone on earth throughout history has
had the same insight which they also knew was obvious. That in fact
is one reason it can be stated as obvious with such confidence.
Because everyone (expect a few who's heads are so deep in their
physics books they can't pull them out to look around at actual
reality) observes it first hand in their own experience every moment
of their lives...
It is obvious we are conscious here-and-now. OK. It is hardly doubtable.
But what is not obvious is that there is an "here and now" in the
ontology.
It *might* be an internal epistemological absolute truth, for a class
of internal creature/entity/person.
once you assume even quite weaker version of computationalism, you
cannot avoid the dream argument. The obviousness of an experience does
not validate the content of that experience.
In the 1p view, consciousness is obvious. But this does not make
consciousness 3p relations, nor the person/bodies relations, obvious
at all.
Bruno
All I can conclude is that your comment above was not objective but
unfortunately based on some personal antipathy...
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:53:06 AM UTC-5, [email protected]
wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from
time to a rather rambling post on epistemology?
I don't see it as epistemology save in the most literal sense of the
word with no baggage allowed. I see it as potentially one of the
really hard scientific obstacles in human discovery of the nature of
reality. Hard because the sciences corresponding to this matter are
far too early in the process of science to offer reliable knowledge.
Certainly one choice is turning to philosophy. But the decision
itself to do that, implicitly assumes an answer to the original
fundamental question the scientific revolution threw up, which all
other philosophical questions about science derive out of. Which
actually begins as an obvious observation that no one has ever
disagreed about: that something historically unique was happening
with science, of a fundamental nature.
It's the answer to that question the philosophies disagree about.
More precisely, it was how to reason the matter the philosophies
disagreed about, given it is reasoning by which one philosophy
distinguishes itself from another.
The general problem I have with that process, arises from the fact
the question being asked was "Is there a component of this
historical uniqueness that is fundamental to science and only science"
Doing philosophy on that question, implies that that question can be
resolved by non-scientific philosophy, which implies if something
was fundamental and totally unique to one thing, it could
nevertheless be fundamentally discovered and understood by something
else that did not contain anything of that thing being understood.
I don't think that makes sense, not in the end. Because it is
assuming the answer is NO, nothing was unique about science and only
science.
I think that about this much, we should be in agreement, because you
draw on precisely the same insight, but in a different context, that
computability pre-requires sameness. Albeit that's only a core
agreement. It doesn't mean that I apply it correctly, or that you
do. We don't have to agree about that even if we do agree about the
fundamental insight. Because how something is applied is fundamental
in its own right.
By the same coin we can agree that you draw on perceptions that are
obvious, and which do say something true. But that does not mean we
will agree about how that truth needs to be treated and applied.
I seriously fell off my chair laughing at your response here Edgar.
Just stop for a moment, and see this from an equally true
alternative angle. What are you drawing on is obviously true. But
it's obviously true to everyone. You don't own the obvious part
Edgar. We all own that part. What you own, is how you apply it. You
own your methods. You own your reasoning. You own your conclusions.
But you own the original obviousness, that you can attach
obviousness to your conclusions. That you cannot do. Or you can, but
you won't be taking rationality or logic with you. So you won't be
taking other serious thinkers either.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
