Hm. I guess we're back at the same point we've been several times. I'm pressing for methods by which to *compose* things. You either refuse, or cannot, address how purely intra-body signaling composes to trans-body signaling. *-ception is not monolithic. We can program various types of perception and self-perception into robots. Various organisms entail various types of *-ception. Etc. Until we can have that conversation, we'll never be able to do any useful work.
I suppose we'll have to admit failure again and walk away. On 8/24/21 12:25 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, Glen, > > I would like to agree but I feel my ideas have been bent by your agreement. > I want to say that as you are coming up the stairs with your bat in your hand > and your heart racing, you have yet to EXPERIENCE, you are merely DOING it. > It's the moment when you see those actions in the context of the turned-over > lamp and the bemused cat that you experience your fear. > > EricC may clarify; ditto EricS, for that matter. > > All of this is interacting with my reading of ZAMM where Phaedrus seems to > say that you’re the whole experience begins with your fearful perception of > your familiar world, that the thud your heard was already a fearful thud. > Both me and Phaedrus aspire to a monism: is it the same monism? Is it truly > the case that, as I claim, if you've seen one monism, you've seen 'em all. > > By the way, when something like that happens in our house, my wife and > instantly get into an argument about whether to turn on the lights. I > always argue that, if you have any thought that there might be an intruder in > the house, the last thing you want to do is give up you advantage of knowing > the house intimately. It is the nature of our marriage that as the intruder > is tying us to our chairs and gagging us, we will still be arguing about > which of us was right. > > I think she is doing less fear than I am. > > > Nick > > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 2:10 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions > > So, you agree that I *have* fear. Great! What remains is a calculus by which > we can talk about the scoping of the feelings we have. Some feelings will > have larger scopes. Some will have smaller scopes. > > Many of those feelings will be *purely* interoceptive, not merely peri-body, > but intra-body. And a feeling that is purely intra-body is private. And only > those animals that have similar structure will be able to share those > feelings in an inter-subjective way. ... I.e. what it's like to be a bat can > only be shared by bat-like creatures. > > On 8/24/21 11:01 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> I agree that your fear is an organization of your experience of your >> house which would be very hard for us to experience without focusing on you >> and what you are doing. >> >> >> >> I think EricC, Bybee, and I handle this quite well in our analysis of >> the anecdote of “Joe and the Bear”, beginning with pages 8-13 of our review >> of Laird’s book, /Feelings/ >> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260060117_A_BEHAVIORIST_ACCOUNT_OF_EMOTIONS_AND_FEELINGS_MAKING_SENSE_OF_JAMES_D_LAIRD'S_FEELINGS_THE_PERCEPTION_OF_SELF>. >> Your fear is your perception that you grabbed a bat; the brain obviously >> mediates that fear, as it does everything. There is nothing more inherently >> physiological in “fear” than there is in what we are doing right now, you >> and I, as we tickle our keyboards. The brain divides out of the equation. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
