🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5a9m75$a9f@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, mvcs@gramercy.ios.com (Jeff
Baldwin) wrote:

> [...]
> >experience. this experience is necessarily subjective. there is no such
> >thing as objective experience. all scientific fact is explanation, a theory
> [...]
> 
> Let me try to make a point. Your experience is objective to me in a
> sense. If all there is is molecules and chemicals in dynamic
> operation, then any experience you have is mere alternate
> representation of an identity. Looking at you, then, I should with PET
> or MRI or somesuch

I'm putting my money on "somesuch"...

> be able to watch your experiences in an appropriate
> representation displayed on a monitor. If you pontificate abstractly,
> I see that as well. If all there is to the experience (no matter how
> etherial) is complex physical structures in time-dynamic interaction,
> then the pictures I see are all there is. Ergo, your experience is an
> objective fact. 

Ergo nuthin'. You didn't need to convince me of the objective reality of
my experience. I knew that the moment I had it.

> Now, if I turn the monitor so you can see it, then
> your experience is objectively represented for you as well. And we can
> then both agree that the factual, objective reality is lodged between
> your ears.

That's a good trick. Of course we can agree that something correlated with
my experience was "lodged between my ears". If I'm thinking of a dog,
though, and I don't see a dog on the monitor, you're going to have a hard
time getting me to agree that the "objective reality" of what I'm _now_
seeing on the screen and the "objective reality" of what I _was_ thinking
of were the same. So you have yet to convince me that my thought of the
dog was actually "lodged between my ears".

Then again, I don't need to be (don't think even _could_ be) convinced of
this in the way that you propose. Just show me what's on the screen, and
ask: now, that thought you had -- what was it more like? What I'm showing
you on the screen? Or was there actually a dog in your brain?

> Now suppose that a brainstate seen on a monitor could be replicated in
> another system other than yours. Except for a spatial difference, they
> would be essentially identical. Would you be able to be conscious in
> two places at the same time? 

Would _I_ be able? Only if _I_ could _be_ in two places at the same time,
could I be able to be (or do) _anything_ in two places at the same time. 
 
> If the systems were identical enough and had similar i/o in terms of
> sensory and nutrient stimulation, then at least for awhile (a second
> or two perhaps) the two systems would remain in substantially similar
> structure and dynamics. Why would one system be expected to develop
> differently from the other as time progressed, though, and by how
> much? Suppose a test was developed whereby the two "yous" were asked
> to think of a random act of will, and then perform that act. Would
> both brainstates choose the same random act of will? 
> 
> Has anyone ever asked these types of questions? Are there refs or
> answers?

Well, yeah, Dennett does, doesn't he? I think he'd say you're tripping
over your "I's" and "yous", as you proceed on the assumption that you have
to _locate_ them before being able to describe them as "identical",
"non-identical, etc.

But there aren't any _good_ answers, i don't think. 


> >> > 3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
> >> > itself?
> >>      3) I'm also unclear on this one.  Do you mean to say that we like to
> >> think that our subjective experiences are somehow representative of an
> >> objective universe?  I guess I don;t understand what it means to
> >> "objectify" something.  
> 
> >me neither.
> 
> If the systems of purely physical structure in dynamic operation
> produce nothing but subjective experience, I should think that the
> systems would be "happy" with this state of affairs seeing that it is
> the natural state of the system. (I'm completely unable to phrase this
> to my satisfaction, so humor me for a second.) 

Really? I think that was phrased perfectly. I mean, if you can't be
satisfied with being happy, how are you going to be satisfied?

> If there is no
> objective reality to the experiencer who does the experiencing, then
> how did the concept of "objective" come to be? Why?

People have "objected", "subjected", "projected", "rejected" and so on for
so long -- these concepts have been thrown around <heh heh> so much --
that it's hard to say exactly how they came to be.

For the most part, though, i think it just makes us more "happy" to
believe that there is an "objective-out-there" distinct from the
"subjective-in-here", because that way we're not alone. "Dog" was on to
something, though, when he rejected (or seemed to reject) the distinction
as being of any significance. You can't have a thought without a thinker,
a smell without a smeller, a sight without a seer. Which just means that
we're not really alone. Perhaps just a little too close for comfort.

-- 
smisch@tiac.net (emoticons implied by context)

'Where in the world are lunatics allowed to bathe naked in the moonlight?' -- R.D. Laing