[Wittrs] Re: Minds, Brains and What There Is

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:46:33 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Cayuse" <z.z7@...> wrote:
>
> SWM wrote:
> > "Cayuse" wrote:
> >> SWM wrote:
> >>> "Cayuse" wrote:
> >>>> "Subjective" and "objective" are /categories/ of the
> >>>> "contents of consciousness", the union of which is
> >>>> therefore /neutral/ in that respect.
> >>>
> >>> What does THAT mean? This, too, reads like mere words to me with
> >>> no underlying meaning. Can you provide one in clearer language?
> >>
> >> The union of two categories falls into neither of those categories.
> >
> > And what does THAT mean in reference to the discussion we are having?
>
> It means that conscious experience is neither subjective nor objective,
> but rather certain of the /contents/ may be so categorized.
>
>

If neither subjective nor objective, then what? If it's "nothing" then what's 
to talk about and how can you even use the term "conscious experience" (our 
latest locution?) to refer to anything at all?

I use "consciousness" and "experience" to refer to the state of being a subject 
(explained nearby). I would tend to use "conscious experience" to reference 
only those instances of experience to which we are paying attention as we are 
having them (though I presume you mean something different).

Anyway, once again, based on the above, your way seems to involve coining a 
term for something you insist cannot be spoken about. So why bother?


> >>> Anyway, if you're speaking about MY use of "consciousness" THAT is
> >>> what I mean, i.e., mind = consciousness.
> >>
> >> Then the title of this thread might just as well have been
> >> "Consciousness, Brains, and What There Is". You can't have it both
> >> ways, Stuart.
> >
> > I use "mind" and "consciousness" interchangeably and have been quite
> > clear on that. You want to talk about "consciousness" but not about
> > "mind". I don't know how you propose to do that unless you want to
> > say we can have consciousness without mind.
>
> My concern is that both terms 'consciousness' and 'mind' are nebulous,


Most terms have degrees of ambiguity to them. That's just how language works. 
In the case of terms referring to mental things, they're doubly ambiguous 
because they demand that we recognize language is working a bit differently 
than it usually does when we are engaged in using referring terms. (See my 
nearby post.)


> and to conflate them is to compound that problem, so I prefer not to.


All you do is introduce hosts of new problems by trying to speak about things 
you yourself insist cannot be spoken about!


> Since you say that for you "mind = consciousness" it should be of little
> concern to you that we use the term 'consciousness' instead of 'mind',
> and thereby avoid compounding the problem.
>


It isn't but everytime I use the terms interchangeably you object! Let's just 
stipulate that's how I use these terms and skip the objections, eh?

>
> >>>>> Certainly we seem to be interested in very different things.
> >>>>> The kind of "consciousness" that seems to intrigue you is
> >>>>> the mystery of the first person perspective in an apparently
> >>>>> third person world.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your portrayal of my view is inaccurate. If the "first-person"
> >>>> category of the "contents of consciousness" stands in contrast to
> >>>> the "third-person" category, then the "contents of consciousness"
> >>>> (being the union of those categories)
> >>>
> >>> What is "the union of those categories"?
> >>
> >> It is the collecting together of the "first-person" category
> >> and the "third-person" category.
> >
> > And how does that affect either my view or my portrayal of your view
>
> You said "The kind of 'consciousness' that seems to intrigue you
> is the mystery of the first person perspective in an apparently third
> person world." This is an inaccurate portrayal of my view, since
> the "contents of consciousness" encompasses both the first-person
> perspective /and/ the third-person world.
>
>

But what does that mean since you have said above that "conscious experience is 
neither subjective nor objective"? Are you now asserting that "the contents of 
consciousness" are that "conscious experience"? This is all jumbled up.


> >>>> is /neutral/ in that respect. If these categories /don't/ stand in
> >>>> contrast to one another then what is their relationship?
> >>>
> >>> What are you talking about?
> >>
> >> The relationship between the "first-person" category
> >> and the "third-person" category.
> >
> > I figured that out already. I'm asking:
> >
> > 1) What this has to do with what we're discussing in this thread?
>
> I was correcting your inaccurate portrayal of my view.
>

As I said, I think there is no way you would acknowledge any portrayal other 
than your precise verbiage as an accurate portrayal. But your verbiage is 
confused and when I try to point that out it only gets more so in your 
responses. Then when I try to restate your views, you cry foul. How can we make 
progress this way if your actual verbiage is incomprehensible and you will 
admit of no revisions that might make them clearer?


>
> <snip>
> > I was making the point that consciousness involves experience
> > which means experiencing what we call experiences and that to be
> > in THAT position is what it means when we speak of being a subject,
> > i.e., having a point of view, etc.
>
> The ideas of experiencer, experiences, and experiencing arise
> together in mutual dependence and inter-relatedness as part of
> the "contents of consciousness".
>

And what has that to do with this discussion?

>
> > And I further noted that being a subject is everywhere and always
> > associated IN OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD with having
> > a physical platform or medium in which the subject is situated (which
> > in creatures like us means to have a working brain in good order).
> > Now to what extent is it a response to these points to assert that first
> > person and third person are 1) categories and 2) stand in opposition
> > to one another? Who questioned either claim and how do such claims
> > bear on anything I've said here about minds, brains and what there
> > is?
>
> We use the terms "first-person" and "third-person" as though they were
> complementary, in which case the "contents of consciousness" encompasses
> them both. But perhaps there is another way of regarding this distinction --
> after all, what is /not/ a part of the "first-person perspective"?

Depends on the context in which we are using "first-person perspective".


>When you
> talk of "the mystery of the first person perspective in an apparently third
> person world", how are you using these terms?
>

How does subjectivity occur in a world that is wholly describable in terms of 
physics?

By "mystery" I mean the sense of unexplainability we get and sometimes stand in 
awe of, when trying to explain what we discover is inexplicable.

By "first person perspective" I mean being a subject, having experience.

By "apparently third person world" I mean a world that can be fully explained 
in physical terms.

SWM


WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrs
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2009