[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:05:26 +0100
Bruce wrote:
> There is a vast scientific literature on 1st person perception. It is
> every bit as objective as the behavioral research. This mistake, not
> sure it is yours, is to think of perception as some inner event only
> present to the person. A person's reports about his world is piece of
> data no different from what he did that day.
There may be vast scientific literature on reports of first person perception,
and language being a aspect of overt behavior, such studies are objective.
> What concerns me is in the effort to defend a non-physicalistic concept
> of consciousness (which I share), one imagines a private realm apart
> from the physical.
I think the problem with the idea of a private realm is that it implies
a privileged observer (/owner), and there is no such observer (/owner),
there is only the realm. Some aspects of this realm fall into the
category "physical" whilst other aspects fall into the category "mental".
Although this realm might rightly be described as non-physical,
it would just as rightly be described as non-mental.
> Consciousness is neither a private place or a special substance.
Agreed.
> It is an attribution made to others and ourself under certain
> circumstances.
With the concept of self firmly established in that realm, primarily
as the idea of being a physical organism in the world (the "you are
here" sign on the mental map), that realm is conceptually assigned
to the self as though the self were the "subject of consciousness".
In this sense I agree that consciousness is an attribution made to
ourselves, and by virtue of their similarity, to other people too.
Bruce wrote:
> Cayuse wrote:
>> A belief that other people have hidden "mental states" is instinctive
>> in our species (empathy),
>
> As I understand it, empathy is a process in which we verbalize what it
> is to be that person before is, what's going with him etc... This
> process need not be thought of looking into a hidden place or that "what
> is its to be him" is a state. I can grasp and communicate your anger
> without locating it.
I understand the word empathy to refer to the kind of mental state best
described by the statement "I can imagine how you must be feeling".
Other related posts:
