Who Am I?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Who Am I? » Who Am I?

Who Am I?
What's the Point of Philosophy Without This First?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Who Am I?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 10/31/09 - 02:23 PM:	#81
peter rabbit wrote: Yes, I must act as if they are conscious. But I cannot intellectually know it. But you can be certain of it. You can experience my consciousness - you are doing so as you read this. What more could you want? What is the "baffling mystery"?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 10/31/09 - 02:33 PM:	#82
Banno wrote: But you can be certain of it. You can experience my consciousness - you are doing so as you read this. What more could you want? What is the "baffling mystery"? Certainty of anything is probably insanity. After all, we don't even truly control our heart-beats. To be 'certain' that I experience your conscious by reading what you've written seems really flawed logic, and whatever I 'experience' will be determined entirely by my own capacity for experiencing it. I think the burden of proof falls on you here for the moment, so please do explain

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 10/31/09 - 02:40 PM:	#83
hanuma wrote: Banno wrote: But you can be certain of it. You can experience my consciousness - you are doing so as you read this. What more could you want? What is the "baffling mystery"? Certainty of anything is probably insanity. After all, we don't even truly control our heart-beats. To be 'certain' that I experience your conscious by reading what you've written seems really flawed logic, and whatever I 'experience' will be determined entirely by my own capacity for experiencing it. I think the burden of proof falls on you here for the moment, so please do explain Who are you asking? In asking the question you presuppose my consciousness. The notion of proof here is irrelevant. But concerning the burden, if there is one, the only folk who have doubt here seem to be those who have done a wee bit of philosophy. Doubting other minds is a learned habit. Unlearn it.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 10/31/09 - 02:59 PM:	#84
Banno wrote: Who are you asking? In asking the question you presuppose my consciousness. The notion of proof here is irrelevant. But concerning the burden, if there is one, the only folk who have doubt here seem to be those who have done a wee bit of philosophy. Doubting other minds is a learned habit. Unlearn it. I don't think I've "done philosophy" in any conventional sense, although I'm open to the suggestion that my methods of enquiry are conditioned in some aspect. I appreciate your suggestion that my asking presupposes your consciousness, but that's still not 'experiencing' it. I am simply experiencing my reaction to your comment. I only imagine you are conscious at all on the basis that you would seem similar to me in many aspects and I assume that I am conscious. I can take that forward as a general rule to live by, because it conforms to certain patterns, but I couldn't suggest it was a fundamental statement of complete and objective certainty.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 10/31/09 - 03:18 PM:	#85
hanuma wrote: [ I don't think I've "done philosophy" in any conventional sense... I appreciate your suggestion that my asking presupposes your consciousness, but that's still not 'experiencing' it. That you are here engaging in this discussion is sufficient; the habit of doubt is ubiquitous in this forum. As for experiencing my consciousness, what more could there be to this than reading what I write, or contemplating to my erudition. What is missing? What could "objective" mean here?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

peter rabbit
Impossibilihere

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2009
Location: London

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 84

Posted 10/31/09 - 03:19 PM:	#86
Banno wrote: But you can be certain of it. You can experience my consciousness - you are doing so as you read this. What more could you want? What is the "baffling mystery"? As hanuma says, I am not experiencing your consciousness by reading your words, I am experiencing my consciousness. I am certain of your consciousness, but certainty is not experience. The fact that the insane can doubt the consciousness of others (e.g. the capgrass delusion) demonstrates that certainty (at least absolute certainty) is impossible.

peter rabbit
Impossibilihere

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2009
Location: London

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 84

Posted 10/31/09 - 03:24 PM:	#87
Banno wrote: That you are here engaging in this discussion is sufficient; the habit of doubt is ubiquitous in this forum. It is possible to be certain and, at the same time, to not experience something. I am certain, for example that I have a heart, but I have never experienced it. Nor do I doubt that you are conscious, but your consciousness can only be experienced by you. Banno wrote: As for experiencing my consciousness, what more could there be to this than reading what I write, or contemplating to my erudition. What is missing? What could "objective" mean here? I am not experiencing your consciousness but your words, they are not the same. (Incidentally I do have a further twist to add to all this experience / certainty business, but its meaningless unless we can get this out of the way first)

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 10/31/09 - 03:25 PM:	#88
peter rabbit wrote: As hanuma says, I am not experiencing your consciousness by reading your words, I am experiencing my consciousness. I am certain of your consciousness, but certainty is not experience. The fact that the insane can doubt the consciousness of others (e.g. the capgrass delusion) demonstrates that certainty (at least absolute certainty) is impossible. To whom is this addressed? So you are certain of my consciousness, and yet certainty is impossible? Or we can have certainty, but not {i]absolute[/i] certainty... whatever the difference may be. It seems to me that you are confused. That's a good thing.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 10/31/09 - 03:28 PM:	#89
peter rabbit wrote: I I am not experiencing your consciousness but your words, they are not the same. LOL.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

peter rabbit
Impossibilihere

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2009
Location: London

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 84

Posted 10/31/09 - 03:30 PM:	#90
hanuma wrote: Hmm, is this the sense of something never ending (or beginning) when trying to find exactly where you are looking from, where you ultimately go round in circles. For instance, "I" know "I" am writing, "I" knows "I" know that "I" am writing, "I" knows that "I" knows that "I" know that "I" am writing etc. etc. Yes and no. It is the experience of this, not the clever linguistic trick of it. hanuma wrote: If so it is part of the nature of 'observation', within the uniquely human development (or expansion) of consciousness, as it seems that one cannot observe something without creating a unique consciousness of where that observation emanates from. Rather like placing mirrors in front of everything that is seen. A neat trick of the mind, rather than any new ontological(?) basis for understanding the self. I'd say this describes the mind very well; but I am saying that there is an experience of the mind that is not of the mind at all, and therefore timeless and spaceless (i.e. not a position from "where that observation comes from" or any kind of reflection). hanuma wrote: So I'm not sure I can agree that "the more you think about consciousness, the less you experience it", because that process of thinking about something so self-involved from an imagined external perspective is exactly what this 'observed' consciousness is about. I would say that an uncorrupted child of four, not the greatest thinker in the world, is more conscious than most university professors. I like your style hanuma.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.