Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Essay: Without Infinite Regress

Expand Messages
  • Edgar Owen
    Andy, I agree completely with your post with one caveat. When you say I said we are not self conscious, that s not really what I said though I agree with the
    Message 1 of 51 , Dec 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Andy,

      I agree completely with your post with one caveat. When you say I said we are not self conscious, that's not really what I said though I agree with the thought behind your statement. My position is that we are self conscious, but that the self we are conscious of is a cognitive model of self, which is what you are saying.

      You are correct in that all we know of the world, including our self, is in fact our mental models of such, rather than the thing itself in any objective Kantian sense.

      Edgar



      On Dec 1, 2008, at 12:53 PM, andy_morleyuk wrote:

      --- In evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@. ..> wrote:
      >
      [....]
      > The error is quite simple, it is the false assumption that 
      > consciousness is self-consciousness, which I've debunked a number of 
      > times on this forum.... When one falsely assumes that consciousness 
      > is self consciousness, then one is stuck with infinite regress,

      I'll buy that Edgar. In my own terms, just as we don't directly 
      experience other people, but only interact with them through 
      models that we hold in our minds, so we the same applies to
      the model we hold of ourselves. 

      We don't interact directly with our own selves any more than 
      we interact directly with other selves. It all comes indirectly 
      through sensory stimuli of one kind or another. So consciousness 
      is just consciousness as you say. 

      Self-consciousness, if anyone needs to call it that, is just the
      operation and maintenance of one particular model that we 
      have out of a host of such models that we maintain of the
      people who we encounter. The fact that this one particular model
      happens to be of the entity that it relates to is neither here nor 
      there. It probably uses the same mechanism, or a similar 
      mechanism or capability, to models that we hold for other people.

      Your statement that we are not self-conscious equates to my
      statement that we do not experience ourselves directly.

      However - there is a 'flickerbook effect' which creates the
      opposite illusion, and that we experience other people
      directly too. That's what gets some people confused.

      Andy


    • Mark Hubey
      ... To be strictly correct, that is impossible. One can only talk about how one feels and there is no guarantee that anyone can actually feel the same
      Message 51 of 51 , Dec 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        andy_morleyuk wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Really, to communicate and understand the world of the subjective,
        > you need art and literature. That is the best language we have for
        > addressing such things at the present stage of Human development.
        >

        To be strictly correct, that is impossible. One can only talk about how
        one feels
        and there is no guarantee that anyone can actually feel the same subjective
        feelings.

        This is nothing but silly circularity. The only thing you accomplish,
        thru a long
        laborius and wasteful exercise is to let people know that they seem to have
        things in common.

        There are lots of ways of doing it without art (painting-sculpture) or
        literature (professional lies).

        To be sure, if everything is art, then by definition science is art. If
        everything is a
        narrative (literature) then physics is literature. We just wasted months
        on this topic.

        --
        Regards,

        H.M. Hubey
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.