Proving Subjectivity

Proof of such statements is irrelevent. This is what Wittgenstein means when language "goes on holiday".

It is only in philosophy seminars where we are asked to consider the "proof" of statements like "Peter has a pain". In real life such "proof" is never sought....all that matters is what happens next!

Note also that "proof" is not even the criterion for "scientific" statements. After Popper what matters is "falsifiability in principle"...and even this has had to be modified to account for probabilistic statements such as those in quantum mechanics.

The central issue seems therefore to be "communicative coherence" or indeed "rationality" as you have already suggested, but we must remember that such rationality transcends "binary logic" and is formulated within common paradigms serving mutual needs rather than being based on the ideals of objectivity and empricism. Indeed such ideals may be mere projections onto a common social reality.

0 Replies

You are taking the piss fresco.

What does "he's a very,very nice man" mean?When we all know that he's a silly half-wit clunker.

0 Replies

Pupil

I should have added that the fact (for you) that you are communicating at all (with an acquired language) makes the solipstic position "perverse".

0 Replies

Spendius,

Your contribution ( :wink: ) is significant because it illustrates my point.

We are communicating within the narrow paradigm of British comedy and your history of rejection of " academia" . Wider paradigms include locale, religion, nation etc. Problems arise when communicators assume different domains.

0 Replies

"Problems arise when communicators assume different domains."

Perhaps this is why some people charge a person with irrationality when he relies on methods of a different domain (i.e. empiricist vs. rationalist). Of course, at the bottom of things, the selection of a domain (with which to consider the validity of a specific statement) comes down to personal choice (influenced by society and the structure of the brain, of course).

0 Replies

In short, anything goes.

Maybe there are as many puzzles as there are participants, and maybe there is a solution to them all.

0 Replies

Quote:

fresco wrote:

I should have added that the fact (for you) that you are communicating at all (with an acquired language) makes the solipstic position "perverse".

A solipsist can learn language very well, thank-you very much. After all, I have learnt language and for all I know the world is solipsistic. (After all, you have learnt language and for all you know the world is solipsistic.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Pupil wrote:
So what is the correct way to judge statements about external subjective states?

To a large extent it's not a matter of choice, it's automatic; pretending is automatic. It is usually assumed there's a lot more to an observation then what's actually there, i.e. past, future and whole things etc. And that's considered the correct way. That is, anti-solipsism, (and illusion) is the correct way, even though it is ?'more' apparent, if that can be said; You assume these words come from another subject similar to you, all the while knowing, through reflection, that they are your own creation. I assume I am writing to ?'others' all the while not knowing whether or not there are others. There's habituation of perspective.

0 Replies

Twyvel,

Where have learnt this language from if not from others ? And what of other languages with which I see others communicating ?

0 Replies

fresco-

How do you define "academia"?

0 Replies

"You assume these words come from another subject similar to you, all the while knowing, through reflection, that they are your own creation."

I disagree twyvel, normal reflection and intuition causes me to believe that other selves exist, it is only when I follow the restrictions of belief established by rationalism and empiricism that I begin to doubt this.

But where does this notion come from? The notion that a belief must be logically necessary or empirically justified in order to be 'valid'. There is no real way to judge rationalism or empiricism as rules of belief, they simply have to be assumed. So ultimately, any belief about anything (even the belief in solipsism) is at-bottom, based on a self-justifying choice. You choose to accept a certain standard for beliefs, and then judge all your future beliefs off of that standard.

0 Replies

Quote:

fresco wrote:
Where have learnt this language from if not from others ?

We could learn language from a machine or in a dream, i.e. our own projections and/or manifestations. We cannot say that the people or apparent others we interact with are anything more the observations we have of them.

Quote:

And what of other languages with which I see others communicating ?

Characters in a (foreign language) movie don't know any language, what is being said, or anything else. I rightly guess that they have learnt nothing and have no internal world. I assume the opposite of you but I do not know.

Communication is one way; we are only ever talking to ourselves, Smile

but assume otherwise, that is, (if) these words are your creation fresco. You create/manifest them, read them and derive meaning etc..And imagine that you are talking to some other called twyvel etc. somewhere ?'out there'. But is there an ?'out there' and 'others'?

0 Replies

Quote:

Pupil wrote:
I disagree twyvel, normal reflection and intuition causes me to believe that other selves exist,

Might be false though.

There are false beliefs are there not?

If so, there are correct beliefs, beleifs which correspnd to what actually IS, or what is going on as opposted to what appears to be taking place.

Observing is dymanic (creative) not passive.

0 Replies

Spendius,

Take "academia" to refer to your views on the running of some departments. (I agree with you that nepotism and proliferation of vacuous publications often occurs especially outside the "hard sciences" but from the quagmire the odd gem occasionally glints).

0 Replies

Twyvel,

I have come to the view lately that the a priori of "existence" is communication/interaction from which is evoked "self" and "other". Words are cognitive co-ordinators of interaction within the dynamic flux.

The problem as I see it with "cosmic consciousness" under which (the illusion of) all parts are subordinate to a unified whole is that "consciousness" for me is too anthropocentric to be the central principle. Following Capra, it seems that such a principle might be "life" of which "conscious life" is merely one form.

0 Replies

fresco wrote-

Quote:

I agree with you that nepotism and proliferation of vacuous publications often occurs especially outside the "hard sciences" but from the quagmire the odd gem occasionally glints).

Name me one that compares with Frank Harris's

"You're awkwardness excites me my dear."

0 Replies

fresco

Quote:

I have come to the view lately that the a priori of "existence" is communication/interaction from which is evoked "self" and "other". Words are cognitive co-ordinators of interaction within the dynamic flux.

Is consciousness emergent?

Quote:

The problem as I see it with "cosmic consciousness" under which (the illusion of) all parts are subordinate to a unified whole is that "consciousness" for me is too anthropocentric to be the central principle. Following Capra, it seems that such a principle might be "life" of which "conscious life" is merely one form.

Do you mean biocentric?

That's closer to addressing consciousness. Consciousness or ?'what is' is both manifest and unmanifest, that is, both life and non-life, existence and non-existence. Everything is, yet nothing isetc.

But is there life or only the ?'appearance' of life?

0 Replies

fresco

Quote:

I have come to the view lately that the a priori of "existence" is communication/interaction from which is evoked "self" and "other". Words are cognitive co-ordinators of interaction within the dynamic flux.

Is consciousness emergent?

Quote:

The problem as I see it with "cosmic consciousness" under which (the illusion of) all parts are subordinate to a unified whole is that "consciousness" for me is too anthropocentric to be the central principle. Following Capra, it seems that such a principle might be "life" of which "conscious life" is merely one form.

Do you mean biocentric?

That's closer to addressing consciousness. Consciousness or ?'what is' is both manifest and unmanifest, that is, both life and non-life, existence and non-existence. Everything is, yet nothing isetc.

But is there life or only the ?'appearance' of life?

0 Replies

fresco

Quote:

I have come to the view lately that the a priori of "existence" is communication/interaction from which is evoked "self" and "other". Words are cognitive co-ordinators of interaction within the dynamic flux.

In this view is consciousness emergent?

Quote:

The problem as I see it with "cosmic consciousness" under which (the illusion of) all parts are subordinate to a unified whole is that "consciousness" for me is too anthropocentric to be the central principle. Following Capra, it seems that such a principle might be "life" of which "conscious life" is merely one form.

Do you mean biocentric?

That's closer to addressing consciousness. Consciousness or ?'what is' is both manifest and unmanifest, that is, both life and non-life, existence and non-existence. Everything is, yet nothing isetc.

But is there life or only the ?'appearance' of life?

0 Replies

Proving Subjectivity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know