Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
StrictlyLogical

Metaphysical status of First Person Experience

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 11/14/2018 at 10:20 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

Find the error (according to Objectivism) in the following:

 

1. Everything existing in reality exists independent of any person's perception, knowledge, consciousness, experience etc.

 

 

Consciousness and the contents of consciousness are also existing within Existence ('reality').  But the contents of a particular  person's consciousness are most definitely not independent of that person's consciousness.   Contents of consciousness refers to many things and includes the first person experience a.k.a. the subjective perspective.  Premise 1 is not self-contradictory just wrong.

Re: the transporter sidebar; thats just the "Ship of Theseus" problem again where every last plank and furnishing has been replaced and all at once rather than a piece at a time.  This paradox attempts to create a dichotomy between matter and form, substance and structure, and people reveal something about themselves when they favor one or the other as the essence of identity.  Paraphrasing Aristotle, there is no form without matter and no matter exists without form so there should be no dichotomy.

In my resolution, the transported is not identical with the transportee.  But ships, rivers and people are all always changing their parts over time even without transporters and we still use the same names for them.  Names are the way to bring a conceptual consciousness to bear on concrete particulars, and our concepts for particular ships, rivers and people allow for and encompass non-essential variation.  A transporter duplicates the traveler with no measurable variation so of course the name should stay the same.  After the practical matter of the name has been settled it is pointless to dwell further on the abstract degree of identity between the before and after versions of the traveler.  Pointless, because the transported person should not be treated any different than if he had not used the transporter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StrictlyLogical

Quote

Now if we look at a DIFFERENT process, one of replacing dying cells, fixing DNA, allowing the body and brain to heal itself, and (possibly one day) achieve indefinite life (until the heat death of the universe), then we have a slow transformation which we already all undergo as we grow and as material enters our bodies and leaves our bodies... this is not the same ... why?  Because of continuity... the being was not destroyed here and rebuilt there... it never died it never stopped functioning as it normally does.

Can you please clarify what you mean by "indefinite life" and why you say it is "possible?"  The "slow transformation" would still have to be occurring like you said.  "Slow" still implies a definite lifespan.  The transformations would have to completely stop for it to be indefinite.  Now maybe it can slowed down to the point that you'd still be around when the heat death of the universe comes about, but it still wouldn't be indefinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL
When you do the DA stuff I don't know who is who, I will just put in my two cents and talk about the particular statements:

When I am asleep, and others are conscious of my existence, do I exist?

Doesn't including a "subjective/objective delineation" necessary to deal with this issue.
Subjectively speaking:
Every item in existence, exists dependent on my consciousness of it
That includes me as one of the items in existence.
I do need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". 

Objectively speaking:
Every item in existence, exists independent of any consciousness of it (mine or others).
That includes me as one of the items in existence.
I do not need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". 

I need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" to know that I exist to have the full subjective perspective, the subjective perspective of self.
But the objective perspective of self comes from the fact of knowing "I was asleep, they know I was here even though I don't"
I can't be aware of the fact that I am not aware of myself.

Also

Philosophically speaking, is there an awareness that is not conscious? (you say "conscious awareness" - seems redundant)
Are you saying subconscious awareness of self? (certainly not unconscious awareness)
My understanding is that philosophically, consciousness means "conscious of". Not the levels of consciousness in psychology.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 2:09 AM, Grames said:

But ships, rivers and people are all always changing their parts over time even without transporters and we still use the same names for them.  Names are the way to bring a conceptual consciousness to bear on concrete particulars, and our concepts for particular ships, rivers and people allow for and encompass non-essential variation.

How much awareness of anything do you have to have for it to be itself?
Split second awareness? or some sort of continuous awareness?
Doesn't induction requires a series of "hits" to one's perception mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...