Apologies for some of the things I said yesterday. Your grief matters to me, my grief matters to you. This should be enough common ground to keep a reasonable discussion on my part from now on.

Ahhh, but if I ask you to prove your existence to me, there is a logical argument I could make that you are as much a part of an elaborate simulation as deadpool is. Claiming to have self awareness is one thing, proving it to others in a way they can definitively KNOW the truth of your self is another thing entirely. So for pragmatism’s sake, the self awareness argument doesn’t work.

“NKBJ, the pure truth is that none of us are persons. The human truth is that humans define personhood. This isn’t a case of what should be, it’s a case of how it is. Humans define personhood in beings and entities around them. Some have even argued for rivers to be classed as persons to afford them the rights of persons to be free of pollution. Self-awareness isn’t what grants personhood, self aware beings define personhood. That isn’t the same as saying personhood requires self awareness in the person being considered by a self aware entity.” - Mark Dennis

If you’ll scroll up and see my reply to T Clark and NKBJ perhaps you’d like to weigh in on this argument.

if I ask you to prove your existence to me, there is a logical argument I could make that you are as much a part of an elaborate simulation as deadpool is — Mark Dennis

But that is empty sophistry. There are a lot of people who join here and ask questions like 'how do we know reality exists?' Unfortunately life is too short to re-invent the whole of philosophy from first principles. . We have to acknowledge the reality of at least suffering, even to begin to philosophise. And the question, 'how do you know you're suffering?', is pointless, as the fact of suffering is apodictic - it's not something we can argue away.

there is not a single uniform truth definition within philosophy. — Mark Dennis

That's because the more general a term, the harder to define. It's easy to define hammers, oranges, or rain-drops, but fiendishly hard to define consciousness, love or God.

In any case, in the grand traditions of philosophy, there is a conception of Truth with a capital T, which is noticeably absent from modern analytical philosophy - it's first victim, you might say. And that's because it sounds suspiciously religious to modern ears. In Indian philosophy, it's 'Sat' (सत्), meaning 'what truly is', and furthermore, it is not generally known by the hoi polloi, the uneducated worldling, due to their attachment to the illusory domain of sensuality and self-hood.

I think you are both engaging in the topic of truth without realizing that there is not a single uniform truth definition within philosophy. Pragmatism defines truth very differently than the rest of philosophy.

NKBJ You are talking and describing or at least framing it thusly, as Pure Truth. T Clark you are framing your interpretation as pragmatic truth. — Mark Dennis

I have been called a Pragmatist. I have called myself a small-p pragmatist. What I am is a T Clarkist. I calls em like I sees em. I don't reject other philosophers out of hand, but I don't grant them any authority just because they've been around for 2,500 years. I pick and choose the ones I find helpful. To the extent possible, I express my thoughts and beliefs in everyday language.

Outside of a human universe of discourse non of us have intrinsic value to the universe because we have created value and meaning. To the universe, none of us is a person. None of us is being morally considered by the universe, except by each other. So ethics lies solely in the realm of a human universe of discourse and so it must have a function for humans. — Mark Dennis

I agree with this.

"What I am is a T Clarkist." Great Response! Very in line with this "The rule of the animal kingdom is Kill or be killed, the rule of the human kingdom is define or be defined." - Thomas Szasz

I don't call that small p pragmatism, I'd call it Adaptive Pragmatism. That however is for a different discussion entirely and one I'm still trying to work out how to format.

I don't call that small p pragmatism — Mark Dennis

That's because you're not one. Those of us who are, do.

“That's because you're not one. Those of us who are, do.” not quite sure I understand what you mean by this?

You’re not a small-p pragmatist. If you were, you would call it small-p pragmatism.

I guess I’m just confused as to how small p pragmatism is any different than just Pragmatism in your eyes.

I don't think you are saying that babies don't feel, perceive, or experience. Or are you? Is "sentience" the right word? Do you mean self-aware or conscious? — T Clark

To feel, perceive or experience subjectively requires a mentality that babies may not have.

We know that people do not recall much prior to at least the toddler period--and then memories are pretty spotty until we're talking about, say, a five or six year-old.

We don't know if that's because mentality in general isn't sufficiently developed until then, or if it's just something inadequate about memory prior to that point.