For one, imagine if folks were interested in others persons' views simply because they find other people and their differences interesting. — Terrapin Station
The ‘regard’ is the ‘mode’ in the sense I meant it. — I like sushi
This doesn't follow. A belief that the distinction of another mind is just a model is not the same as saying that only I exist. I'm quite convinced the external world exists (I actually think it is impossible to genuinely doubt that), I just don't agree that the distinctions we draw are real outside of our minds. — Isaac
So what you're saying is that other people exist, it's just that our talk of other minds is itself a model, and the model can be disputed. You're disputing the model that the experiences of other minds is inaccessible. That subjectivity is fundamentally different from objectivity. And thus you disagree with the hard problem of consciousness, that it's a "hard" problem. — Marchesk
The distinction being one between the appearance of the world to us, and how the world actually is. — Marchesk
So close, it's hardly worth quibbling, but I don't think other people exist either. I think the real world, all that is the case, exists. Any division of that into separate objects, forces, etc are just models, just one way of subdiving things, among other options. — Isaac
Yes, only I don't see how there can possibly be a way the world really is. Any 'ways' it could be require distinction (shape and form, even if only figurative) and I cannot see any convincing way in which distinction can be the case without anyone doing the distinguishing. — Isaac
But then how does the subdividing happen? — Marchesk
What's making the distinctions? — Marchesk
Based on what? — Marchesk
Doesn't that imply a pre-existing order?
And if there is a pre-existing order, then we have some basis for inferring it. — Marchesk
went through this earlier in the thread. Just because I don't believe in any objective division of the world into parts, doesn't mean I think it's homogeneous. — Isaac
I'm asking how the pattern matching occurs in the flux of things. — Marchesk
In any case, that sets up a dichotomy between the flux and the pattern matching, because we can ask how our patterns match up with the flux of the world. — Marchesk
We cannot measure subjectivity by objective means.
The experience itself is inaccessible, because you don't have someone else's pain. — Marchesk
I don't think other people exist either. — Isaac
What on earth does "measuring subjectivity" have to do with knowing what it's like to experience X? — creativesoul
Experience is subjective. — I like sushi
...the scientific approach has no means of dealing with subjective phenomenon... — I like sushi
You ‘know’ subjectively yet you don’t know how you know. — I like sushi
Phenomenology isn't directly concerned with empirical sciences or the naturalistic attitude.
I'm confused as to how patterns can be recognized or in error if there is no pattern matcher or mind or self or whatever we want to call the organizing principle that makes sense of the flux (finds patterns). — Marchesk
What on earth could be wrong with saying "other people exist"? — creativesoul
People do use ‘mode’ to mean ... well, mode. It is the manner/regard/approach used. — I like sushi
Phenomenology is the investigation into the ‘modes’ (intentionality) that ‘give aboutness’. — I like sushi
What on earth could be wrong with saying "other people exist"?
— creativesoul
Depends what you mean by 'wrong'. — Isaac
I've no issue at all with saying that. Do you? — creativesoul
I don't think other people exist... — Isaac
If it is the case that you don't think other people exist, then there must be something wrong with you saying "other people exist". — creativesoul
Give me an reason why they would still recognise you as one thing and me as another. Or even you as one thing and the chair you're sitting on as another.
Because you occupy different location in space, and especially because you seem to move infependently from the forces of nature. I guess I could say then, because you seem unnatural. — Zelebg
Every atom, occupies a different location in space from every other, so that alone doesn't provide any grounds, nit to mention the fact that 3d space seems to be a model which itself is open to question.
Which are 'the forces of nature' and which are my movements, prior to identifying me as an entity?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.