1'st vs 3'rd Person Views of Self

[KennyReddwooddforest]

Hello Pyrrho, Thank you for subscribing back. You might remember me from a few years ago, I'm Nicola. You are one of the very few who knows about Rudolf Steiner. I agree with you, we can not break out of our subjective perspective when we do any abstract thinking. We always come from our personal view as a living being who is material in nature. But we can accept eternity as a fact even though it reaches out of our material perception. My dog leaves all of this standing in the open. Ha.

[kantfail]

I'm confused. I was drawn in at the start cause I agree about Decartes being wrong i.e. we perceive therefore we are. Then there's the repetitious patterns but materialism only comes from those patterns, are we just lucky that we experience a coherent pattern or is it inevitable because we would not be able to remember anything else and without memories and coherence there is no self. Someone please set me straight.

[pyrrho314]

@kantfail : if you got that far there is nothing else to get. It's just that as we progress epistemologically through this we don't just live at the tip, in this world we call justifiably the "material world" of our sensations of "material facts"... the foundation remains, and there is a limit on 3'rd person knowledge due to the fact it's really ALWAYS coming up from this foundation of 1'st person knowledge... we only model a hypothetical-to-us 3'rd perspective.

[kantfail]

@pyrrho314 sorry I was drunk the other night. I am now as well but what I was trying to say was materialism is a step to far which you seem to agree with but you don't commit to.

[pyrrho314]

@kf : I don't think it's a step too far the way I define it, which is rooted in the original definitions... yes, it's too far to say what exists beyond perception, and that type of "objective materialism" is too far. But I use the language and history of "material facts", fact about things which matter, and a spectrum of criteria regarding what matters and really matters and why.

That is not too far. The study of material facts IS materialism. Objective materialism is just a failed theory.

[masluxx]

@pyrrho314 my question is why do people try to explain something dynamic like this with a linear models? It seems to me feedback systems play a major role in thought and perception. There is a feed back system between what we think and what we experience. There is a feedback back system between something we think and other things we think. Finding out what governs these feedback systems i think is the next step in understanding.

[shunyotube]

This is cool.

[DELLBIRD]

I perceive, therefore I am.

Yes!

I think that I am thinking, therefore I am.

OR EVEN

Due to my thinking, I am!

In this way I think that the assertion can/should only be made in relation to a direct action, or to us DOING something presently active; to which Descartes - I think therefore I am - seems a distantly passive descriptor or analysis, which when perceived in this way appears to necessitate a more primary some one/thing that is currently doing the analysis and arriving at an answer.

[MJRockX]

WoW, pyrrho, you just nailed it I think. clasical Pragmatisim would however might suggest the same structure given in the sence that these levels of certainty contain in them descriptions of preceptionsl awareness....

[pyrrho314]

thanks, I think this is a solid approach. But there are a lot of messy questions, e.g., the question of awareness, which is another angle on the question of will I think, and where or how those are established.

We use "aware" in different senses... in one sense a baby is aware of the object before him, but as he just sees patches of colors and can't be sure even if it's a picture or real thing or dream, in another sense, he's unaware of it. It's a tricky thing to sort out.

[TJae1]

I'm lost ~... have 2 consider this 1; Pyrrho, ever considered a PHD?

[matrixcmitech]

1. a real-time perception capability 2. the latency of critical thought processes 3. the feedback loop to the real-time perception experience? 4. constructing good models, taking some heavy lifting out of the real-time perception capability 5. leaving us more real-time for the experience of perception itself which adds detail to the models 6. testing the models we constructed 7. goto 1?

[Bley121]

Have you thought about conceptually adopting modal of (input/process/output) IT, relativity (flat, geometry), quantum (hilbert space, gates (gears), states) into your modal and do something specific like market analysis? It might be interesting to propose a project with Nick, Matt, Karen for their experiences +talents like Lord.. omg omg, i'm a troll, noooo!.

[pyrrho314]

interesting but I don't know about that... market analysis

[MCTMD1]

Excellent video! Well explained. I think this is at the core of our discussion as well. This is a central disagreement between us. Existence has primacy over consciousness! Perception is always perception of someTHING. Consciousness depends on existence, not the other way around. You see, our philobuilding's first floors differ. I think the subjective self comes after the realization of existence, identity and causality. Epistemology and metaphysics are based on these.

[pyrrho314]

we have dream like perceptions that are not nec obviously of and something... you'd have to demonstrate that. A perception is a perception, what it is "of" is a matter of interpretation. "Daddy I drew something!"... what's it "of", "a horse... no, a donkey"

[MCTMD1]

No!!! Those are concepts, which are fallible. Percepts, all relate to physical entities. All valid concepts, whether primary, like "table", secondary, like "furniture", or very abstract, like "philosophy", are based on percepts, physical entities. All actions are action of entities. It is these entities, causing percepts, that are the basis of all cognition.

[pyrrho314]

what is your empirical evidence about percepts?

[MCTMD1]

Percepts are self-evident, outside the province of proof, because they are a precondition of proof. Proof consists of reducing an idea back to the senses. These sensations are automatically grouped into percepts, such as a table, but once I call it that, it's a concept. These percepts themselves, the foundation for all subsequent knowledge, precede any mental process and are the base of all cognition, and are therefore unchallengeable.

[pyrrho314]

in the material model, consciousness, viewed from outside, is of existence... in the lower base epistemology which is part of the human condition, that whole model is itself OF consciousness.

[MCTMD1]

It's of matter. Perception and consciousness is a by-product. The physical universe has organized itself into breathing thinking beings.

[MCTMD1]

Let me add that I believe much of our metaphysics is similar; I believe our ideas are congruent when it comes to cosmology, the subatomic realm, relativity....I like skeptical relativism! But not as a basis, more like a good exercise in pushing the limits of what we know and how we know it. You've got an impressive mind. However, for the purposes of proper morality and politics, the sooner the masses of the ignorant learn about objective reality first, the better. What do you think about that?

[pyrrho314]

yes, you have to learn about the objective world first

absolutely, it's faith in the objective reality of the world, the presence of logical patterns in a real universe, which leads to realization that this pattern is ultimately complex, multivariate, relativistic, and give you only approximation to work with.

superstitious spiritual --> objective --> skeptical --> relativistic -> spiritual again

however, each step is subject to improvement, rather than objective, "realist".

[MCTMD1]

The nature of thought is such that reality must exist for it to occur. I can't get around that. Thought is conceptual integration and manipulation for reasoning, based on percepts, which, I know, can only be made when sense organs causally interact with matter or energy. No faith, whatsoever. No new amount or type of knowledge can change this, even if all is made of probability wave functions; here, in this reference frame and size, reality is objective. And reason, our only way of knowing.

[MCTMD1]

I find no root in existence for the terms spirit or soul, so I don't really know what you mean by spiritual. Are you calling me superstitious? Are you saying a relativistic reality(ies) is(are) more real than the objective one? I am, at this point, wiling to concede the possibility that some things are relative and maybe small things act pseudocausally, but, imo, our one objective reality is the foundation on which to build a healthy epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and politics.

[pyrrho314]

... I'm not calling you superstitious, if I were to place you on that line (which is just an arbitrary measure), you are post-objective, you apply skeptical and relative reasoning, but you hold onto the objectivist definitions and metaphors... I do think that a relativistic view of material reality is more advanced than the objective one.

my point was that the superstitious need to become objective before worrying too much about skepticism, but then again, learn it as "realism".

[MCTMD1]

I misunderstood the line. Plus I remember now a video of you talking about spirituality. Listen, in my life, I have always been objective and honest, got to college, read the religions, the sciences, a little philosophy. I was all quantum-relativity-string consciousness and shit, thinking the world is not subject to human intelligibility. Got busy with career, then for the last 3 years have been reading and no other thinker has made more sense to me than AR. As far as how we view gain knowledge.

[MCTMD1]

And how philosophy moves morality moves history. Capitalism, atheism, individual rights, all good, practically. The world needs to remember why the US is great. Now, someone who gets the basics, like you or me, can now work out the more advanced aspects of reality and consciousness, with new theories. They are good, but they do not change the way we gain knowledge and survive in this world. In fact, we depend on objectivity to learn about QM and relativity.

[MCTMD1]

Now, spirituality as recognition of the worlds beauty and complexity? Cool. Sure, sometimes it feels like an enlightened release from samsara, but it's just wisdom. Why, SPIRITual? Realism? Are you saying that objectivity and then skeptical relativism are reality oriented and the superstitious aren't?

[pyrrho314]

I'm just saying you exist before you know about it.

[MCTMD1]

I would have to agree with that. But, you know about existence before you know about yourself.

[Canteatpancakes]

This may be the best example of a constructive conversation I have ever seen presented in the text comments of youtube...

*blinks*

[0ThouArtThat0]

Are you familiar with the phenomenological tradition, as laid down by Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc? Here is a great intro: watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0

Instead of beginning with the ego as your model does, Heidegger begins with our being-in-the-world. First we are of the world itself, and only after a certain kind of reflection (the Cartesian kind) do we come to a sense of ourselves as solipsistic subjects confronted by an objective world. Originally, there is only a sense of "being there."

[0ThouArtThat0]

Let me know what you think if you get a chance to watch that series... Husserl remained Cartesian for most of his life, but was nevertheless trying to save the world of experience from the abstractions of objectivist science, which it seems you are trying to do as well. Husserl thought that many scientific concepts had forgotten their roots in everyday experience, and so functioned only to alienate humanity from nature rather than explicate our relationship to it, as proper science should.

[pyrrho314]

I am familiar with it, I am not a phenomenologist in the sense of being in that school, but I am obviously phenomenological in a more general sense because I say we only study phenomenon... very loosely.

I have a bias against the history of "academic skepticism", I do not like the Hume's, the Academic Skeptics that nihilists.

[pyrrho314]

Hume, otoh, did say, what the hell lets accept what's apparent... that's the pyrrhonistic tradition, acceptance of appearnace, but we don't invalidate them first, which would be silly.

My impression of existentialism and phenomenology both is they are still closer steps to pyrrhonistic skepticism, but still coming from the somewhat nihilistic perspective... so I agree with little fragments, but disagree with a lot of paragraphs.

[TRAGlCHERO]

Why couldn't our perceptions act as form of feedback loop? With each successive perception it seems we alter the meaning of those perceptions in the future. Otherwise, everything would just be undifferentiated chaos and not the the fine grained world of meaning that we experience in the first person. I think the assumption here is that perception is static when in fact it is always already in the process of biting its own tail.

[pyrrho314]

I think that's more or less exactly how they and we act.

we take in perceptions, and output perceptions we can then take as input, using memory, short, medium and long term. thus I think even "imaginary" or "dream" perceptions are really also from the consistent "reality associated" perceptions, ultimately, just not so directly.

[RationalEmotive]

one easy chart to deconstruct.

[pyrrho314]

I should hope so, that's the point... reveal any weakness as accurately as possible... good luck!

[windham666]

so, what is below "perceptions happen to us?" "objects"?

[pyrrho314]

we can never know, that's skepticism... the best we get is models which are functionally equivalent to certain subsets of what is below that... thus to be distinct, I'd suggest calling that "beyond" and ask "what is beyond".

[windham666]

but certainly the perceptions that happen to us can have real causes -a baseball for example, about to smash into my face. that ball is below/before/happening

then my perception of it happens. and while this perception might be a model version of the ball, it is still going to smash my face. why is it not an object (real and of perception in this example)?

[pyrrho314]

windham... that ball is not objectively certain the following sense... each of it's particles is quantum-blurry, lets call it, jumping around, breaking small scale continuity with discrete versions.

however, there are concrete patterns in probabilistic behaviors, like the bell curve, so with billions of particles, it all averages out. The ball approaches something akin to objective reality, approximating it, approaching it asymptoticaly. You do not achieve it, but you get something as useful.

[CousinoMacul]

Why can't the "self in the 3rd person" be on BOTH the top and the bottom?  (Sort of like how the A can be both the lowest and the highest card in the deck.)

Or is "the law of non circularity" inviolable in prrrho's world? :-P

[pyrrho314]

it is an engineering principles, the stronger things as bottom, are the foundation. A foundation has to hold up itself AND the building, the building, only the floors/materials above it... to take something weaker, strong enough only to hold the floor above it, and put it lower, is bad engineering.

[pyrrho314]

where do you suppose I get this metephor? from the real world... but evidently I could reason this metaphysics out, and assume it before building anything... yet... it would seem I started building top heavy things and learned the hard way, from experience... why did I waste this time, if this is metaphysics, why did I not just use it to begin with... damn! what was I thinking?

[pyrrho314]

what you know a priori from pure reason, I had to learn through experience. Perhaps god doesn't love me, didn't give me the faculty... :( and :p

[fijberto]

Very interesting video Pyrrho.  I'm looking forward to more videos on this topic.