1'st vs 3'rd Person Views of Self

stack of epistemological bricks

----- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• philosophy
• relativistic
• skepticism
• metaphysics
• pure
• reason
• cognition

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Canteatpancakes]

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

*blinks*