ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/18/85)
>> There is nothing in: >> Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence >> which rules out the existence of subjective truth. [LAURA] > >Can you call it "subjective truth"? What basis can you use for calling it >"true"? Subjective BELIEFS, certainly. No, subjective TRUTH -- incorrigible and immediate self knowledge of one's own internal mental state. Like pain (even imagined pain) is still pain. Or visions (even hallucinations) are still visions. Awareness, love, etc.. likewise. Whether or not you chose to attribute reality to such entities, the fact is, they are viewed in most philosophical and psychological schemes as possessing reality, in some cases greater than that of rocks. Note that even `real physical' objects must first be manifested inside your so-called mind as internal subjective images before you can be aware of the original physical object. In other words, any objective fact must first become a subjective fact before YOU can know it. >> It is simply a definition >> of (objective) knowledge. If you want to include subjective knowledge in >> this definition, you will have a different belief in what constitutes >> ``sufficient evidence'' than most objectivists. If you merely want to >> believe that this defines objective knowledge (and thus should be >> restates as: >> Objective knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence >> you may then be able to formulate a corallery such as: >> Subjective knowledge is true belief for which there cannot be >> sufficient evidence. >You can't just stick in the word "true" in that corollary just because you >feel like it. Who else can tell you what you are sensing besides yourself? -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/21/85)
>>> There is nothing in: >>> Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence >>> which rules out the existence of subjective truth. [LAURA] >>Can you call it "subjective truth"? What basis can you use for calling it >>"true"? Subjective BELIEFS, certainly. [ROSEN] > No, subjective TRUTH -- incorrigible and immediate self knowledge of > one's own internal mental state. [ELLIS] 1) Thank you for admitting the limitations of your subjectivity. They involve knowledge of your "own internal mental state", not of the rest of the world. 2) Often this "incorrigible and immediate self knowledge" is blatantly at odds with what is really going on in your brain. Like when hidden motivations prompt certain actions on your part. People often do not admit to themselves (perhaps not until much later) the real reasons that they may take some actions. With this in mind, you have no "knowledge", you have only subjective beliefs. > Like pain (even imagined pain) is still pain. Or visions (even > hallucinations) are still visions. Awareness, love, etc.. likewise. Yes, indeed, they physically represent themselves inside the brain. They may involve some "bad connection" (bad is too judgmental a word) in the brain that that believes that an imagined vision is a real vision, coming through the "input ports" of the eyes from the outside world. And we've already gone through phantom pains, so I won't repeat. > Whether or not you chose to attribute reality to such entities, the > fact is, they are viewed in most philosophical and psychological schemes > as possessing reality, in some cases greater than that of rocks. Fine. I find such "schemes" to be completely bogus if what they are saying is that these "entities" represent anything other than internal thoughts within the brain which may have no correlation to reality. > Note that even `real physical' objects must first be manifested inside > your so-called mind as internal subjective images before you can be > aware of the original physical object. Yes, indeed. > In other words, any objective fact must first become a subjective > fact before YOU can know it. Thus, because you now admit that the mind contains external images gleaned from reality outside the brain as well as internally developed images which may be interpretations (faulty or not) of outside events or just imaginations, you need a method to distinguish between faulty interpretation of external events by the brain (either due to misconceptions about something really external or something completely imagined) and accurate interpretations of real external events. One such method, one which allows serious scrutiny and careful thorough analysis is a method that has been bandied about and tarred in this very newsgroup. I'll leave it to the readers to recall the name of that method. >>You can't just stick in the word "true" in that corollary just because you >>feel like it. > Who else can tell you what you are sensing besides yourself? What makes you so sure that in all cases, without a means of verification, you are accurately sensing yourself? Another important reason why a method of verification is necessary to gain knowledge. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/24/85)
>> Who else can tell you what you are sensing besides yourself? > >What makes you so sure that in all cases, without a means of verification, >you are accurately sensing yourself? Another important reason why a method >of verification is necessary to gain knowledge. Rich, all knowledge is obtained through sensation. How do you verify that your observation of the verification equipment is accurate? How do you determine that your sensation of your test tubes and monitors is valid, more valid than the internal sensation you are measuring? >> Whether or not you chose to attribute reality to such entities, the >> fact is, they are viewed in most philosophical and psychological schemes >> as possessing reality, in some cases greater than that of rocks. > >Fine. I find such "schemes" to be completely bogus if what they are saying >is that these "entities" represent anything other than internal thoughts >within the brain which may have no correlation to reality. I really think you are missing the point here. The very fact that you use the word "thought" illustrates the confusion. There is no such physical entity as a thought; there are only chemical reactions, neural connections, holographic patterns. You can correlate these patterns with what someone describes as a thought, but the thought itself, just as the sensation you call "blue", only exists within subjective experience. You seem to be limiting reality in two ways; one, more trivial, is the implication that reality is out there, but what happens internally isn't real. I don't think you really meant to say that, although I think it is indicative of a limited world view. The other way is that you do not consider thoughts and sensations to be real, but I consider that to be quite arbitrary; they are consistent and persistent. Perhaps we merely have a definition problem; just what do you mean by *real*? All knowledge is obtained through sense perceptions; taste, smell, touch, sight, hearing, pain, hunger, heat, coldness, gravitational orientation. Just what these sensations feel like is something that we know only by experiencing them; no objective description can tell us what they feel like. And from these feelings we form a model of the world in which we are embedded, but to argue that the model is real takes quite a leap of faith, and to argue that the sensations are not real seems to me rather perverse. Is knowledge real? -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/26/85)
>> No, subjective TRUTH -- incorrigible and immediate self knowledge of >> one's own internal mental state. [ELLIS] > >1) Thank you for admitting the limitations of your subjectivity. They involve >knowledge of your "own internal mental state", not of the rest of the world. >2) Often this "incorrigible and immediate self knowledge" is blatantly at odds >with what is really going on in your brain. Like when hidden motivations >prompt certain actions on your part. People often do not admit to themselves >(perhaps not until much later) the real reasons that they may take some >actions. With this in mind, you have no "knowledge", you have only >subjective beliefs.[ROSEN] Rich, I really think you misunderstand. Your response shows you think more is being asserted by your opponents than I believe is the case. I agree completely about hidden motives and subjective beliefs, and I suspect Mr. Ellis would, too. The "incorrigible and immediate self knowledge" that is being asserted is not knowledge of the abstract sort, like understanding your own motivations. It is simple awareness. I am unable to deny my present experience of typing on a keyboard. I could be mistaken about *why* I'm doing it; I could even be mistaken about the true nature of the experience - perhaps I'm only hallucinating it. But what I *can't* deny is the simple fact that I'm experiencing the sensations, whatever their source. >> Like pain (even imagined pain) is still pain. Or visions (even >> hallucinations) are still visions. Awareness, love, etc.. likewise. > >Yes, indeed, they physically represent themselves inside the brain. They may >involve some "bad connection" (bad is too judgmental a word) in the brain that >that believes that an imagined vision is a real vision, coming through the >"input ports" of the eyes from the outside world. And we've already gone >through phantom pains, so I won't repeat. Right; no problem with "bad" connections. No one is asserting we always understand our experiences correctly, only that we are unable to deny to ourselves that we *have* experiences. Nonetheless, there is no way we can demonstrate that *other* people have experiences. Experience is subjective by definition, and irreducibly private. We cannot *know* that anyone else has "experiences", only that they have behaviors. This is what is meant by subjective knowledge. It shouldn't be thought of as a competitor with objective knowledge, but as complementary, for each has its appropriate place, and they need not conflict. >> Whether or not you chose to attribute reality to such entities, the >> fact is, they are viewed in most philosophical and psychological schemes >> as possessing reality, in some cases greater than that of rocks. > >Fine. I find such "schemes" to be completely bogus if what they are saying >is that these "entities" represent anything other than internal thoughts >within the brain which may have no correlation to reality. Right, but suppose they're *not* asserting any more reality to these thoughts than what you describe. The fact that the thoughts occurred, and that their reality *as* *thoughts*, not their accuracy in describing objective events, was undeniable to the person thinking them at the time they thought them, is all that is being asserted. My, what an awful sentence that was! >Thus, because you now admit that the mind contains external images gleaned >from reality outside the brain as well as internally developed images which >may be interpretations (faulty or not) of outside events or just imaginations, >you need a method to distinguish between faulty interpretation of external >events by the brain (either due to misconceptions about something really >external or something completely imagined) and accurate interpretations of >real external events. One such method, one which allows serious scrutiny >and careful thorough analysis is a method that has been bandied about and >tarred in this very newsgroup. I'll leave it to the readers to recall the >name of that method. I think I recall it. We are in accord. The way to deal with external, objective events is with objective methods, science. What is being suggested is that the "act" of having an experience is irreducibly subjective. To *understand* the experience in objective terms may be possible, in the sense of understanding the relevant stimuli, the brain chemistry, etc., but this is knowledge about the experience, and not the experience, itself. >>>You can't just stick in the word "true" in that corollary just because you >>>feel like it. > >> Who else can tell you what you are sensing besides yourself? > >What makes you so sure that in all cases, without a means of verification, >you are accurately sensing yourself? Another important reason why a method >of verification is necessary to gain knowledge. To reiterate: *misinterpreting* one's experiences is not only possible, it's quite common. While I suppose I could be wrong, I don't think anyone in this discussion has meant to imply otherwise. What is unmistakable, and undeniably real, is the fact of *having* experiences. I honestly think you think there are assertions of a supernatural nature being made when none are intended. I don't really mean to be speaking for Michael Ellis, and perhaps it is I who am misinterpreting his remarks, and not you. But, speaking for myself, I find his statements about subjective awareness reasonable, and free of supernatural suppositions. Far from being unscientific, he seems to be attempting to make the minimal number of presumptions necessary to account for his experiences. In the simplest terms, it seems to be no more than Descartes' 'cogito, ergo sum', combined with the related observation that our own existence is a necessary precondition for our knowing about anything else. I hope all interested parties will feel free to set me straight :-). - Hi, Mom! - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry