Yes, exactly, an urge -- something dynamic, moving me, pushing me (me, the system's model of itself) to find a way of restoring equilibrium. Not a mental quality presented to a passive inner observer
-
-
Replying to @keithfrankish
Again, a 'passive observer' is the very kind of term that the 'urge' may decide isn't very useful. The 'urge' is precise. It's private yet implicitly 'contains' the next great discovery. Yep, thanks!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns @keithfrankish
Look as long as you keep paying closer and closer attention to the intricate implying that you keep digging into -- as long as you keep valuing your experience -- I'll be happy. And we'll all learn new stuff because of it. The world works hard to devalue this process.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns
We can keep digging, and our responses will /indirectly/ reveal something about what's really occurring at subpersonal level. What I reject is the idea that we're digging into a preexisting phenomenal mother lode. The phenomenal story is a fiction we create as we dig
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @keithfrankish
Again: if we are really digging into this experience, we'll constantly re-evaluate our understandings, science, communications. So, yes, absolutely, one move will be to reject the kind of presupposition you're pointing to. I reject it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns @keithfrankish
But as your more poetic expressions (which point to our shared experiences of being human) reveal, it's often impossible to avoid the implications of language as we point with our words. There's something it's like to wrestle with this, fortunately!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns
In calling it an illusion I don't mean to disparage it or to suggest that we should dispense with it (except when doing science). This illusory world is the one where we live and thrive. It's our habitat--what Nick Humphrey calls 'soul land'--and it's a wonderful, magical place
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @keithfrankish
Oh, I know you don't mean disparagement at all! Your enthusiastic spirit is infectious :) Just as we think up math and it somehow is 'in' reality already, I see more evidence that reality is already 'in' this digging. That's gnomic, yes. But I think (cont...)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tonofbuns @keithfrankish
But I think that in the same way you push against the 'inner world' assumption (me too), I push against the 'outer world' assumption. It contains too many unjustified steps. And, I believe, takes us away from reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tonofbuns
It does't affect how we do phenomenology. It's just about how we relate the results of phenomenological investigation to science. As I see it, we lose nothing on the illusionist approach and gain something in having a more intelligible and less anthropocentric worldview.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I notice that the word ‘anthropocentric’ (~ interpreting a thing too much in the way in which people are) means less to me, because people are so deconstructed now and their minds, motivations and intellects so diverse and specific. They are no longer indexical but constructed.
-
-
When words like “want”, “need”, “intend”, “fear”, “love”, “self aware” become technical terms to describe states and functionality in autonomous cooperative intelligent agents, anthropos is reduced to a prototype.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @keithfrankish
What do you see as the most significant thing to try to keep in mind in this sort of discussion? If anything :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.