idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead

  • 105 Replies
  • 13205 Views
*

idgo

  • ****
  • 437
    • View Profile
Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #105 on: March 26, 2021, 05:12:59 am »
Additionally in "Librecad plus xpaint do not an art tool make", a visual impression of what I consider the "boundary of self" problem, which I may have alluded to in my postings in the science thread on bees.

The inner world is red, the outer, black. The gradient represents those spaces that are neither entirely inner nor entirely outer: This forum post, accessible to others but shaped by rumination internal to its author.  Memories of other posts you've read, shaped by others but accessible only to you unless you use them to create something new like a spoken or written description of them in the outside world.

And yet, the gradient isn't "real". You see a gradient only because of the way I happened to line up all the cells relative to one another; each individual cell holds only a single color. Any pair of touching cells are so close to one another in hue that one wonders if they were meant to be the same, and one of their off-tints is simply a mistake.

Just as there's no one line through the image on the one side of which is Only Red and the other is Only Black, I see no clean line between the Subjective and Objective.

...

What aspect of individual perspective determines the outcome of the receiver's attempt to understand this communication?

In the context of the question of "what's real only to me vs what's real to both me and others?", which I was prodding at when writing what you quoted, that's shaped like a trick question whose answer is "perception". If I try to communicate something, and that attempt causes you to have a thought, and I never find out in any way that you had the thought... then to me, that thought of yours simply doesn't exist, objectively nor subjectively. If something happens to cause me to infer that you might have had the thought, then your thought comes into existence to me as a plausible explanation for some phenomenon.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "individual perspective", though, by glossing it to "the Subjective universe". The Subjective is necessarily individual in that the laws of physics prohibit any two brains from receiving exactly the same stimuli from the world through their lives, so in that way I suppose that perspective and the subjective universe could be seen as synonymous.

 But the post of mine you quoted emanated from my struggles to make sense of writers who treat it as obvious that the subjective and objective are clearly distinct; for either of us to assume that the metaphor would extend coherently to the relationship between some individual's perspective and another individual's attempts to understand that perspective is likely to be giving my past self entirely too much credit.

Quote
Is it fair to summarize it as "personality?" Receptivity is certainly in the very least an aspect of the former. Thoughts?


Receptivity necessarily an aspect of personality? Response to stimuli is how what we call personality is expressed in animate things that we anthropomorphize, sure, but "receptivity" to me implies more thought or calculation than mere response. There's also the habit of anthropomorphizing the inanimate which any generalization about "personality" must contend with -- I don't see any clear dividing line between what we mean by "personality" when we describe a building or plant as having "personality" and what we mean when we describe an animal or human as having "personality". Then again, I use a model of the world in which we anthropomorphize ourselves through the same basic processes (differing of course in amount or intensity) as we anthropomorphize other people, animals, vehicles, natural features, etc. That is of course not to imply judgement of whether it's incorrect or harmful of us to attribute personality or agency to ourselves or anything else, just to observe that it seems to be more or less the same phenomenon throughout.

So, fair? Certainly. Useful? Probably no less so than anything else I go on about around here. Whether an idea sets you up to do things you couldn't without it seems to me to be the real test of philosophical "value".