Posted by
Steve Smith on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Direct-conversation-tp3137870p3148819.html
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Russ,
Wow. A 100 percent phase
shift doesn't seem to have slowed you up a bit.
Ah... you mean his "Gone AntiPodal Status"? 180 degrees out of
phase... so roughly his tides have not changed by much, but his solar
experiences have!
Intentionality is [to me] an
objective relation .... something I can see in the behavior of others.
When an English robin treats a bit of red fluff on a brown wire as if
it were another English robin, I would say that, from the point of view
of one English robin, red-fluff-on-brown-wire IS another English
robin. It's a pretty expansive notion of "point of view."
I still resist (from a first person point of view) this. I can only
"postulate" or "imaginate" or "accuse" another of a specific
intentionality based on their actions. To me, everyone *but* me is a
black box.
I can poke, prod, electrocute, interrogate until the cows jump over the
moon and come home wagging their tails behind them, and I *still* won't
know their intentions. Read up on the contemporary wisdom about the
utility of torture for extracting real intelligence as opposed to
convenient confessions.
On the other hand (incomplete discussions of the role of psychotherapy
notwithstanding), I can say with significant certainty what my
intentions are at any given time. Self-delusion is still a factor,
and there *is* some asymmetry in the self/other around delusion. On
one hand, it is easier to give others mis/disinformation about your
intentions *because* all they have to observe are your actions, but it
is also easier to delude yourself *because* sometimes you *want* to be
deluded. The self can be the most motivated to believe one's own
lies.
All that back and forth, however, doesn't change the fact that *I*
experience being myself differently than I experience observing
others. It is also patently (from my personal experience... your
mileage may vary) the case that I experience empathy (vividly imagining
a situation from another's point of view) by *transferring* my own 1st
person POV into my model of them... and imagining the experience of
being them.
A point of view is "first
person" only in the limited sense that it is indexed to a system. It
is third person, in the sense that others may observe, discuss, etc.,
that point of view in operation.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
-----
Original Message -----
To:
[hidden email];
[hidden email]
Sent:
6/24/2009 2:05:30 AM
Subject:
Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation
Now that we've arrived safely in Canberra, here's my
loose end.
A number of people have talked about 1st person vs 3rd person
perspectives. What I'd like to know is what you all mean by a 3rd
person perspective. And what I'd really like to know is why what you
mean by a 3rd person perspective isn't the
1st person experience of that perspective. In other words, what does
one mean by a perspective or view at all. If someone/something has a
view, it's not important (for what I think we're talking about) what
the view is viewing. What's important is that someone/something has
that view. The viewer then has a 1st person perspective of whatever is
being viewed. If what is being viewed has something to do with the
viewer, that's neither here nor there.
The more abstract way of saying this is that meaning occurs only in a
first person context. Without meaning, all we have are bits, photons,
ink on paper, etc. If you want to ta! lk about meaning at all --
whether it's the meaning of a first or third person perspective -- one
has already assumed that there is a first person that is understanding
that meaning.
Now since Nick and I seem to have reached an agreement about our
positions, I'm not sure whether Nick will disagree with what I've just
said. So, Nick, if you are in agreement, please don't take this as a
challenge. In fact, whether or not you agree I think it would be
interesting for others on the list to respond to this point. On the
other hand, Nick I'm not asking you not to respond -- in agreement of
disagreement. I'm always interested in what you have to say.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Cell phone: 310-621-3805
o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Nicholas
Thompson
<[hidden email]>
wrote:
Steve,
You asked
"How (if at all) does this fit into the 3rd/1st person
discussion this all started with?"
To be honest, I never tried to fit them together before.
You are demanding reflexivity here ... that my principles concerning
how to conduct a discussion be consistent with the argument I am
presenting within the discussion. Always a useful demand. The best I
can say is that both seem to embody my belief that in all matters of
the mind, if we are willing to work hard enough, we can stand shoulder
to shoulder and look at the same thing.
By the way, a couple of you have indicated that you didn't
get answers to questions you directed at me, and you rose to my
defense. I confess I got a bit over whelmed there for a while and
started selecting questions for answer that I thought I could handle
cleanly (as opposed to muddily). Please if there were lose ends, push
them at me again.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
6/22/2009 10:13:50 PM
Subject:
Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Russ, and Glen, and
Steve, n all
Ironically, I am with
Russ on this one! I believe both in the possibility and the benefits
of clarity.
I expected that when Russ and I were done, we would be
able to agree on an articulation of our positions, where they are
similar, where different, etc. In fact, one of the skills I most
revere is the ability to state another person's position to that
person's satisfaction. And, in fact, at one point, I thought I had
achieved such an articulation, only to have Russ tell me I had got it
wrong. My guess is that Russ has his feet deeply in Kant, and I have
neither boots nor courage high enough to go in there after him. My
son, who is a philosopher, has as good as looked me in the eye and
said, "You aint man enough to read Kant!"
I studied Kant when I was too young and foolish to know better... but
then I had been raised on folks like Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein so
Kant was no challenge. Today I think I would find Kant a bit
intimidating.
I am curious about the implications of "one of the skills I most revere
is the ability to state another person's position to that person's
satisfaction". It seems to have implications on the root
discussion... The two ways I can obtain a high degree of confidence
that I am communicating with another is if I can articulate their
position to their satisfaction and vice versa... I prefer the former
over the latter... in the sense that I am almost never satisfied in
their articulation... at most I accept it with some reservations. But
if they can keep a straight face while I reel off my version of their
understanding of a point, then I try hard not to think too hard a! bout
it and call it good. How (if at all) does this fit into the 3rd/1st
person discussion this all started with?
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org