"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept of self could you form from such material?
What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and biomechanical cycles.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporal generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?So what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-8, AngleWyrm wrote:
"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept of self could you form from such material?
What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and biomechanical cycles.2021 Update: This appears to have been one of my more successful Usenet posts ever.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporal generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?So what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:56:10 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-8, AngleWyrm wrote:
"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
of self could you form from such material?
A bit of a *contradictio in adjecto* at all, though, this "successful Usenet post".What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and2021 Update: This appears to have been one of my more successful Usenet posts ever.
biomechanical cycles.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporal generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?So what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:56:10 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-8, AngleWyrm wrote:
"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
of self could you form from such material?
It was so long ago anyhow.A bit of a *contradictio in adjecto* at all, though, this "successful Usenet post".What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and2021 Update: This appears to have been one of my more successful Usenet posts ever.
biomechanical cycles.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporal generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?So what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 5:21:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:56:10 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-8, AngleWyrm wrote:
"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
of self could you form from such material?
I'm not sure I even remember "my 2004" myself.It was so long ago anyhow.A bit of a *contradictio in adjecto* at all, though, this "successful Usenet post".What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and2021 Update: This appears to have been one of my more successful Usenet posts ever.
biomechanical cycles.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporal generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?So what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:05:22 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 5:21:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:56:10 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-8, AngleWyrm wrote:
"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
of self could you form from such material?
...much as people don't really remember W. Ross Ashby's 1952 *Design for a Brain*.I'm not sure I even remember "my 2004" myself.It was so long ago anyhow.A bit of a *contradictio in adjecto* at all, though, this "successful Usenet post".What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and2021 Update: This appears to have been one of my more successful Usenet posts ever.
biomechanical cycles.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporalSo what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
(It was learned rather quickly people somehow thought the title was meant literally.)
On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 8:23:40 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:05:22 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 5:21:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:56:10 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-8, AngleWyrm wrote:
"ernobe" <ern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:31os2jF...@individual.net...
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects,
persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept
of self could you form from such material?
Warren McCulloch is also "remembered poorly", that is to say his ideas are central to...much as people don't really remember W. Ross Ashby's 1952 *Design for a Brain*.I'm not sure I even remember "my 2004" myself.It was so long ago anyhow.A bit of a *contradictio in adjecto* at all, though, this "successful Usenet post".What I would probably be playing sequences of events, much like movies and2021 Update: This appears to have been one of my more successful Usenet posts ever.
biomechanical cycles.
You mean spatio-temporal particulars as opposed to spatio-temporalSo what is the missing element here? Seems like I can be 'aware' of myself only
generalities? What generalities aren't spatio-temporal?
because I can view these movies from outside them, from a different viewpoint.
Is it because I have two hemispheres to my brain?
(It was learned rather quickly people somehow thought the title was meant literally.)
many modern naturalist theories of the brain but one can hardly stand to mention him.
(He wasn't a nice person, especially, but that's not the issue.)
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What conceptI enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
of self could you form from such material?
My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body). Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of?
Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
the material for the self.
What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
be oneself.
--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What conceptI enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
of self could you form from such material?
My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet
contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body). Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of? Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
the material for the self.
What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one
such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on
account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise
structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge,
rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
be oneself.
--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics
So the fairytale went
"One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I needed
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What concept of self could you form from such material?I enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body). Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of? Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form the material for the self.
What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge, rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to be oneself.
--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics
So the fairytale went
"One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he could
So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better
"Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What conceptI enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
of self could you form from such material?
My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of? Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form the material for the self.
What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge, rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
be oneself.
--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics
So the fairytale went
"One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he
finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better
"Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:08:45 PM UTC, assumed. identiy.3396 wrote:could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What conceptI enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
of self could you form from such material?
My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a
proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given
material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of? Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not
realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form
the material for the self.
What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge
presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like
reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a
place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a
matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge, rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
be oneself.
--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics
So the fairytale went
"One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he
finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better
"Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/i-ve-lost-my-identity-on-the-mysteries-of-foreign-accent-syndrome?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:57:23 PM UTC, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:could gain access, that or they had a pencil & some paper & I could post myself a message under the front door so as to so permit myself freedom to come & go as usual. I thought a moment & replied that I could go into the bank & get some money but I
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-8, assumed.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 5:21:31 PM UTC, Jeff Rubard wrote:
Question: Suppose you only had spatio-temporal particulars (objects, persons, utterances) to go on in thinking about the world. What conceptI enjoy reading a good debate. The college stuff is for people like me !
of self could you form from such material?
My answer: Roughly, an immaterialist account of the self -- the self is
what is never in causal interaction with any of these items, yet contains a bearing upon them as the *boundary of thought* about material
objects (the self is, as it were, "next in line" to receive impressions
from objects of sense: it simply doesn't, on account of not forming a proper spatio-temporal object, the connection between knowledge and self-knowledge being mediated by "external" items including one's body).
Thusly, the self is what does *not* count as a material object, given material surroundings construed materially. What is it composed of? Roughly, *language*: the elements of personal existence which are not realized in the non-linguistic functioning of the human organism form the material for the self.
What such a self is capable of is *knowledge*, on account of knowledge presupposing a medium within which particulars exhibit their properties
in a way such that we can form judgments about them. The self is one such medium, and permits of determinate thinking about objects on account of their relation to a non-sensuous particular. "I don't like reality television, on account of its bad taste" contains the "I" as a place-holder, but for a judgment which could not be otherwise structured: "Don't like reality television" is an imperative, not a judgment, and "Reality television is in bad taste" does not reflect a matter of preference. This self permits of *inferential* knowledge, rather than "direct access" to a matter-of-fact about what it's like to
be oneself.
--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics
So the fairytale went
"One day I went out of my door, turned around, realizing I'd locked myself out with my keys still in my bag I had accidently left inside the house! I had no identity papers with me but a locksmith pointed out that for some money in the bag s/he
finding proof that I could do something nobody else could do & promie to pay when the bank manager had confirmed along with the locksmith I was who I said I am. Breaking a window in your own home is legal, but dangerous.So... you know what a "fairy-story" is? It's like that, but the general form is...I can't post a meaningful message under the door or talk to myself through the letterbox, (or put a message under my cats collar when it went through the cat flap ) any ways of those debates scales ad infinitum, to confirm my self I'd be much better
"Yeah, so, like I'm going to need that money right now? They said so."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 455 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 92:43:07 |
| Calls: | 9,316 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,525 |
| Messages: | 6,078,563 |
| Posted today: | 1 |