I develop further the notion of experience in contrast to the processing ability of a computer. In particular I introduce the idea that each of us has a unique point of view and can never be another person having his experiences. The idea of a contentless, experiencing self as a foundation for developing a theory of an afterlife is raised.
My post was made on 11 May 2008 at 11:52 pm:
Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply. Straight away you go to the heart of the matter. You say that "the aim of a computer...". In what sense can computers be said to have aims of their own? Not at all. They exist only as creations of a human being. If we were to come across a computer in a jungle would we think that it had grown out of the ground? Of course not because we know that they are produced by humans, at least on this planet. As you say, they think but they do not experience thinking. So the issue is not about thinking but about experiencing, not the "cogito" but the "sum" of Descartes much troubled formula.
So we come, with ease, into the mainstream of philosophical thinking - the issue of experience. It seems to me that experience is in a different category from say, thinking or doing something. In a sense we can think the same thought as another person or, indeed, as a computer. This is because we construct language to define thinking in a way which is of use to more than one person. What would be the point of describing unique thoughts all the time. And yet there is something unique about each thought and it is not the "thought" part of it but the context. It is the point of view of the person having the thought which cannot ever be duplicated. I can only ever be "me" when it comes to experiencing something. My point of view is always unique even if I am describing something that many others have had experience of.
In order to consider the possibility of an Afterlife, which is the topic under discussion, after all, we need to establish a self which is not tied to the physical world and by positing a contentless, experiencing self we have, at least, opened up that possibility. There remain, however, many obstacles along the way.
Tags: afterlife experience process computer point of view thinking Descartes self
Peter Rayner
My post was made on 11 May 2008 at 11:52 pm:
Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply. Straight away you go to the heart of the matter. You say that "the aim of a computer...". In what sense can computers be said to have aims of their own? Not at all. They exist only as creations of a human being. If we were to come across a computer in a jungle would we think that it had grown out of the ground? Of course not because we know that they are produced by humans, at least on this planet. As you say, they think but they do not experience thinking. So the issue is not about thinking but about experiencing, not the "cogito" but the "sum" of Descartes much troubled formula.
So we come, with ease, into the mainstream of philosophical thinking - the issue of experience. It seems to me that experience is in a different category from say, thinking or doing something. In a sense we can think the same thought as another person or, indeed, as a computer. This is because we construct language to define thinking in a way which is of use to more than one person. What would be the point of describing unique thoughts all the time. And yet there is something unique about each thought and it is not the "thought" part of it but the context. It is the point of view of the person having the thought which cannot ever be duplicated. I can only ever be "me" when it comes to experiencing something. My point of view is always unique even if I am describing something that many others have had experience of.
In order to consider the possibility of an Afterlife, which is the topic under discussion, after all, we need to establish a self which is not tied to the physical world and by positing a contentless, experiencing self we have, at least, opened up that possibility. There remain, however, many obstacles along the way.
Tags: afterlife experience process computer point of view thinking Descartes self
Peter Rayner
No comments:
Post a Comment