[FRIAM] Eternal questions

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Hm. I guess we're back at the same point we've been several times. I'm pressing for methods by which to *compose* things. You either refuse, or cannot, address how purely intra-body signaling composes to trans-body signaling. *-ception is not monolithic. We can program various types of perception and self-perception into robots. Various organisms entail various types of *-ception. Etc. Until we can have that conversation, we'll never be able to do any useful work.

I suppose we'll have to admit failure again and walk away.

On 8/24/21 12:25 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Glen,
> 
> I would like to agree but I feel my ideas have been bent by your agreement.  I want to say that as you are coming up the stairs with your bat in your hand and your heart racing, you have yet to EXPERIENCE, you are merely DOING it.  It's the moment when you see those actions in the context of the turned-over lamp and the bemused cat that you experience your fear.  
> 
> EricC may clarify; ditto EricS, for that matter. 
> 
> All of this is interacting with my reading of ZAMM where Phaedrus seems to say that  you’re the whole experience begins with your fearful perception of your familiar world, that the thud your heard was already a fearful thud. Both me and Phaedrus aspire to a monism:  is it the same monism?  Is it truly the case that, as I claim, if you've seen one monism, you've seen 'em all.  
> 
> By the way, when something like that happens in our house, my wife and instantly get into an argument about whether to turn on the lights.   I always argue that, if you have any thought that there might be an intruder in the house, the last thing you want to do is give up you advantage of knowing the house intimately.  It is the nature of our marriage that as the intruder is tying us to our chairs and gagging us, we will still be arguing about which of us was right.  
> 
> I think she is doing less fear than I am. 
> 
> 
> Nick 
> 
> Nick Thompson
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 2:10 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions
> 
> So, you agree that I *have* fear. Great! What remains is a calculus by which we can talk about the scoping of the feelings we have. Some feelings will have larger scopes. Some will have smaller scopes.
> 
> Many of those feelings will be *purely* interoceptive, not merely peri-body, but intra-body. And a feeling that is purely intra-body is private. And only those animals that have similar structure will be able to share those feelings in an inter-subjective way. ... I.e. what it's like to be a bat can only be shared by bat-like creatures.
> 
> On 8/24/21 11:01 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> I agree that your fear is an organization of your experience of your 
>> house which would be very hard  for us to experience without focusing on you and what you are doing.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I think EricC, Bybee, and I handle this quite well in our analysis of 
>> the anecdote of “Joe and the Bear”,  beginning with pages 8-13 of our review of Laird’s book, /Feelings/ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260060117_A_BEHAVIORIST_ACCOUNT_OF_EMOTIONS_AND_FEELINGS_MAKING_SENSE_OF_JAMES_D_LAIRD'S_FEELINGS_THE_PERCEPTION_OF_SELF>. Your fear is your perception that you grabbed a bat; the brain obviously mediates that fear, as it does everything.  There is nothing more inherently physiological in “fear” than there is in what we are doing right now, you and I, as we tickle our keyboards.  The brain divides out of the equation.


-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ