Hi Nick, Thanks for the reply -- and sorry about the tooth.
I wasn't intending to re-open the question of subjective experience in general -- and certainly not about whether we can be sure about understanding someone else's. It just struck me that intimacy as I understand that term depends on an assumption of subjective experience, and I wondered whether that ruled out intimacy in your view. Now that I read what you've written, I'm not even sure that I understood your position on subjective experience. I hope that the (subjective experience of) pain from the tooth recedes. -- Russ On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:11 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hi, Russ, > > > > You wrote: > > > > *Intimacy is … not about just about knowing something about someone that > isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or > her mother's maiden.* *Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that > are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of > another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I > raised the question.* > > > > Oh, I don’t have a lot of trouble agreeing with the first part of this > statement. Some unknowns are inherently more intimate than others. > > > > But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask me > about my experience, and I tell you? Do you have to trust my account? > Well, if you ask *me*, I assert that I, for one, DON’T. One answer to > this quandary is to simply assert that Russ Abbot has subjective experience > and Nick Thompson does not! Perhaps ,N.T. is the victim of a form of > autism that deprives him of that self-conscious that for you defines the > human condition. And there’s an end to it, eh? At this point, one of my > most dedicated opponents in this discussion, a former graduate student, > always say, “So it’s OK to kill you eat you, right?” > > > > I am going to invoke the academic Scoundrel’s Defense here, and attach a > link to another paper > <http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/1990-1994/The_many_perils_of_ejective_anthropomorphism.pdf>. > “Ejective anthropomorphism” is the idea that we come to know animal mental > states by seeing an isomorphism between some feature of an animals behavior > and some behavior of our own and then, since we know infallibly the > internal causes of our behavior, inferring the internal causes of the > animal’s. The whole argument hangs, of course, on the notion that we know > why we do things by some special direct knowledge… “privileged access”. > The article is a bit of a slog, but if skim judiciously until you get to > the section on “privileged access”, 67, then you might have enough energy > to read the argument against that notion and be convinced. > > > > Russ, I think in our correspondence before you have perhaps taken the > position that it simply is the case that each of us has a private > consciousness. That is a position taken by another FRIAMMER and I find it, > oddly, the most winning argument. “I choose to start here!” > > > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM > > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy > > > > Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about > just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, > e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden > name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web > sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the > *kinds *of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the > subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would > describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Dear John and Russ, > > > > Well, you question is an example of itself. Who is best qualified to > explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question > about etiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny > subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might > make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing > particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM > could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder > at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and > condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question > can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the > published vsn at the moment. > > > > I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some > others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would > argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But > then, I am old. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy > > > > One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion > and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of > subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be > discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some > experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what > we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove > subjectivity. > > > > --John > > ________________________________________ > > From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Russ Abbott [ > russ.abb...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy > > > > We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting > frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). > > > > It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it > -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) > subjective experiences with another. > > > > I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has > something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as > subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for > intimacy? > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ > Abbott > *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM > > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy > > > > Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about > just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, > e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden > name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web > sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the > *kinds *of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the > subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would > describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Dear John and Russ, > > > > Well, you question is an example of it self. Who is best qualified to > explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question > about aetiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny > subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might > make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing > particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM > could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder > at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and > condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question > can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the > published vsn at the moment. > > > > I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some > others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would > argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But > then, I am old. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy > > > > One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion > and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of > subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be > discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some > experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what > we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove > subjectivity. > > > > --John > > ________________________________________ > > From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Russ Abbott [ > russ.abb...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy > > > > We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting > frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). > > > > It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it > -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) > subjective experiences with another. > > > > I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has > something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as > subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for > intimacy? > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
