If we want to define "real" in terms of observers we could say an experience is
real when other observers have the same experience in the same situation or
context and can confirm it independently and subsequently.A squirrel we meet in
the park can be confirmed by others and if we find out the place where it
lives, we can observe it subsequently.A rainbow in the clouds or a movie in the
cinema could be confirmed by other observers, but only for a short time and not
subsequently in the time that follows.A dream at night can neither be confirmed
by others nor repeated by oneself subsequently. We experience things that seem
to be real, but when we wake up in the morning we see that they are not real.
We are not able to confirm the experience. -J.
-------- Original message --------From: ⛧ glen <geprope...@gmail.com> Date:
6/1/22 03:43 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peirce, Buddhism, Monism,
Behaviorism, oh my! How many subsequent experiences are needed? 2? A google?
And is reality defeasible? Eg if some experience is 'real' to me, then I get
some brain damage and no longer get repeats, is the now unexperienced
experience real?On May 31, 2022 6:05:40 PM PDT, Nicholas Thompson
<thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:>Dave, I think I disagree. Not all experiences
have a character of being real. Only those that are confirm or subsequent
experiences.>>Sent from my Dumb Phone>>On May 31, 2022, at 8:27 PM, Prof David
West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote:>>>At the risk of becoming a poster boy for
glen's comments about cult maintenance and othering;>>It is the body and brain
that are Illusion, the self Real.>>The mirage, the rainbow illustrate the
emergence of Illusion. Raindrops and neurons are posited as ex post facto
"explanations" and "causes" for very real, 'perceptions,' 'apprehensions,'
'experiences' of rainbows and mirages.>>davew>>On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 12:59
PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:>> Interesting episode. Yes, Garfield apparently uses it
to advertise his book. I like the mirage example he uses (at 11:00) to
illustrate an illusion which is real as an experience and as a dynamic
refraction process but unreal as a physical substance. >>
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691220284/losing-ourselves>> >>
Daniel Dennett recently posted on Twitter a link to an article which contains
the same idea, but for a rainbow instead of a mirage: perceiving a rainbow is a
real experience of a colored arc, but also an illusion because there is of
course no real physical arc at the place where we see it. >>
https://www.keithfrankish.com/2022/05/like-a-rainbow/>> >> Maybe the illusion
of the self works indeed in the same way? As whole persons who have bodies and
brains we are real, just as raindrops in the sky are real. But when the
billions of neurons start to sparkle in the light of conscious thoughts, the
experience of a self emerges for a short time like a rainbow which emerges
shortly from a million raindrops that bend the light towards the observer.>> >>
I believe Jay Garfield is right when he says that we are able to construct
ourselves as embedded beings. It is as if we are 6, 7 or 8 dimensional beings
in a 4 dimensional spacetime where the additional dimensions are embedded in
the others. This additional dimensions come through language and enable to
specify a personality. If we consider a person from a 3rd person point of view,
then the personality of a person certainly determines the behavior. This means
everyone has a self in form of a character or personality. Even if it is
illusionary or an unreachable ideal to be a certain type of person, such a type
can be approximated. Our personalities can be considered as embedded abstract
person types that we acquire and approximate in the course of time. In this
sense we can say we have a self that guides our actions. And the abstract type
is independent from us, since it could also be implemented in a sophisticated
robot, android or AI.>> >> -J.>> >> >> -------- Original message -------->>
From: thompnicks...@gmail.com>> Date: 5/31/22 11:04 (GMT+01:00)>> To: 'The
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com>>> Cc: 'Mike
Bybee' <mikeby...@earthlink.net>, stephenraron...@gmail.com, 'Grant Franks'
<grantfran...@gmail.com>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Peirce, Buddhism, Monism,
Behaviorism, oh my!>> >>
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/282-do-you-really-have-a-self/id733163012?i=1000563340865>>
>> >> >> Jay Garfield promotes his book Losing the Self on the Sam Harris
Podcast. I can see no evidence that Garfield ever read a word of Peirce, but
It’s fascinating how closely he tracks Peirce’s monism. Fascinating, also, to
see how Harris never quite gets it, repeatedly trying to drag the
outside/inside distinction back into the conversation, while slathering praise
on Garfield for eliminating it. Reminds me of James’s failure to ever quite
“get” Peirce. But then it was James who died a neutral monist. Oh well. >> >>
>> >> Reminded me of all the times that Dave West has accused me of being a
closet Buddhist.>> >> >> >> Nick>> >> >> >> Nick Thompson>> >>
thompnicks...@gmail.com>> >> -- glen ⛧-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- ---
.-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p
Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/archives: 5/2017 thru present
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021
http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
