> I dont disagree that we cannot get a "photo" of what is happening in the mind of
> another, what I am saying is that the feeling of "love" in one person is the
> exact same feeling of "love" that another person has. Triggered by the same
> chemicals in the same way and in similar quantities. The differences arent in
> the chemical makup of love, they are in what happens to the emotion after
> traveling through the filters of the subjects mindset. I agree with all the
> learning isnt doing stuff - but I am not asking a computer to understand love or
> an orgasm - all of us have had those in real life, I am asking a human to
> understand love. The subjective love of one mother is not that much different
> than the suggestive love of another, we all have the experinece to understand
> human nature - what drives us in almost every way is identicle. Need for food,
> shelter, companionship, love, fear etc... are the same in almost all of us -
> those that differ markedly are removed from society one way or another.
>
> What I am suggesting is this: Just because you cannot personally have another
> persons feelings or visions or subjective experiences - in that you cannot put
> the thought with its emotions into your head, you can get very close. If
> anything, we can get a lot closer to experiencing anothers subjective state than
> we can objective reality - which like perfection, is completely unreachable with
> our existing hardware and software. Subjectivity is a microscopic piece of the
> objective picture.
>
But Bill, our genetic makeup and environmental (developmental)
influences have caused us all to be wired, though similarly, not the
same (Peter ain't Paul). The hardware and software are individual
to each person, and possess individual differences. Furthermore,
this structure is dynamic, not static, and changes throughout life,
partially due to aging as that is genetically manifested, and partially
due to the effects of each new experience upon the brain. The
physical substrate of subjective experience is in each case unique
to the individual and his/her existing situation; thus how can anyone
maintain that the experiences themselves are not themselves equally
unique?
> Bill Roh
> Sodom
>
>
> Tim Rhodes wrote:
>
> > Sodom wrote:
> >
> > >Subjectivity is just our minds way of explaining what is sees - most of you
> > >will agree. If so, with a full understanding of the way the brain
> > functions,
> > >and I am not stating that we have this understanding yet, we would be able
> > to
> > >pick subjectivity apart and describe it objectivly.
> >
> > A complete and full explaination of the physics and mechanics of a roller
> > coaster is not the same as the _experience_ of riding it. You seem to have
> > overlooked the fact that subjectivity is by definition the "the viewpoint of
> > the subject". There is no `magic' involved in saying that the viewpoint of
> > an observer is not the same as that of the subject. No matter how well one
> > understands the electro-chemical, hormonal, psychological, and emotional
> > effects of an experience, nevertheless this still remains qualitatively
> > different from what is actually experienced by the subject.
> >
> > Even a perfectly understood orgasm is not the same as having one.
> >
> > -Prof. Tim
>
>