I went from a state where I didn’t know what [a] a person giving a lecture about PP meant with “feeling of existence/being” as opposed to “feeling present” to [b] having an my own phenomenological references sorted
[c] I can say whether I feel that qualia of “feeling of existence/being” more or less in a quite similar way than I can say whether something looks more or less red.
It’s the jump from [b] to [c] that I question. I’ll take it as given that you have some consistent phenomenological referent for what you call a “feeling of existence/being”.
The difference with Red is that you can point and verify with other people that you both call the same things red. I don’t see any similar verification method with “feeling of existence/being”.
I would guess that as far as “becoming” goes, things are similar.
So would I, but from my perspective, people would be better off labeling their feelings as “feelings of gloob1”, “feelings of gloob2″, to avoid smuggling in conceptual connotations to the feelings they’re having, and avoid identifying them with the feelings other have, without evidence of any relation between them.
Do you have such evidence?
When reading Feldenkrais and going to his list of perception test
I’ve read much of Feldenkrais, but that doesn’t ring a bell (it’s been a decade now). What book is that from? Is that what it was called?
I’m familiar with NLP and it’s theories on the manipulation of sensory modalities. Interesting and plausible to me. I’ve never put them to the test, however. I like Jonathan Haidt’s various moral modalities. And I have my own theory on truth modalities.
I’m open to the possibility of such explanations, but also worry that they can too easily answer all questions. “Well, he just uses different sensory modalities.” “Well, he just has different qualia referents than you do.”
Going back to the original question that you explained away with qualia:
What are the different perceptions that would explain the different intuitions about whether the future exists?
The phrase “the future exists” simply violates what we mean in english by the words. “Exists” is a verb in the present tense, referring to state in the present, and whatever you want to say about the future, it’s pretty well agreed that it aint in the present.
I’m fine with treating time as another dimension, and talking about objects 4 dimensional spacetime objects. All sorts of “future” objects would “exist” in that model. But most people don’t have that model.
Me, I think the people who identify exists_everydaymode with exists_spacetimemodel are just conceptually confused by their high falutin ideas. Exists_everydaymode didn’t cease to exist when we got our fancy new spacetime model to play with, and it’s relevance and functionality didn’t cease to exist either. “I have cancer” is really distinguishable in important ways to us from “I had cancer.”
It’s the jump from [b] to [c] that I question. I’ll take it as given that you have some consistent phenomenological referent for what you call a “feeling of existence/being”.
The difference with Red is that you can point and verify with other people that you both call the same things red. I don’t see any similar verification method with “feeling of existence/being”.
So would I, but from my perspective, people would be better off labeling their feelings as “feelings of gloob1”, “feelings of gloob2″, to avoid smuggling in conceptual connotations to the feelings they’re having, and avoid identifying them with the feelings other have, without evidence of any relation between them.
Do you have such evidence?
I’ve read much of Feldenkrais, but that doesn’t ring a bell (it’s been a decade now). What book is that from? Is that what it was called?
I’m familiar with NLP and it’s theories on the manipulation of sensory modalities. Interesting and plausible to me. I’ve never put them to the test, however. I like Jonathan Haidt’s various moral modalities. And I have my own theory on truth modalities.
I’m open to the possibility of such explanations, but also worry that they can too easily answer all questions. “Well, he just uses different sensory modalities.” “Well, he just has different qualia referents than you do.”
Going back to the original question that you explained away with qualia:
The phrase “the future exists” simply violates what we mean in english by the words. “Exists” is a verb in the present tense, referring to state in the present, and whatever you want to say about the future, it’s pretty well agreed that it aint in the present.
I’m fine with treating time as another dimension, and talking about objects 4 dimensional spacetime objects. All sorts of “future” objects would “exist” in that model. But most people don’t have that model.
Me, I think the people who identify exists_everydaymode with exists_spacetimemodel are just conceptually confused by their high falutin ideas. Exists_everydaymode didn’t cease to exist when we got our fancy new spacetime model to play with, and it’s relevance and functionality didn’t cease to exist either. “I have cancer” is really distinguishable in important ways to us from “I had cancer.”