[ExI] Semiotics and Computability

Spencer Campbell lacertilian at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 19:42:36 UTC 2010

Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> No, I answer false also. I asked that question about toothaches to point out that subjective facts exist and that consciousness exists. It makes no difference whether your toothache exists as a result of a cavity or as an effect caused by a stage-hypnotist; if you feel the pain then it exists with as much reality as does a heart attack.

I reject the notion that toothaches and heart attacks are equally
real, on the basis that inherent "reality" does indeed lie on a
spectrum rather than being binary.

Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> It should seem obvious that the world contains both subjective facts like toothaches and objective facts like mountains. It should seem equally obvious that consciousness exists, and that consciousness has certain qualities. The majority of people do in fact consider these things perfectly obvious. And contrary to the bafflegab promulgated by some quasi-intellectual pseudo-philosophers, on these subjects the majority of people have it exactly right.

I feel like rejecting the notion of quasi-intellectual
pseudo-philosophers, as well, but that's really only because of how
accurately the term describes me.

I do, however, reject the notion of a mountain being an objective
fact. They're all just hills which we've decided, by a subjective
value judgement, are simply too tall to be called hills! And hills are
merely ground that's too bumpy for us to responsibly name as ground.

In fact, I'm having difficulty convincing myself that there could be
any such thing as an objective fact at all; even electrons are a
mathematical abstraction, based on our subjective interpretation of a
mountain of empirical evidence.

Note that "empirical" means "based on experience", not "inviolably
true". The difference between empirical and anecdotal is one of
degree, not kind; there is empirical evidence for the existence of
alien life. We usually call very consistent findings empirical, and
very inconsistent findings, or those with an insufficient sample size
to say either way, anecdotal.

Truth has never been found outside the laboratory, nor survived
without artificial support. It's a little like antimatter. As soon as
you turn off the containment field, things go back to being just as
they are.

Now that I think about it, the distinction between the objective and
the subjective is fallacious and misleading. Dualistic thinking at its
worst. I propose to do away with it.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list