John K Clark (johnkc@well.com)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:26:15 -0700 (PDT)


Eric Watt Forste <arkuat@pobox.com> On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 Wrote:

>One can observe one's own feelings, but one cannot do so objectively

If "Objective" means independent of any observer, then feelings can never be
objective or even exist. If "objective" means the way things really are,
then I can observe feelings objectively because MY feeling can never be
anything but the way they seem to me. I would even say that if I can observe
a being's feelings objectively then I am that being, and if I can't then
I'm not. That's not to say that my idea about why I have the emotion I do is
objective, it's not, and is in fact very often wrong.

Some drugs have the embarrassing side affect of making us irritable. I take
such a drug and am now filled with anger. My brain needs to find a reason,
any reason, to explain this anger. Well... it must be because you're looking
at me funny, yeah that's it! At the time It seems to make perfect sense,
after all, I am angry and I think you did glance at me once. I think it was

In this example my theory on the fundamental cause of my anger was untrue and
not objective in the slightest, but of one thing I was objective about,
the fact that I was angry, no doubt about it.

On Tue, 8 Jul 1997 Brent Allsop <allsop@swttools.fc.hp.com> Wrote:

>The conscious phenomenon of our minds are able to perform logical
>operations, it doesn't arise from that logic.

And you say I'm being too pessimistic. Science is logical, if consciousness
is not then Science can't help us understand it. I also don't see how
consciousness could help us understand Science, yet it does. I think.

>Our DNA objectively knows how to do it [produce sensation] , we've
>simply got to ask it how it does it and then do likewise.

DNA is a Digital code of base 4, if it has the knowledge to produce
consciousness then it must be a Digital phenomenon.

John K Clark johnkc@well.com

Version: 2.6.i