21961, Good point|
Posted by janey, Thu Aug-17-00 12:16 PM
Circling back to the original question --
If all we know is all we are, what do we know? How do we know something? This is where the distinctions become important. If all I know is derived from sensory data, how do I "know" about time? I think we agree that experience is more than sensory data -- "experience" is sensory input plus our own internal processing.
If I conceived a child yesterday, I wouldn't "experience" the pregnancy today -- except as a form of wishful thinking. Then when the pregnancy is confirmed by a test, by intellectual knowledge that I'm pregnant. Both are valid "experiences" but they still are based on sensory input plus internal processing.
So I guess the next question is, since we have no control over the sensory input we receive (do you agree? or is this unclear?), then the whole thing that makes us who we are is a completely random and meaningless set of sensory data that is beyond our control, and that elusive "internal processing." Does that follow?
So it's all about that internal processing mechanism, isn't it? BooDaah & I are chatting above about the mechanism, too.
Doesn't it seem weird that the thing that defines us, makes us who we are (assuming that my arguments follow logically), is something that we can't quite put our fingers on? Or does it? Maybe it's not weird. We think that we have this big consciousness, but maybe it's really a lot more limited than we think.