- #36
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
Hi Paul
I started to prepare a response to all of the points in your post, then realized that most of our disagreement comes down to definitions, and a detailed point-by-point reply is simply a waste of time if we don’t agree on the definition of the single word on which this entire thread is based – “self”.
The meaning of words is derived from their usage in language, not dictated by fiat (except possibly in French ). In the English language, “self” is often used in contexts where there is no consciousness involved (as in a “self-priming pump”, or “self-sufficient economy”, or even "self-fulfilling prophecy", and in IT/AI contexts such as “self-organising”, “self-configuring” and “self-defending” networks and systems). Whether you think such a concept of self devoid of consciousness is “interesting” or not is your personal value judgement, but to be honest I don’t see why self must be defined simply so that it is interesting from your point of view? To insist that self must defined in terms of consciousness seems an artificially and unnecessarily parochial view intended simply to prove what the definition already assumes.
Best Regards
I started to prepare a response to all of the points in your post, then realized that most of our disagreement comes down to definitions, and a detailed point-by-point reply is simply a waste of time if we don’t agree on the definition of the single word on which this entire thread is based – “self”.
The meaning of words is derived from their usage in language, not dictated by fiat (except possibly in French ). In the English language, “self” is often used in contexts where there is no consciousness involved (as in a “self-priming pump”, or “self-sufficient economy”, or even "self-fulfilling prophecy", and in IT/AI contexts such as “self-organising”, “self-configuring” and “self-defending” networks and systems). Whether you think such a concept of self devoid of consciousness is “interesting” or not is your personal value judgement, but to be honest I don’t see why self must be defined simply so that it is interesting from your point of view? To insist that self must defined in terms of consciousness seems an artificially and unnecessarily parochial view intended simply to prove what the definition already assumes.
Best Regards
Last edited: