• lambda
    76
    Suppose I'm at work giving a presentation in front of 5 of my co-workers.

    Assuming the existence of other minds (which are correlated with my own), this would entail that there are 5 other visual fields in which a human body is giving a powerpoint presentation.

    Now, are those 5 different bodies in each visual field mine? What exactly would this ownership consist in (eg. correlation or causation)?

    If I desire to raise my arm, does this desire somehow get transmitted to those 5 other visual fields and cause those 5 different bodies to raise their arm(s)? Would this not mean I have more than one body?

    But if there is no causation between my desires and those 5 other bodies then, at best, there could only be correlations. If such a scenario was the case, could those 5 separate bodies still be mine? They would actually be p-zombie versions of myself.

    The existence of other minds is so strange. It's probably even stranger than solipsism.
  • Janus
    15.6k


    The simpler explanation is that those five other people see you raising your arm. There are not five arms being raised but one arm seen from five different angles and distances.

    You could say this is possible because God sees your arm raised from every possible angle and distance. Otherwise...?
  • Stosh
    23
    Hi,
    I'm thinking the effect is partially causation and partially correlation. There's six conceptions of Lambda , the actual state of Lambda, is none of them.
    If you , 'your own conceptualization of Lambda' raise your arm, it does indeed change that which will be presented for consideration by the other viewers, but each perspective will be different. Their idea of what has happened only roughly correlates to the new actual state of Lambda. For instance , they cant see infrared effects of your motion.
    I'm thinking your volition was indeed causal , its just not fixedly linked to the others perspectives.
    The material effects of your volition are mediated by your physical arm. You clearly don't control their minds directly. And so I wouldn't describe their impressions as other aspects of 'you', an individual self conceptualizing itself as Lambda.
    I don't find the existence of other minds as strange , as I do the fact that others view the world ,so differently from me . :)
    I do like the way you presented the consideration though.
  • lambda
    76
    John I don't think that's correct. Consider the following two ontologies:

    Ontology 1: 5 visual fields

    Ontology 2: 5 visual fields + an independently existing human body

    Ontology 1 is simpler...
  • jkop
    679
    In what sense is the human body independently existing from its visual field? What is left of a visual field if you remove the body which constitutes its point and angle of view, i.e. the properties which constitute the field?
  • Janus
    15.6k


    Ontology 3: A field, within which innumerable bodies and visual fields, none of which exist independently of the field. Ontology 3 is simplest.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.