Re: virus: The other

Brett Lane Robertson (
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:21:47 -0500

At 07:56 PM 11/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>As to varifiability [sic]...ask anyone if they have a mind, I think most would
>>varify [sic] that they do.

>Cogito ergo sum.

>Yes, I suppose most people would _answer_ that they had a mind.

>We can be skeptical of any such claim however. Not one of 'em could
>_verify_ it.

>Finding a meme would be a verification of 'mind', would it not? (That's
>always been where I want to end up. Goodness....)(Wade)


Just rambling: If there are objective experiences which are externally
verifiable...must we assume that experience exists but not mind. Likewise,
if there are mental phenomenon which are not externally verifiable in the
same way that an external experience is verifiable, must we assume that
these experiences are subjective (that is have no external verification)?
So aren't both the subjective and objective in the same boat--making
assumptions that there must be "another" form of verification but denying
that aspect in preference to their own way of illustrating experience? It
would seem that an external cannot exist without an internal. I am still
amazed that something so obvious--that I have a mind--must be "verified"
using an "object" of some sort that illustrates it's symbolic nature...and
am starting to see how people might say "You surely do not have a "name"
(for example) unless you can show it to me in the form of a "fish", for I am
a fisherman and only believe that which my fishy nature shows me. But, no,
how would finding a "meme" verify "mind"...why not find me a *mind* and
that would verify that memes exist! Seems really hopeless to talk about
things we all know exists and to continually hear "experiencial" arguments
which seem--to me--to be a failure of the developing infant to sucessfuly
complete the stage of "object permanency"...that is they must surely not
believe that I exist at all since they can't see me when I leave the room.
I think these "scientific" types are presenting some pre-arranged argument
for their own amusement..."Show me something symbolic in a non-symbolic
form..."--I think they are laughing as I squirm; but, I do not think they
REALLY believe their own arguments. Minds do not exist? They are not
verifiable? If this is true to you, then your definition of "verifiable" is
very narrow (or you are pulling my leg...tell me you are pulling my leg.).

Is arguing for argument's sake fun for some of you? Why?



"Why is it that we rejoice at a birth and grieve at a
funeral? It is because we are not the person involved"

Mark Twain