[MD] Individual=subjective?

[MarshaV]

At 12:01 AM 4/7/2008, you wrote:
>David, Marsha --
>
>
>[DM asks]:
> > In the MOQ is there a distinction between the existence
> > of individuals and subjectivity? Can one exist without the other?
>
>[Marsha responds]:
> > If an individual were brain damaged with no brain activity,
> > but family and friends still had a relationship with that body,
> > would those inorganic and biological patterns suffice as
> > an individual?  Patterns, and even clusters of patterns are
> > interrelated, so I would say yes.  But I look forward to
> > hearing what others think.
>
>I can't speak for the MOQ, of course.  But individuals exist as objects for
>others.  Since knowledge is derived from experience, you cannot know me as a
>"subject".  So, in that sense, my body would be an individual object to you,
>whether it is alive or dead.

Ham,

I can't speak for the MOQ either, but individuals exists as 
ever-changing collections of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value.  (Not 
subjects and objects.)  And that seems no less precious and profound.

Marsha

>Now, if by "individual" David means a cognizant person, then subjectivity is
>implied by definition, and he makes a reasonable deduction that the
>individual he experiences objectively has subjectivity -- i.e., is aware of
>him/herself existing in the same space/time world as David does.
>
>This may seem like a simplistic question, but it is of profound significance
>to epistemology and philosophy.  For example, it raises other questions,
>such as: Are animals capable of deducing that other creatures are subjective
>entities, or only that they "behave" independently of other animated
>objects?  If a robot is constructed with all of the physical and behavioral
>attributes of a human being -- and this is not beyond AI technology -- would
>we infer that it was a subjective being?
>
>Subjectivity is the most precious thing we possess.  And yet it is not an
>"object"; it can't be localized, observed, or quantified.  We identify it
>with a particular person, and assume that it is what constitutes and
>motivates that person, but this assumption can be no more than a deduction
>on our part, since it cannot be empirically defined.  We make fun of
>Descartes' Cogito: 'I think, therefore I am'.  But we can only know this
>truth subjectively.  Proprietary awareness is the profoundest of all
>mysteries because, although it is the seat of consciousness, it is negated
>from being.
>
>We cannot prove that subjectivity exists.  Which is why, for the radical
>empiricist, it must be explained away as a myth.
>
>--Ham
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


*************
DEFINITION of  Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.:   Ever-changing 
collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, 
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.