tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post2854042930306550540..comments2024-01-05T01:21:21.702-08:00Comments on <center>SPECULUM CRITICUM TRADITIONIS</center>: Post up over yonderskholiasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-38464491487100087842010-09-24T23:29:56.739-07:002010-09-24T23:29:56.739-07:00Shahar, thanks for this. I am pretty convinced th...Shahar, thanks for this. I am pretty convinced that the view-from-inside (so to speak) is irreducible to the outsides of rocks, proteins, or whatever knocking together. Of course, I know that given that I am a first-person view myself, it's hard for me to understand how I am "really" explainable in 3rd-person terms. To me this "hard" just means that any such explanation misses the point. Robots like Metzinger, of course, see no such difficulty.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-80881998796278263122010-09-24T06:41:19.981-07:002010-09-24T06:41:19.981-07:00I only quickly glanced over your post, but somewha...I only quickly glanced over your post, but somewhat relatedly, I've been worrying about the relation between phenomenology and naturalism lately. I find this wager from Rudder-Baker compelling: Naturalists must "show how the1st-person perspective can be understood naturalistically,or show it is dispensable." Metzinger, of course, opts for the latter. Anyway, here's a link to the article, you may find it interesting: http://tinyurl.com/2vs2tdlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com