This kind of knowledge cannot be applied to resolve an ontological problem. Therefore if we are "thinking" about our subjective experience then we are identifying with a model of subjective experience rather than actually "being" subjective experience and this does not solve an ontological problem.
One could finally argue that this philosophy destroys itself, and perhaps that is a good thing. For in the final analysis, when the ontological problem is resolved, there is ultimately no need for any philosophy.[/QUOTE]Welcome back, MP.:)
IMO, the lastest exploration on the 'subjective primacy' is from Metzinger.
Note the thread [URL="http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304787"]'Being No One'[/URL].
Metzinger got rid of the ontological permanent self and replaced it with a modeled self, i.e. the Personal[Phenomenal, not personal;TP's error-gb1.13.2012] Self Model (PSM) as adapted by a specie of organism.
The apparent independent external world and all phenomena are correlated within the framework of the Personal Self Model interdependently interacting with other self-models.
These personal self models are not creations of any entity, but rather, they are random 'freak' resultants of evolutions that happen randomly to acquire self-consciousness as an adaptive feature.
The above, imo, explained away the ontological issue.
But nevertheless, philosophy is still necessary as a tool to be used by these personal self-models (individually and a group) to understand its own 'machinery' to enhance (with some sense of autonomy and will) further its adaptivity in the course of its evolution.[/QUOTE]
There is a much easier solution: first, grasp the fact that the "apparent independent external world" is real, not apparent. There really is an external world which exists independently of the subjective self, and/or the conscious mind. This solves the so-called "ontological problem", by recognizing that there is no problem. The next thing to do is forget about this personal self-model. The person you are is real: you are a real, physical object, a biological organism made up of matter; and you are also sentient and sapient: you are intelligent and understand that you are an individual biological organism with a specific identity, and that what exactly you are is not a matter of personal choice, but is an objective fact. Who you are, as in what kind of person you would like to be, is more of a mixed bag: partially set in motion by a variety of external factors and genetic make-up, plus your own plan for your life, your hopes and dreams. Therefore, you do not need a model of yourself to understand yourself. A model is a representation of something real: the model is therefore less real than the thing it represents. This is true in regard to all models. Logically, therefore, your PSM cannot be more real than the organic individual that you are.
You do not need to fabricate a model of yourself in order to interact with and understand an apparent external world, which by definition is merely a model of reality fabricated in your mind. You don't need one mental model of a real thing to understand another mental model of a real thing. All you need is a real thing (Yourself) interacting with the real world (Reality). This tends to work just fine, until you open philosophy books and try to make sense of the impressive-sounding nonsense they usually contain. Just watch a small child examining the objects in its immediate environment. No PSM there, and no Apparent External World to conflict with the real thing. Just existence, curiosity, and happiness.
9/14/2011
