Psi vs Privacy of Consciousness?

Thinking of this quote:

'The idea of ... empathy is an intellectual interpretation of the primary experience in which there is no room for any sort of dichotomy.'
- Daisetsu T. Suzuki

As well as Emerson Green's remarks that privacy is one of the great stumbling blocks for Physicalism:

Before I got into philosophy of mind, I did not realize anyone even tried to deny the privacy of experience. But privacy poses various problems for physicalism, which is why physicalists often dispute it, or say they just don’t know what privacy means, or something. For me, this is non-negotiable. Not because I’m a non-physicalist partisan – I also believed this was certain when I was a physicalist. I didn’t realize it was in tension with physicalism. But once I did come to see it, I became a lot more confident that physicalism was not true. It’s plain obvious that there is something about my conscious states that nobody else can know about in the same direct way that I know about them.

Yet if one accepts the reality of telepathy, and possibly the truth of mystical experiences...does this idea of privacy still hold?

The inability to describe my feelings in third person terms does still hurt the Physicalist, yet what does the potential sharing of thoughts mean for a metaphysical/scientific picture of Persons?

I don't have any definitive answers, but I think one answer that's been put on this forum is the experience of a feeling from *your* PoV, where you *own* the feeling, is what is private. Even if I were to read your thoughts with 100% accuracy the only way that could work is if I distinguish your thoughts from mine.

Another possibility is that even if you were have a telepathic dream experience of, say, the last year of my life where you felt you were me, that "snippet" would then be put into the context of your life after the fact.

[Laird]

I think one answer that's been put on this forum is the experience of a feeling from *your* PoV, where you *own* the feeling, is what is private.

You're perhaps referring to my own answer. Yes, that's how I'd put it, although "private" is not an ideal word given that via telepathy they could be "publicised". I do think "ownership" as you've referenced there is the better way of putting it. I also think the distinction between experience and content of experience is very important. Via telepathy, you can share the content of my experience, but not the experience itself, which remains mine, and in that sense is "private" to me - as in "private property"; owned by me.

[Laird]

To add to that: I think we can affirm a one-to-one relationship between person and experience (experience itself rather than content of experience).

In this sense, if you were literally having my experience (in the full sense), you would be identical to me; there would be no distinction between us; you would be me.

To add to that: I think we can affirm a one-to-one relationship between person and experience (experience itself rather than content of experience).

In this sense, if you were literally having my experience (in the full sense), you would be identical to me; there would be no distinction between us; you would be me.

What do you think regarding the Suzuki quote about empathy? Can I feel someone's feeling, yet recognize it as not actually my own?

Similarly I wonder about memories. My issue with the idea of sharing memory is that memory seems to incorporate the experiential. It's not like Mathematical or any other kind of potential Universals / Eternal Objects which can be part of (underlie?) different people's experiences.

Part of why I disagree with the idea that memories can be free floating in some Collective Unconscious. But can there be a shared subconscious of some kind, as per William James' idea that, “We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep” ?

[Laird]

I suggest re empathy that we again distinguish between an experience and its contents, where in this case the contents are the way the feeling feels, so, yes, I think we can feel someone else's feeling - whether quite literally, as I've heard that some people can do, or via our imaginations - and either recognise them as someone else's or even be fooled into thinking it's our own.

With memories I suggest we distinguish between storage and recall, with only recall being an actual experience, with, again, a distinction between the experience itself (recollecting) and its contents (the memory being recalled, with its own perspectival and experiential nature).

I haven't thought a lot about where memories are stored, but I do think at least some of them are collective in some sense, whether as Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields, Carl Jung's archetypes in the collective unconscious, something else, or all of the above.

I suggest re empathy that we again distinguish between an experience and its contents, where in this case the contents are the way the feeling feels, so, yes, I think we can feel someone else's feeling - whether quite literally, as I've heard that some people can do, or via our imaginations - and either recognise them as someone else's or even be fooled into thinking it's our own.

I have to wonder if this distinction is a bit artificial? What meaningful difference is there between experience and its contents? The contents are merely just aspects of experience ~ "experience" therefore being an overarching abstraction that makes it useful to talk about the collective of the contents. That, "experience" is the superset of experiential contents.

Instead of getting lost in a labyrinth of words and definitions that create confusion, we should seek to elucidate what the nature of experience is for each of us, so as to find the common thread, rather that forcing others' experiences exclusively through our own definitions.

Because if so many different definitions and models of experience, and what it is, exists... then "experience" becomes something of an invisible archetype where each of our individual understandings is simply a different manifestation or aspect of that

With memories I suggest we distinguish between storage and recall, with only recall being an actual experience, with, again, a distinction between the experience itself (recollecting) and its contents (the memory being recalled, with its own perspectival and experiential nature).

I haven't thought a lot about where memories are stored, but I do think at least some of them are collective in some sense, whether as Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields, Carl Jung's archetypes in the collective unconscious, something else, or all of the above.

What if memories aren't "stored" somewhere? This implies that they can be lost, have some sort of mechanism or the like. A metaphor I think invites confusion more than elucidates anything.

When we recall memories, it is immediate ~ I would suggest that we resonate with our memories.

As for instinctual "memories" ~ I don't think it is actually "memory" or "experience" so much as knowledge... but given that we can never directly comprehend morphic fields or the archetypes.

[Laird]

I have to wonder if this distinction is a bit artificial?

Wonder all you like, but it is useful in clarifying that there is a tight, one-to-one relationship between experiencer and experience (at any given moment in time), whatever the content of that experience (in totality) is.

Instead of getting lost in a labyrinth of words and definitions that create confusion

If you find clear definitions confusing, then perhaps philosophy is not your forte.

rather that forcing others' experiences exclusively through our own definitions.

...as though you, in resisting my use of terms, are not implicitly trying to force your own usage onto me.

Look, once again: those of your experiences that you've shared are comprehensible on my terms, so I see no reason to update them. Feel free to define your own terms and share those definitions with us.

What if memories aren't "stored" somewhere?

In that case, their nature would be unclear.

Wonder all you like, but it is useful in clarifying that there is a tight, one-to-one relationship between experiencer and experience (at any given moment in time), whatever the content of that experience (in totality) is.

But it's not so clear, in cases of telepathy, or even, say, in cases of NDE life reviews, where individuals have remarked that they were shown the perspectives of other people, in how they may have impacted their lives.

Normally, usually, perhaps, yes, it may be one-to-one, but there are enough cases that it can be one-to-many in shared experiences.

If you find clear definitions confusing, then perhaps philosophy is not your forte.

I'm... sorry??? That's a little much...

Your definitions I often find confusing. Because you are coming from a Substance Dualist perspective. I am coming from a perspective somewhere between Shamanism, Animism, Neutral Monism, Transcendental Idealism and Objective Idealism, with a mix of Pantheism and Panentheism thrown in somewhere.

Suffice to say, I do not try to fit everything into one hole ~ I take things as they seem to be, and then I try to comprehend what that means, even if I have to expand my mental horizons.

Which is precisely what experiencing parallel incarnations in parallel physical realities forced me to do ~ that fitted absolutely nowhere in my previous model. I tried to make it fit, but it just became more confusing that way, so I gave up and instead put it squarely in the "I haven't a single clue" basket. Then I was given indirect elucidation during an Ayahuasca experience about how that works ~ the soul being a garden, each incarnation being a tree in that tree, each tree having its own set of past lives.

Where does such a conceptualization fit in any of the usual Dualist or Idealist models? Nowhere, frankly. Fits just fine within a Shamanic and Animist model, because it is quite flexible and doesn't exclude the possibility of it anywhere.

...as though you, in resisting my use of terms, are not implicitly trying to force your own usage onto me.

The reason I appear to "resist" is because I do not find your terms always clear or accurate, especially when trying to see if my own experiences can be properly viewed such a lens. Because my experiences do not match to your model, I must resist, and instead try to find a middle ground.

I do try to find a middle ground, but you seem unable to accept meaningful deviations from your terms.

Look, once again: those of your experiences that you've shared are comprehensible on my terms, so I see no reason to update them. Feel free to define your own terms and share those definitions with us.

You believe that my experiences are comprehensible on your terms, but I do not agree, so you resist any suggestions to make your terms more flexible.

I have defined my own terms time and again, to no avail.

In that case, their nature would be unclear.

No, it wouldn't. In your words, memories would therefore be extended, and exist in a sort of space, where I don't think memories exist in space or time.

Memories do not appear to be stored anywhere ~ when examining the actual nature of how memories are perceived... my memories just seem to appear in a flash out of nowhere when I am reminded of them. They just pop into my mind out of apparently nowhere. They appear to be more... of a resonance thing based on emotional connection to them.

Clearer memories for me are those that have more emotional influence over me.

[Laird]

@Valmar, again, same sentiments as here.

memories seem to be best understood as being stored exactly where they were created... it's our naive ideas of time which seem to cause us problems in understanding this.

When we experience apparitions of people who have recently died, who are say... relating a message... from their point of view, I suspect they are still dying, even though we receive the message weeks or months after they have died

we seem to be able to recall experiences, which are not our own... NDE OBE's, Apparitions,  time-slips, past life memories, suggest we can actually experience other peoples experiences, based on which patterns we share... all very good evidence that Solpsim type-ideas are likely wrong.

This also seems to be why children learn so fast, because they learn directly via the same mechanism... from a physical everyday world perspective, they have double the number of adult neurons, but vastly fewer synapses... as their neural network fingerprint forms through feedback of what is useful, and what is not... they form their network, and keep the neurons they use on that network... but initially, they can address many different patterns... hence past life experiences... which fade away as their own network develops.

It does mean that that people in the present can connect to people in the past, and hence people in the future can connect to people in the present... and I think there are issues regarding mental health of people in the present who are affected by past/future

Anne Ancelin Schutzenberger's long term experiences as a therapist caused her to write the book Ancestor Syndrome... and today epigenetic studies show the past influences future generations (trans-generational), even if later generations don't understand why.

The whole of experience is a shared construction... you can access any pattern you can create...