Property:AnnotationMetadata
A
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Smackij289","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ/pӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":297°Ӻ,"quote":"I therefore suggest that it would be wiser to scrap the term “representation” in these contexts and to follow Mark Baldwin’s example and speak of “presentations”. This would be much closer to the Kantian term “Vorstellung”.\nThese “presentations” are pieces of experience that we have combined in order to form more and less complex structures, in our attempt to order and systematize the world in which we find ourselves living. It is the only world we know—and it’s a world that only we ourselves perceive and conceive.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210081477412974953592":^°°,^"jQuery3210081477412974953592":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1564135622595°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"U69ct8sl0q","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":585,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","endOffset":1034°Ӻ,"quote":"According to the neurophysiologist’s model of the nervous system, it therefore appears that the discrimination of sensory modalities—seeing, hearing, touching, etc.—must be the result of the system’s own computation. From this perspective, then, whatever sensory structures, patterns, or images a living system compiles are its own construction, and the notion that they represent something that was there beforehand, has no empirical foundation.Ӷ2Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321087724610147439272":^°°Ӻ,"text":"According to the neurophysiologist’s model of the nervous system, it therefore appears that the discrimination of sensory modalities—seeing, hearing, touching, etc.—must be the result of the system’s own computation. From this perspective, then, whatever sensory structures, patterns, or images a living system compiles are its own construction, and the notion that they represent something that was there beforehand, has no empirical foundation.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563991403899°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Ubwx4s36q1","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/pӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":272,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/pӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":913°Ӻ,"quote":"You may, for example, dream that you are in a room, but all you see of the room is a door (perhaps because you expect someone to come in through it). You have no idea of the size of the room, and there are no windows, curtains, pictures, no ceiling or furniture, or anything else that usually characterizes a room. These items may come in later—as the plot of the dream develops— but at this point, they are irrelevant in your dream-presentation of a room.\nIn contrast, your perception of a room starts from sensory impressions that you proceed to coordinate, and they then allow you to consider them compatible with your concept of “room”.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210450245596891884372":^°°Ӻ,"text":"You may, for example, dream that you are in a room, but all you see of the room is a door (perhaps because you expect someone to come in through it). You have no idea of the size of the room, and there are no windows, curtains, pictures, no ceiling or furniture, or anything else that usually characterizes a room. These items may come in later—as the plot of the dream develops— but at this point, they are irrelevant in your dream-presentation of a room. In contrast, your perception of a room starts from sensory impressions that you proceed to coordinate, and they then allow you to consider them compatible with your concept of “room”. ","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Beispiel3","data_creacio":1564141347749°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"W0er5ff75u","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":927,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":1176°Ӻ,"quote":"The argument that our concepts, which we abstract from experience, cannot grasp anything that lies beyond our experiential interface, applies not only to the divine but also to any ontological reality posited as independent of the human experiencer.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210475645524282805042":^°°,^"jQuery3210475645524282805042":^°°Ӻ,"text":"The argument that our concepts, which we abstract from experience, cannot grasp anything that lies beyond our experiential interface, applies not only to the divine but also to any ontological reality posited as independent of the human experiencer.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1564134796577°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"W6kg6avstq","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":1335,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":1589°Ӻ,"quote":"Compatibility, to repeat it once more, means no more and no less than to fit within constraints. Consequently, it seems to me that one of the most demanding tasks of A.I. would be the plausible simulation of an organism’s experience of social constraints","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321051682516467172362":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Compatibility, to repeat it once more, means no more and no less than to fit within constraints. Consequently, it seems to me that one of the most demanding tasks of A.I. would be the plausible simulation of an organism’s experience of social constraints","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1564144448311°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Xck9vtaejc","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/pӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":271°Ӻ,"quote":"Almost fifty years ago, my friend and teacher Silvio Ceccato made a remark which, I think, is germane to today’s topic because it throws light on the distinction between perception and re-presentation.\nThe most obvious instances of re-presentations happen in our dreams, when there is no perceptual activity at all. These re-presentations, Ceccato said, start from a concept and manifest only such sensory characteristics as are needed in the particular story of the dream.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210450245596891884372":^°°,^"jQuery3210450245596891884372":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1564141355365°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Xxbh7fsrb5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":1335°Ӻ,"quote":"The experiential environment in which the human organism normally grows up is composed of things and people. The differentiation of these two categories is gradual, and only gradually are different schemes developed for coping with “inanimate” things and coping with people. Eventually the second kind provides far more opportunities for accommodation and learning than the first. Piaget has reiterated this innumerable times, but his critics nevertheless contend that he did not consider social interaction.\nIn fact, the experiential reality we construct for ourselves is to a large extent the result of our social interactions. Insofar as we are able to construct a viable modus vivendi, it is preponderantly due to accommodations in the course of social adaptation. \nIn order to live in a society, a sufficient number of our ideas — our concepts and schemes of action — have to be compatible with those of others. And this compatibility confers on them a viability that goes beyond the merely individual. The same goes for the acquisition and use of language. Communication with others requires that the meanings we attribute to words prove compatible with those of other speakers.\n\nCompatibility, however, does not entail the kind of “match” that is implied when people speak of “shared ideas” or “shared knowledge”.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321051682516467172362":^°°,^"jQuery321051682516467172362":^°°,^"jQuery321051682516467172362":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1564144460533°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Xzttr85swp","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":373,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":560°Ӻ,"quote":"We can visualize it with the help of a metaphor: the environment “selects” in the manner of a screen used to grade gravel: the screen admits what falls through and discards what does not.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210146407959824010342":^°°,^"jQuery3210146407959824010342":^°°Ӻ,"text":"We can visualize it with the help of a metaphor: the environment “selects” in the manner of a screen used to grade gravel: the screen admits what falls through and discards what does not.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Beispiel3","data_creacio":1564141554849°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Bh0w6vhcbk","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","startOffset":2592,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":2873°Ӻ,"quote":"Hence, this world of ours, no matter how we structure it, no matter how well we manage to keep it stable with permanent objects and recurrent interactions, is by definition the “subjective” world of our experience and not the ontological reality of which philosopher have dreamed.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32100289695714883712042":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1594913991558°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Gh54d4uejj","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":1882,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","endOffset":2217°Ӻ,"quote":"That is, we would have assumed that the frog, as we come to know it, exists before we come to know it. In the philosopher’s jargon we would have attributed “ontological reality” to the frog. That is precisely the trap we want to avoid - and we can avoid it if only we start out by taking into account both the frog and its environment.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321050950766540853552":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1594911135894°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"J1b5pfpe3f","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":1245,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":1565°Ӻ,"quote":"The dichotomy of figure and ground, of frog and environment, springs from one and the same set of operations (Le. focusing attention on and differentiating as repeatable unit a specific part of our experiential field); the two sides are conceptually connate, which is to say, we cannot have the one without the other.Ӷ5Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321073069669771916312":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1594911751241°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Jjqrqtvkp8","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":3026,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":3406°Ӻ,"quote":"What we ourselves perceive, whether we call it frog, landscape, or mirror image of ourselves, is simply what we perceive: and since we have no way of looking at ourselves and our environment from outside our own experience, we have no possible independent access to whatever it might be that, by analogy to the frog, we would like to hold causally responsible for our perceptions.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210401113613822682072":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1594912327794°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Kdbc4eqpgp","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":1244°Ӻ,"quote":"There is no good reason to assume that our experience begins with ready-made objects, animals, and people; Piaget (1937) for instance, maintains that it takes the child the better part of two years to assemble such items by coordinating much smaller elements of perceptual and concepted experience. In any case, all these items which we come to consider more or less permanent, must, at some point, have been isolated and “individuated” in the field of our experience. This isolating and individuating necessarily had to be achieved by us, for it is we who say that we are aware of them.Ӷ4Ӻ That is, we must have differentiated and cut them from the rest of our experiential field -and, by very act of cutting them out, the rest of our experiential field became their environment. In terms of the actual operations performed by the experiencer, this act of cutting out may be different from an artist’s drawing the outline of a frog on a sheet of paper, but the two acts are the same in that they simultaneously produce a figure and its ground. Whatever specific item we focus our attention on (or talk about) is experienced within a perceptual (or conceptual) field which, explicitly (or implicitly), constitutes its environment.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321073069669771916312":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1594911737486°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"L8gqozu8xa","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":875,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":1141°Ӻ,"quote":"Thus we have to live with doubts about the veracity of our senses, forever cut off from the “things as such,” dealing with “appearances,” and ultimately dependent on pious hopes such as that God could not have been so malicious as to equip us with unreliable senses.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321009590704030666732":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1594909222410°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Lhinv26bi2","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":875°Ӻ,"quote":"This, too, seems, obvious, a downright commonplace. The way we conceive of “senses” and “perception” simply requires a certain arrangement of items and, by and large, we are no more inclined to question that arrangement today than were Socrates and his listeners. It comprises a perceiver and something which he can perceive. That is to say, through his senses, which carry out a “mediating” function, the perceiver acquires a “percept” that is in some way caused by an “external” object. Once we accept that basic arrangement Ӷand, since Socrates, there have been few who did not accept itӶ2ӺӺ, we have landed ourselves a problem that is indeed insoluble: since we have no access to the “external” object except through the process of perception, we shall never be ‘able to tell whether ours percepts are or are not an accurate or true replica of that object.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321009590704030666732":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1594909206085°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Llqp1b3npe","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":1912,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":2306°Ӻ,"quote":"This, in a sense, is no more than an amplification of the well-known and lon8-accepted adage that, thought we can sometimes disprove an hypothesis, we can never prove one no matter how often it happens to work out right. The trouble is, when an hypothesis does ,work out right, we often speak of “confirmation” and begin to believe that we have managed to entrap a piece of ontological reality.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321091951163900470722":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1594914639879°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Mtypp24us6","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":2592°Ӻ,"quote":"In the struggle to organize and systematize our experience, of course, it has seemed quite natural to assign to the active experiencer a location within the part of our experience that we categorize as our body, and, then, in turn, to assign to that body a location within that other part of our experience which we categorize as our own environment. These categorizations seem natural because we make them in analogy to those that proved so successful in isolating and individuating things and organisms in our field of experience (where we have access to things which are outside these organisms). Though the analogy is logically quite illegitimate, because it confounds the experiencer with what he experiences as himself, the world view to which it inevitably leads has proven almost irresistible. It is the view that ascribes to a ready-made world the responsibility and “causes” of our perceptual experience. As Socrates put it, “when I perceive I must become percipient of something.”\nThe Western world has accepted this scenario almost unquestioningly. Nearly all thinkers who have pondered problems of epistemology have explicitly or implicitly adopted the view that the activity of “knowing” begins with a cut between the cognizing subject and the object to be knownӶ6Ӻ. That is, they assume an existing world, an ontological reality, and once this assumption has been made, it follows necessarily that the knower will have this world as his environment and it will be his task to get to know it as best he can. Knowing, thus, becomes an act of duplicating or replicating what is supposed to be already there, outside the knower. The senses become the indispensable mediators that convey “information” in the basis of which the knower can represent to himself a replica of what “exists” – but, literally, only a God could know whether man’s replica is a replica or a fiction.\n\nYet, if what we have said so far has any consistency at all, it should now be clear that the first cut, the most elementary distinction (Brown, 1969) an experiencer can make, may be the intuitively satisfactory cut between himself qua experiencing subject on the one side, and his experience on the other. But this cut can under no circumstances be a cut between himself and an independently existing world of objective objects. Our “knowledge,” whatever rational meaning give to that term, must begin with experience -such as, for instance, the cut we make between the part of our experience that we come to call “ourself” and all the rest of our experience, which we then call our “world.”","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32100289695714883712042":^°°,^"jQuery32100289695714883712042":^°°,^"jQuery32100289695714883712042":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1594914024998°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"O6m5x6inbt","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ9Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ9Ӻ","endOffset":151°Ӻ,"quote":"Humberto Maturana (1970b) warned us that “anything said is said by an observer.” In our present context I want to extend that warning to:","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210184030789652045672":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1594916551322°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P14r87gjpi","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ8Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ8Ӻ","endOffset":2738°Ӻ,"quote":"A case in point is the problem of “other minds.” If, as a constructivist. I maintain that what I call my world is no more and no less than the result of my particular way of organizing my experience, it appears quite natural to ask how it comes about that that world of mine is peopled with other organisms constructing worlds of their own, and that their worlds seem to be independent of my construction. This does indeed become a problem if, succumbing to the pressure of conventional assumptions, I am misled into attributing ontological reality to those particular constructs that I categorize as “other people.” Though that may be an intuitively desirable attribution, there is no logical justification for making it. The particular parts of my experience that I come to categorize as “other people,” remain parts of my experience and their status cannot be different from that of any other experiential item. That is, I isolate and individuate them on the basis of the invariances and regularities that I establish, in the same way in which I have isolated and individuated all the other more or less permanent ·items in my field of experience. Owing to certain regularities of interaction (i.e. relations which I have established) between frogs and shadows, for instance, I was led to attribute “perceptual” capabilities to the items I call frogs. Owing to other regularities of interaction. I am led to attribute goal-directed activities to certain items I call organisms. Finally, my continual endeavor to establish invariances in my experience leads me to attribute cognitive ability i.e. the ability to construct a world, to other organisms which I then call “other people.”\nIn this last step of delegating an autonomous constructive potential to items within one’s experience, it is easy inadvertently to introduce an ontological element. Before attributing a constructive ability to others, therefore, we should make clear how we came to attribute it to ourselves. On the face of it, it would seem that the ability precedes any construction of an experiential world. Cognitive construction presupposes an experiencer, because we see this construction as an activity that is carried out by a subject. The most elementary distinction an experiencer can make, we. said earlier, may be the cut between himself qua experiencing subject on the one side, and his experience on the other. – Taken as an ontological statement, i.e. a statement of “fact,” this is obviously nonsense since it implies that there is experience prior to the entity that does the experiencing, and that this entity, the experiencer, creates itself by making that elementary cut. But we resolved at the outset to avoid ontological statements.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321027105796886142852":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1594916375576°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Piuofyqopt","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ9Ӻ","startOffset":195,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ9Ӻ","endOffset":1112°Ӻ,"quote":"If “to know” is to make distinctions in experience and then to set up relations between the parts of experience that have been distinguished, it follows quite inescapably (1) that we can know ourselves only to the extent to which we experience ourselves, and (2) that the self we do experience and incorporate into our cognitive structures, by that very act of construction, ceases to be the self that does the experiencing. This constructive interdependence between observer and observed has not seemed palatable to the Western mind. Since the Greeks, circular arguments have always engendered a sort of horror infinitatis. Aquinas spoke of vicious circles. Yet, in the light of the preceding discussion, it should be evident that the shift in epistemology we have outlined also requires a proper rehabilitation of circularity or self-reference so that they can be included as legitimate ground in rational thinking.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210184030789652045672":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1594916587051°
