We share basic hardware (biological, instinctual) similarities and basic firmware (primary childhood experience) similarities.
This is evidenced by our ability to communicate. These (inter-subjective) similarities are prerequisite to our intellectual interaction.
Are we really communicating? What is it that we're communicating? Isn't everything you've read concerning my response filtered through the prism of your personal set of conditioned data? What is the difference between my statements and figments of your experience?
The "other minds (brains)" hypothesis is a coherent framework for understanding the actions of "others".
Psychology is based on this idea (other minds) and its EFFICACY is established by PROPAGANDA/MARKETING/PUBLIC RELATIONS techniques.
"Established" is too indulgent. And if psychology is efficacious in manipulating the formulation of decisions and experiences defined personally conditioned data (e.g. Propaganda, Marketing, Public Relations, etc.) then does this not undermine the subjectivity of individual experience? Or better yet, individuality?
You've been "conditioned" (inculcated, programmed by instinct and primary childhood experiences) similarly to myself (inter-subjectively).
How were we conditioned similarly?
Because I'm communicating with you. This logically means our brains must necessarily share basic similarities.
Once again, are we? I could be a figment of your imagination especially if one is going to argue that belief is a personal set of conditioned data. Your response is subject to that which you believe to be true about the "human" brain.
Simply by making a statement (any statement) you are implicitly raising your ego above others.
For example, What significance does the statement, "what significance does this bear to anyone other than you?" bear to anyone other than you?
Except that I'm not the one arguing that belief is intrasubjective. I'm using his premise to demonstrate contradiction.
Ultimately, yes. Yes, the issue IS whether you find it interesting.
No it isn't. I do find it interesting, and my participation conveys as much. But that's what I meant by "significance."
Generally speaking. There may be a few exceptions, but those exceptions are incapable of intellectual interaction (self-excluding).
How is this a general rule when the rule is also subject to its own description? And there are exceptions that are incapable of intellectual interaction, then how are you aware of them?
It seems to reasonably reflect my experiences as well, and from what I can gather, it does not conflict with the data I've accumulated on "others".
But all that data consists of your personally conditioned data.
Exactly like when you find yourself speaking to someone else in a dream.
Can you learn about someone who only exists in a dream? Can someone who only exists in a dream teach you something about yourself?
No less than I can learn about someone else. And I wouldn't know if a figure in my dream could teach me something about myself.
