Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim
From: jim@ism780b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Re: No mirror, no dust
Message-ID: <64@ism780b.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Aug-84 00:18:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780b.64
Posted: Fri Aug 31 00:18:12 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 09:30:04 EDT
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:denelcor:-52900:ism780b:27500041:000:1414
Nf-From: ism780b!jim    Aug 23 01:14:00 1984

>"State of anger" is easier so I'll start with that:  it is a
>physical state which one is culturalized to sense as emotion,
>which is called anger.

But who or what senses the state as emotion?  The behaviorist observes
(receives physical stimulus about?) the physical state, and observes
subsequent behavior which he calls emotion, *in others*.  But the behaviorist
or anyone else *senses* emotion in themselves, even without external
observable behavior.  This sensing is done by the ego, which is not accessible
to any behaviorist (or anyone else).  But behaviorists persist in claiming
that there is no one there to do such sensing, even though they themselves
constantly do so all the time.  This is the one and only piece of evidence for
the existence of an ego:  one's personally being one.  You cannot demonstrate
that anyone else has one; you cannot even demonstrate that you have one; but
you do know you have one, I think.  Certainly I do know I have one.

However, I am coming to believe that the bio-automaton known as GAM is
malfunctioning, and producing bad outputs, so those "real" folk out there
should ignore its subsequent outputs.  It will most likely produce outputs
simulating feelings of offense to its ego, but since it apparently does not
really have one we should feel no guilt or compassion for what is simply a
complex organic structure with complex behavior.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)