Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

One thing, Merc. He is not interested in the science of behavior. He was attacking some sort of philosophical school caller "behaviourism", which has nothing to do with the real thing.

I'm not interested in people who think a position which is designed to dictate methodology and subject matter in pyschology has somehow got something to do with ontology. You kept telling me that if only I understood behaviourism, I'd see it has the answers. But it doesn't actually have anything to do with what we've been discussing, unless its old-style behaviourism after all, which makes ontological claims which were debunked decades ago.

 

[Mercutio]

Erm, can't help noticing but you didn't actually answer the question.

Want to try again?

We know you want to "eliminate dualistic talk". You are yet to explain how this can be done, even by you.

Can't help noticing you didn't understand the answer.

That's ok. It's not your fault, it's your environment.

You did not see it because you project dualism onto other people's vocabulary whether it is there or not. You saw private and public behavior as dualistic when it is not, as one example.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The idea that minds can be causal is pure supernaturalism.

And so is libertarian free will?

Unless we reduce them to purely physical stuff (in which case they are no longer minds) we have no idea how minds can cause physical effects. Science tells us that this does not happen, that physical effects have physical causes.

Wrong. More confusion between science and metaphysics. Science DOES NOT tell us this.

Epiphenomenalism is also absurd. So, mind can be neither epiphenomenal nor causal, and we don't want to dismiss it as non-existant. Does that leave any other possibility?

Yep. Non-materialism.

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, is the truth. What does remain? The idea that mind supervenes on the physical.

Which is either a version of materialism as silly as epiphenomenalism OR is not materialism at all.

Supervenient minds are not epiphenomenal - any change in a supervenient property implies a change in that on which it supervenes, but not necessarily vice-versa (we can have multiple realisability of minds on a variety of physical subtrates). So anything that goes on in mind is reflected in the physical - minds contain no information that is not already present in the physical word. But supervenience doesn't eliminate minds - they exist as phenomena that we can talk about. It would be ridiculous to try to talk about a persons behaviour without using mind-like vocabulary and concepts. They have explanatory power without representing causal, non-physical entities.

Raw supervenience explains nothing. It still leaves the question of WHY minds supervene on matter completely untouched.

At the very least, this seems to me to be the lesser of all the possible evils here, the least bad explanation, the argument that comes closest to making sense. Smarter people then me seem to agree - supervenience physicalism seems to be almost the standard position in philosophy of mind.

I have explained to you before that "supervenience physicalism" is a position compatible with the existence of a neccesary being, which in turn contradicts the claim of physicalism, making this position either as untenable as all the rest of them, or not physicalism at all.

And there is no "standard position" in philosophy of mind. ALL the materialists positions are under sustained attack.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Can't help noticing you didn't understand the answer.

That's because there wasn't one, Mercutio. Are we going to have a repeat of your performance in the previous thread, where you spent three weeks pretending you had a position up your sleeve, but never actually got round to explaining what it was?

I find myself once more asking you: Do you think I am stupid?

You did not see it because you project dualism onto other people's vocabulary whether it is there or not. You saw private and public behavior as dualistic when it is not, as one example.

Ah, I see. Subjective and objective is dualistic but "private and public" is not. Care to explain why?

Prediction: Mercutio will now start backing away from answering, giving excuse after excuse but never actually explaining how to get rid of the dualism. He will also continue to accuse others of creating the dualism that he himself cannot get rid of. Eventually he will just moan that I am too thick-headed to see his non-existent solution to the problem.

 

[Mercutio]

That's because there wasn't one, Mercutio. Are we going to have a repeat of your performance in the previous thread, where you spent three weeks pretending you had a position up your sleeve, but never actually got round to explaining what it was?

I find myself once more asking you: Do you think I am stupid?

I can only repeat what I said earlier--you may very well understand my position, but you have not yet demonstrated that you do so.

Ah, I see. Subjective and objective is dualistic but "private and public" is not. Care to explain why?

"Behavior", defined as "what you do", does not presuppose mind, matter, dualism, any of that can of worms. It works whether one (as hammy does) puts scare quotes around 'you' to indicate some special status, or whether (as Darat has) one infers a 'you' from discrete events. Behavior is what you do. Not "what your body does" or "what your mind does"--if you believe those things, that is your own business. If your body can do it, 'you' can do it. If your mind can do it, 'you' can do it. Behavior, defined this way, does not presuppose anything about what stuff you are; the previous "mind" and "body" examples are both simply behavior in this view, and are not qualitatively different, although the language used reflects the old dualism.

Behavior can be pragmatically divided into public and private simply in noting the number of observers. Again, it matters not a whit whether these observers are assumed to be mind or material; the very question does not arise yet (nor will it have to ever). Private behavior is observable by one person only. Public behavior is observable by more than one. This division does not make a distinction in kind between the types of behavior. "The skin is not all that important as a boundary", as Skinner said. "Subjective" and "Objective", on the other hand, assume a difference in kind. "Subjective" events are, according to my dictionary and according to centuries of baggage, mental in nature, not part of the physical world. "Objective" events are seen as part of the real world (what a strange concept, that events which we experience are not seen as part of the real world unless observable by more than one person! Certainly you can see how silly that is!), independent of the mental world. They do not differ merely in terms of how many people can observe, but are assumed to differ in terms of ontological status. There is, of course, no evidence for such a difference; it is purely an assumption.

Private and public behavior, as opposed to subjective and objective experiences, rely on far fewer a priori assumptions, and are completely independent of monism.

Prediction: Mercutio will now start backing away from answering, giving excuse after excuse but never actually explaining how to get rid of the dualism. He will also continue to accuse others of creating the dualism that he himself cannot get rid of. Eventually he will just moan that I am too thick-headed to see his non-existent solution to the problem.

Observation: Geoff's post here indicates that he has not understood my past posts. I hope he understands this one.

 

[chriswl]

And so is libertarian free will [supernaturalism]?

Yes.

Wrong. More confusion between science and metaphysics. Science DOES NOT tell us this.

The results of science do tell us this. If physical things had non physical causes scientists would see this as anomalies in their experiments. As scientists only observe the physical world they would find their explanations full of gaps and would realise that they hadn't got the full picture as they were missing the non-physical causes. This doesn't happen.

This is something that so many of you philosophical types just don't get (or don't want to get) - science isn't just some other field of knowledge that you can confine to its own little ghetto. It is a complete system - you accept it and it leaves no room for alternative explanations, or you reject it and drift off into irrationality. There is no halfway point, no nice, liberal compromise.

This is why you allow your whole philosophy to hinge on some speculative ideas in quantum physics that few physicists take seriously. Becuase it holds out the promise of escaping from the straitjacket that conventional scientific thinking confines you to.

Raw supervenience explains nothing. It still leaves the question of WHY minds supervene on matter completely untouched.

I don't have any pre-conceptions about how much of reality can be explained. I'll take the theory that explains the most and is not obviously ridiculous.

I have explained to you before that "supervenience physicalism" is a position compatible with the existence of a neccesary being, which in turn contradicts the claim of physicalism, making this position either as untenable as all the rest of them, or not physicalism at all.

"Explained" is the wrong word here. That explanation made no sense to anyone but you. The article you linked to was a refutation of an attempt to use the idea of supervenience to prove that physicalism was true. Completely irrelevant. I pointed this out to you before and you didn't reply.

And there is no "standard position" in philosophy of mind. ALL the materialists positions are under sustained attack.

Mainly by rival materialists, it seems. The only positions that don't come under constant attack are those that nobody holds because they are widely understood to be wrong.

 

[hammegk]

The idea that minds can be causal is pure supernaturalism.

A word that is the essence of dualism, and is used by materialists, meaningless as it is.

Unless we reduce them to purely physical stuff (in which case they are no longer minds) we have no idea how minds can cause physical effects.

The Stimpy and Paul A position ... reality is a monism they name "physical" although it's attributes are unknown. At least they agree on monism.

Science tells us that this does not happen, that physical effects have physical causes.

Science has yet to define the most-basic attributes of that which we perceive as "physical".


Ah, the joys of objective idealism. in that although it no more answers the questions of free-will, etc, it does not deny them a priori.

"Subjective" and "Objective", on the other hand, assume a difference in kind.

LOL. Subjective = single observer, Objective = multiple observers. Wow!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I can only repeat what I said earlier--you may very well understand my position, but you have not yet demonstrated that you do so.

OK, Merc, I'll make an extra special effort to extract what you mean from what you say.

"Behavior", defined as "what you do", does not presuppose mind, matter, dualism, any of that can of worms.

Oh yes it does. I can describe your behaviour in terms of the behaviour of every molecule in your body. At this point I will have failed to describe anything "Private", "mental", "subjective" or "1st-person". "Behaviour" is just one more example of one half of a dualism. It is no different to any of the others. You then try to disguise this by splitting it into "private behaviour" and "public behaviour", thus restoring the dualism and acheiving absolutey nothing. How does this solve the problem?

It works whether one (as hammy does) puts scare quotes around 'you' to indicate some special status, or whether (as Darat has) one infers a 'you' from discrete events. Behavior is what you do.

It is also what p-zombies do. Next?

Not "what your body does" or "what your mind does"--if you believe those things, that is your own business.

In which case it doesn't mean anything at all, since you've given a free hand for people to interpret it however they like. Precisely what does his gain us? Nothing, Merc. Nothing.

If your body can do it, 'you' can do it. If your mind can do it, 'you' can do it.

OK, so we have a word "you" which means different things to different people, still not resolving the problem. You have either assumed "you" means "your body", or you haven't. Which is it?

Behavior, defined this way, does not presuppose anything about what stuff you are

It also doesn't mean anything and doesn't acheive anything. You aren't saying anything.

; the previous "mind" and "body" examples are both simply behavior in this view, and are not qualitatively different, although the language used reflects the old dualism.

You mean you have replaced "mind" and "body" with "private behaviour" and "public behaviour". And you think this has solved the problem, do you?

Sorry, merc, but......

Behavior can be pragmatically divided into public and private simply in noting the number of observers. Again, it matters not a whit whether these observers are assumed to be mind or material; the very question does not arise yet (nor will it have to ever).

Until somebody asks you to explain WTF you are trying to say, at which point this question will be the first one they ask.

Private behavior is observable by one person only.

So you must mean "mental", since everything physical about me is observable by someone else.

Public behavior is observable by more than one.

So you must mean "physical", since everything physical about me is observable by someone else.

This division does not make a distinction in kind between the types of behavior. "The skin is not all that important as a boundary", as Skinner said.

Meaning what? That you cannot observe anything inside my skin?

"Subjective" and "Objective", on the other hand, assume a difference in kind. "Subjective" events are, according to my dictionary and according to centuries of baggage, mental in nature, not part of the physical world.

Err.... like "private behaviour"????

"Objective" events are seen as part of the real world...

Curiouser and curiouser! So "private behaviour" is not part of the real world?

(what a strange concept, that events which we experience are not seen as part of the real world unless observable by more than one person!

Yes, sounds pretty strange to me. Sounds like total gobbledegook.

Private and public behavior, as opposed to subjective and objective experiences, rely on far fewer a priori assumptions, and are completely independent of monism.

Utter cr*p. There is NO difference.

Observation: Geoff's post here indicates that he has not understood my past posts. I hope he understands this one.

You are talking out of your butt. Your arguments make no sense. You have just replaced "mental" with "private" and "physical" with "public", even to the extent of claiming that the "mental" or "private" things are not part of the real world. You have made NO progress in eliminating the dualism. All you have done is replace one set of dualistic vocabulary with another. Why on earth you think this is an improvement is quite beyond me.

I have no trouble understanding your position, Mercutio. YOU don't understand your position. Hammegk, on the other hand, does.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The results of science do tell us this. If physical things had non physical causes scientists would see this as anomalies in their experiments. As scientists only observe the physical world they would find their explanations full of gaps and would realise that they hadn't got the full picture as they were missing the non-physical causes. This doesn't happen.

Er, yes it does. What do you think quantum mechanics is if it is not full of explanatory gaps?

This is something that so many of you philosophical types just don't get (or don't want to get) - science isn't just some other field of knowledge that you can confine to its own little ghetto. It is a complete system - you accept it and it leaves no room for alternative explanations, or you reject it and drift off into irrationality. There is no halfway point, no nice, liberal compromise.

Er, QM leaves all sorts of room for alternative explanations. And they are being provided. By scientists and philosophers alike.

This is why you allow your whole philosophy to hinge on some speculative ideas in quantum physics that few physicists take seriously.

But some do. See Kuhn. We've been round this loop before, Chris.

Becuase it holds out the promise of escaping from the straitjacket that conventional scientific thinking confines you to.

Yep. It ripped that straightjacket wide open. But some people seem to like the straightjacket. Can't think why, personally.

I don't have any pre-conceptions about how much of reality can be explained.

Apart from just claiming the system was already complete.....

I'll take the theory that explains the most and is not obviously ridiculous.

Right. So which intepretation of QM will that be?

"Explained" is the wrong word here. That explanation made no sense to anyone but you. The article you linked to was a refutation of an attempt to use the idea of supervenience to prove that physicalism was true. Completely irrelevant. I pointed this out to you before and you didn't reply.

No, it was a refuation of the claim that you can define materialism in terms of supervenience.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

LOL. Subjective = single observer, Objective = multiple observers. Wow!

No, hammy, you don't understand. There is no hidden dualism is Mercutio's comments. He's transcended dualism! You only see his definitions as dualistic because of your own biases and inability to understand the subtlety of his position.

 

[Mercutio]

LOL. Subjective = single observer, Objective = multiple observers. Wow!

You didn't check your dictionary before you wrote this, did you? Look up Subjective. The attributes which Geoff craves are there in that definition. If Subjective simple meant "single observer", I wouldn't be in this thread. Objective, also...look it up. It does not say "multiple observers", it says "existing in reality". That's baggage.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You didn't check your dictionary before you wrote this, did you? Look up Subjective. The attributes which Geoff craves are there in that definition. If Subjective simple meant "single observer", I wouldn't be in this thread. Objective, also...look it up. It does not say "multiple observers", it says "existing in reality". That's baggage.

Please explain very clearly why "single observer" and "multiple observers" does not map perfectly on to "subjective/objective" or "mental/physical". I can see no difference whatsover. Don't tell us to look it up. Post the answer yourself, please. We don't understand. Please educate us.

This thread just won't die, will it?

 

[Mercutio]

OK, Merc, I'll make an extra special effort to extract what you mean from what you say.

...imagine my hopes rising.

Oh yes it does. I can describe your behaviour in terms of the behaviour of every molecule in your body. At this point I will have failed to describe anything "Private", "mental", "subjective" or "1st-person". "Behaviour" is just one more example of one half of a dualism. It is no different to any of the others. You then try to disguise this by splitting it into "private behaviour" and "public behaviour", thus restoring the dualism and acheiving absolutey nothing. How does this solve the problem?

imagine my hopes dashed. No, Geoff.

It is also what p-zombies do. Next?

Yes, it is. This is only a problem for those who presuppose a particular kind of stuff that makes up "mind". Thus the difference between it and my view.

In which case it doesn't mean anything at all, since you've given a free hand for people to interpret it however they like. Precisely what does his gain us? Nothing, Merc. Nothing.

It would be quicker for you to say "I don't understand". It would also be more accurate.

OK, so we have a word "you" which means different things to different people, still not resolving the problem. You have either assumed "you" means "your body", or you haven't. Which is it?

I have not assumed that.

It also doesn't mean anything and doesn't acheive anything. You aren't saying anything.

Here you are quite simply wrong.

You mean you have replaced "mind" and "body" with "private behaviour" and "public behaviour". And you think this has solved the problem, do you?

Sorry, merc, but......

*sigh* no. I have tried to pre-emptively address one of your older claims--that I deny private experience. I see that if I try to use your vocabulary, you will accuse me of dualism, and if I do not, you will accuse me of denying reality. Wonderful.

Until somebody asks you to explain WTF you are trying to say, at which point this question will be the first one they ask.

And, as when the child asks how the sun climbs in the sky, you gently tell them that this is the wrong question.

So you must mean "mental", since everything physical about me is observable by someone else.

Are you utterly incapable of understanding? I do not, and never have, meant "mental". You are projecting again. If you insist upon putting words in other people's mouths, you should wash your hands more often. I begin to see why Stimpy was so frustrated with you.

So you must mean "physical", since everything physical about me is observable by someone else.

Once again, you ask me to explain and you ignore my explanation, imposing your definitions.

Meaning what? That you cannot observe anything inside my skin?

Meaning that explanations for private behavior and explanations for public behavior are both to be found in one's environment.

Err.... like "private behaviour"????

Your ignorance is showing again.

Curiouser and curiouser! So "private behaviour" is not part of the real world?

Thank you for making my point. In citing dictionary definitions of "subjective" and "objective", we are left with the notion that the former are not part of the real world. Don't just take my word for it, head for dictionary.com. Private behavior, which is simply behavior, is not assumed to be "of the mind" (although you persist in hearing that, without any evidence whatsoever). It is not in the odd position of being "not part of the real world". Note that whether something is seen as part of the real world or not is part of your vocabulary, and purely the result of circular assumptions. The behavioral approach does not "deny" what you would call mental, it simply does not assume magical characteristics about it that deny its membership in reality.

Yes, sounds pretty strange to me. Sounds like total gobbledegook.

I agree completely. Note that I was speaking of your worldview and your vocabulary.

Utter cr*p. There is NO difference.

None that you are willing to see, it would appear.

You are talking out of your butt. Your arguments make no sense. You have just replaced "mental" with "private" and "physical" with "public", even to the extent of claiming that the "mental" or "private" things are not part of the real world. You have made NO progress in eliminating the dualism. All you have done is replace one set of dualistic vocabulary with another. Why on earth you think this is an improvement is quite beyond me.

Once again, you are quite simply wrong. You are so stuck in your dualistic assumptions that you cannot see around them.

I have no trouble understanding your position, Mercutio. YOU don't understand your position. Hammegk, on the other hand, does.

I am happy you think you understand my position. I cannot wait for you to actually demonstrate that understanding for the first time. Hammy does, for the most part, understand my position. He also did read that behaviorism tutorial. Hmmm....

 

[hammegk]

Sorry, Merc. Whatever is perceived via hammegk & photon/graviton exchange is subjective to hammegk. Merc will never share it.

Things that are objective can be and are perceived simultaneously (although that opens another can'o'worms) by multiple perceivers, each perception viewpoint being in-itself subjective to the specific perceiver.


You do understand I have no problem accepting everything your school of behaviorism states, yet I remain a (100% logical) objective idealist?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

...imagine my hopes rising.
imagine my hopes dashed. No, Geoff.
Yes, it is. This is only a problem for those who presuppose a particular kind of stuff that makes up "mind". Thus the difference between it and my view.
It would be quicker for you to say "I don't understand". It would also be more accurate.
I have not assumed that.
Here you are quite simply wrong.
*sigh* no. I have tried to pre-emptively address one of your older claims--that I deny private experience. I see that if I try to use your vocabulary, you will accuse me of dualism, and if I do not, you will accuse me of denying reality. Wonderful.
And, as when the child asks how the sun climbs in the sky, you gently tell them that this is the wrong question.
Are you utterly incapable of understanding? I do not, and never have, meant "mental". You are projecting again. If you insist upon putting words in other people's mouths, you should wash your hands more often. I begin to see why Stimpy was so frustrated with you.
Once again, you ask me to explain and you ignore my explanation, imposing your definitions.
Meaning that explanations for private behavior and explanations for public behavior are both to be found in one's environment.
Your ignorance is showing again.
Thank you for making my point. In citing dictionary definitions of "subjective" and "objective", we are left with the notion that the former are not part of the real world. Don't just take my word for it, head for dictionary.com. Private behavior, which is simply behavior, is not assumed to be "of the mind" (although you persist in hearing that, without any evidence whatsoever). It is not in the odd position of being "not part of the real world". Note that whether something is seen as part of the real world or not is part of your vocabulary, and purely the result of circular assumptions. The behavioral approach does not "deny" what you would call mental, it simply does not assume magical characteristics about it that deny its membership in reality.
I agree completely. Note that I was speaking of your worldview and your vocabulary.
None that you are willing to see, it would appear.
Once again, you are quite simply wrong. You are so stuck in your dualistic assumptions that you cannot see around them.
I am happy you think you understand my position. I cannot wait for you to actually demonstrate that understanding for the first time. Hammy does, for the most part, understand my position. He also did read that behaviorism tutorial. Hmmm....

Please explain very clearly why "single observer" and "multiple observers" does not map perfectly on to "subjective/objective" or "mental/physical". I can see no difference whatsover. Don't tell us to look it up. Post the answer yourself, please. We don't understand. Please educate us. Where are the mismatches? What is the difference between the two pairs?

 

[Belz...]

Oh yes it does. I can describe your behaviour in terms of the behaviour of every molecule in your body. At this point I will have failed to describe anything "Private", "mental", "subjective" or "1st-person". "Behaviour" is just one more example of one half of a dualism.

No it's not. Replacing "demons" with "mental illness" describes the same symptoms by different causes. "Private" is still observable, in my book. But of course, if I were right it would topple your entire world view, so you prefer to ignore me.

It is also what p-zombies do. Next?

I thought we agreed that p-zombies are incoherent ? Why do we keep trotting them out ?

You mean you have replaced "mind" and "body" with "private behaviour" and "public behaviour". And you think this has solved the problem, do you?

Replacing the monolithic "atom" with a nucleus surrounded by electrons surely solved ONE problem at one point. It's amazing how you can moan about people using dualistic language and AGAIN when they try to change that language. Neutral monism my eye. You like that dualistic crap.

 

[Belz...]

This thread just won't die, will it?

Now you know what Mr. Frankenstein felt like.

Er, QM leaves all sorts of room for alternative explanations. And they are being provided. By scientists and philosophers alike.

The difference between the two is that the latter MAKE UP explanations and then pat each other on the back for their ingenuity, while the former actually try to understand something and make it work.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No it's not. Replacing "demons" with "mental illness" describes the same symptoms by different causes. "Private" is still observable, in my book.

Yes, but only by one person! The dualism has gone nowhere. It's still there, just like it always will be.

But of course, if I were right it would topple your entire world view, so you prefer to ignore me.

How can renaming subjective to "observable only by me" and objective to "observable by everyone" topple my entire world view? All you have done is add two new terms to the list of dualisms.

To transcend the dualism, you need ONE TERM which captures the essence of both. Not two.

 

[Apathia]

I can see clearly how merely speaking of behavior doesn't equal a metaphysical position, be it Materialism, Idealism, or Neutral Monism. One can talk about experiences, as well. without having to commit to a Metaphsic.
Merc has a point there. He's fine if he doesn't try to make a meatphysical statement from that or use it as a critique of Materialism, Idealism or Neutral Monism. That's stepping into metaphysics then and Behavior becomes a metaphysical substance or principle. behavior has a metaphysical substance quickly collapses into a Materialist stance based on the behavior of material things.

Subjectivity=Private experience only partially covers what it means to be a Being. It doesn't address the Korean Zen Hwadu, "Who is this that asks who I am?" Even when Behavior Science can descibe the physical processes that give rise to our selfhood, and perhaps even explain it away, the personal mystery "why me?" will still be there for Philosophy to ponder.
Science can show how it happens, after that, putting it into a meaningful package that affirms being a self is Philosophy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I can see clearly how merely speaking of behavior doesn't equal a metaphysical position, be it Materialism, Idealism, or Neutral Monism. One can talk about experiences, as well. without having to commit to a Metaphsic.
Merc has a point there. He's fine if he doesn't try to make a meatphysical stement from that or use it as a critique of Materialism, Idealism or Neutral Monism. That's stepping into metaphysics then and Behavior becomes a metaphysical substance or principle. behavior has a metaphysical substance quickly collapses into a Materialist stance based on the behavior of material things.

Subjectivity=Private experience only partially covers what it means to be a Being. It doesn't address the Korean Zen Hwadu, "Who is this that asks who I am?" Even when Behavior Science can descibe the physical processes that give rise to our selfhood, and perhaps even explain it away, the personal mystery "why me?" will still be there for Philosophy to ponder.
Science can show how it happens, after that, putting it into a meaningful package that affirms being a self is Philosophy.

As soon as "behaviour" is split into "observable by one person" vs "observable by many persons" we are back to a linguistic dualism. You are correct to say that at this point no metaphysics has been specified, but the same is true of the first stages of the zombie argument. It starts by establishing a linguistic/conceptual dualism which it claims is unavoidable. Mercutio wants to claim that this is just down to my personal biases. But when asked for a scheme which avoids this linguistic dualism he offers us "observable only by you" and "observable by everyone". In what way is that not a linguistic/conceptual dualism?