The very act of doing so embeds you in a community of practice.
You are never alone.
Nor have I argued otherwise. 
I am unsure as to why you addressed that post to me.
Late night error perhaps. Apologies for any inconvenience.
1 Like
Sharp minds require the body rests…otherwise tangents do occur.
2 Likes
yet
Work it through. First person is already recognising second and third person.
Just throwing an alternative out there. 
I think consciousness is felt experience. Nothing more than that. Everything experiences its own existence, its own nature. In our case, we have a lot of information processing and feedback loops. We experience it as awareness and thinking.
Things without our (or any) information processing systems or feedback loops can’t experiences the same things we do.
2 Likes
One word and one line answers are not very productive. If you have something to say, perhaps you might like to expand on those ideas - put a bit of meat on the bone, so to speak.
Look again at my post. “First Person” isn’t about an individual. Rather it is about what every individual experiences - unique to themselves. All are thus “first person”. Third person re both philosophy and science cannot solve the Hard Problem.
Only each individual can solve it for themselves, should they chose to search for and answer the question “What Am I?”
Your alternative requires improving I think.
If it was really “nothing more than that” we would be able to argue that AI is conscious/experiences being conscious.
What needs to be thought about is what exactly is the “I”/“We” that is doing the experiencing of this “awareness and thinking” - because AI has “a lot of information processing and feedback loops” yet has no “I”…
Can you fill that out for us? What is it that is “unique to themselves”? Looks like qualia territory.
It’s not as if I haven’t laboured that point quite a bit - I’d offer an AI generated summary, but I’m not allowed.
try: Nothing to do with Dennett's "Quining Qualia" - The Philosophy Forum Archive
It was filled out and you didn’t quote the whole sentence, which reads:
“First Person” isn’t about an individual. Rather it is about what every individual experiences - unique to themselves. All are thus “first person”.
You are asking me to “fill out” just a part of the whole sentence.
There own experience being human. I look at it through Expanded Simulation Theory. (EST) The simulation is designed so that not one thing is exactly the same as every other thing. This includes human beings, grains of sand, galaxies, et al.
Explains that territory. You will experience your “red” as your unique experience - just as you experience your human lifetime as unique. That is just the way it is.
Community will not help you explain your unique subjective experience being human, because it cannot. THat is why I wrote:
a group cannot decide for you WHAT you are. We can of course, delegate that responsibility to any group one might name, but it makes no difference. Not in the language they choose to use, nor anything else.
First-person is the default. Grouping is the reaction against that. Before any community - there is the first-person. Before any “we” - there is “I.” The group is a formation of individuals - not the ground of them.
So one can see I have made good effort to “fill things out” before you even asked me to do so.
And can that be filled out? All we have so far is the assertion that one’s experience is unique. But you and I both see the blue sky.
And after Dennett, it seems clear that qualia do not do as advertised.
And so,
The OP has very large gaps.
Or starry nights. Yet our perspective is unique even then. Your human experience is not my human experience, right? If you seriously disagree, you can of course, state categorically why that it is not the case.