Joseph Polanik wrote:
> Cayuse wrote:
>> Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>> Cayuse wrote:
>>>> Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>> your belief that 'I' always self-references the physical organism
>>>>> is untenable. not all people use it that way.
>
>>>> Examples would help.
>
>>> obviously, I am one example. as discussed before your recent hiatus,
>>> I use 'I' to self-reference the container or bundler-together of
>>> this stream of experiences.
>
>> There is a stream of experience -- that much is, as Chalmers puts it,
>> a "brute fact" --
>
> there is not just one stream of experiences. the brute fact is that I
> have my steam of experiences, you have a different stream of
> experiences, your stream of experiences.
Negative -- that is not a brute fact but a plausible supposition.
A stream of experiences cannot be demonstrated by anybody to anybody.
>> but where is this "container" or "bundler-together"
?
>
> I am here.
My wife enters the house and calls my name. I reply "I am here".
The proclamation has an application in this case, but not in the case
that you present. We're just covering old ground here, and we made
no headway the last time around. I don't see the point of this.
> if you don't like the 'container' or 'bundler-together' metaphors, you
> might try some other --- unless, of course, you deny having any
> relationship whatsoever with your own stream of experiences. do you?
As per our last discussion, there is a stream of experiences.
Any postulate of an "experiencer" is unjustified and without application.
Are we going to have our last discussion all over again?
>> What is to be gained by postulating any such entity?
>
> there is no postulating. as I demonstrated, experience implies an
> experiencer --- unless, of course, you want to resume your attempted
> refutation of that claim.
The claim that "there is experience, therefore there is an experiencer"
is simply bad logic. I've no great desire to disabuse you of your error,
which is as much to say as that I'm happy to agree to disagree in order
to avoid wasting any more time on this issue.
>> What practical advantage does talk of any such entity confer?
>
> if by 'practical advantage' you mean will it help you make money, the
> answer is no.
I mean how might it be useful in our attempts to negotiate the world
in our daily lives (like the example I gave of my wife returning home).
This really is getting tedious.
> it is possible that the result of philosophical inquiry is nothing
> more than learning what is true and/or unlearning what is false. if
> that is not a sufficient advantage; then, you may have selected the
> wrong hobby.
You should take your own advice and learn to recognize the faulty
logic of your claim. Since you consistently fail to understand this point,
I strongly suggest we agree to disagree.
>>> I am now experiencing philosophizing about this which I am; hence,
>>> this experiencing I is an instance of the philosophical self.
>
>> Above, you wrote "I use 'I' to self-reference the container or
>> bundler-together of this stream of experiences" but now you're using
>> 'I' to refer to some presumed "experiencer" of this stream of
>> experiences. Are you implying that the "container or
>> bundler-together" is at the same time and in some as yet unexplained
>> manner the "experiencer" of that stream?
>
> you have it turned around. the fact is that I am the experiencer of my
> stream of experiences. who else would be the experiencer of my stream
> of experiences? is anyone besides you the experiencer of your stream
> of experiences?
There is no experiencer, there is only the erroneous *idea* of an
experiencer appearing as an aspect of that stream of experiences
(grounded in the faulty logic of the claim that "there is experience,
therefore there is an experiencer"
). Oh boy. How many times...
> 'container' and 'bundler-together' are metaphorical descriptions of
> the relation between an experiencer and its experiences. if you have a
> different metaphor for that relation; then, why not tell us what that
> it is.
The relationship between the experiencer and the stream of experiences
is that the former is a fiction appearing in the latter. Good grief, man.
>>> as to the second point, it's not entirely clear just what LW meant
>>> by the cryptic remarks that you quote, "the limit of the world --
>>> not a part of it".
>
>> You recruited LW's comment (TLP 5.641) to your cause, and you're not
>> sure what he means?
>
> if you are certain you have the one and only true and correct
> interpretation of that phrase, "the limit of the world -- not a part
> of it"; then, don't keep us in suspense. tell us what LW meant by it.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that it was you that recruited 5.641
to support your argument, not me. The onus is therefore upon you to
show how it is consistent with your claim for an "experiencer" of the
stream of experiences. Of course, you could just start a game of "onus
ping-pong" in order to distract from your great difficulty in doing this,
but that would be nothing more than gamesmanship and would not
deserve to be dignified with a response.
============
=========
=========
=========
===
Need Something? Check here:
http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
