SWM wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>SWM wrote: >>>the points you and Cayuse have been making are not really >>>contradictory, they are just different. >>I am saying that, in a sentence like 'I am experiencing an >>afterimage', 'I' is a referring word; and, Cayuse is saying that 'I' >>is not a referring word in such a sentence. >It's a language issue. You both share a roughly similar sense of the >phenomenological dimension of things. You two just can't agree on how >to talk about it. just because a disagreement is expressed in language doesn't mean that there is no disagreement except as to the choice of which language to use to express a pre-existing agreement. I'll let Cayuse speak for himself; but, I believe that there is a real disagreement not just a difference between the language we use in which to express an underlying agreement. >>these sound like contradictory positions to me; they can't both be >>true. >They can if it's just a matter of how one chooses to phrase things. I seem to recall a long (3+ months, IIRC) thread on Analytic in which you claimed that there was no difference relevant to philosophy of consciousness between Cartesian style interactive substance dualism and Chalmers style epiphenomenal property dualism because, after dropping all the qualifiers ('interactive substance' and 'epiphenomenal property'), you found dualism in each case. did you walk away from that thread believing that, deep down, everyone else truly agreed with you on the substantive issue; and, only disagreed as to how best to express their agreement with your point of view? Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/