[Wittrs] I Experience in Ordinary Language

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:03:17 -0500

Cayuse wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>is there a mereological problem here; or, is there a problem with
>>mereological analyses?

>We humans have a drive to find explanations, where explanation consists
>in finding a bigger collection of parts within which the behavior of
>the part in question, or even its existence, may be understood.

>If there are parts, then there is a sum total of those parts. That sum
>total itself is often a part in a bigger system of parts, yielding a
>hierarchical structure. There comes the idea of a sum total of all
>parts (both the presumed apex of the hierarchy and the entire pyramid)
>and then our instinctive drive for explanation becomes pathological and
>leads us to demand an explanation for the existence of that entire
>pyramid. Explanatory accounts may be imagined, but they cannot be
>cashed-out as practical advantages for the organism in terms of
>survival and/or reproduction. Competing accounts cannot be eradicated
>on grounds of empirical evidence since there can be no empirical
>evidence of any "beyond the sum total of *all* of the parts". What we
>indulge in when seeking for such explanatory accounts is pointless
>metaphysical speculation, or hot air.

thank you for these speculations concerning evolution and mereological
thinking.

which part of this explains why the simple statement 'I experience'
appears so problematic for you?

which part of this explains how saying or thinking 'I experience'
facilitates perception of the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness
research?

Joe


--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: