Joseph Polanik wrote:
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?
Sure -- we can go around this loop as often as you like. Language is a publicly conditioned mode of behavior enacted between physical organisms in the world. Conscious experience (as you and I are using this term) is not an empirical phenomenon in the world, nor are there any empirical phenomena in the world that make it useful to postulate any such concept. Therefore the assertion that "I experience" informs nobody of anything. The "something that makes the assertion" is a physical organism in the world, and there is nothing to be gained by associating the physical organism with some putative "experiencer" of conscious experience. The idea of conscious experience appears as part of the data of conscious experience, but there is no advantage in talking or even thinking about that idea. Even so, we have a picture of the world and we have a non-empirical idea of conscious experience, and our drive for explanation compels us to try to find a bigger picture in which conscious experience fits into the world. This is the start of a lot of hot air. ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/