[Wittrs] Re: I Experience in Ordinary Language

  • From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:23:43 -0000

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/

Other related posts: