[Wittrs] Linguistic Behavior
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:08:00 -0500
Cayuse wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Cayuse wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>are there other consciousnesses? it's a simple question. the
>>>>possible answers are 'yes', 'no' and 'I don't know'.
>>>I'm not presenting an argument about whether or not there are other
>>>consciousnesses -- I'm presenting an argument about human behavior.
>>are you trying to explain the entirety of human behavior (including
>>interpersonal behavior) on the basis of a theory of consciousness that
>>is consistent with solipsism!?
>I'm not presenting a theory of consciousness -- I'm presenting an
>argument about human behavior. Language is integral to human behavior,
yes; and, it is your linguistic behavior that is at issue.
earlier you wrote:
>Whether or not there are other consciousnesses cannot be known, and
>furthermore it has no practical application, though we behave as though
>there are other consciousnesses.
I behave as though there are other consciousnesses; but, you do not. as
a language game, your linguistic behavior is consistent with a
solipsistic philosophy.
let's look at some of it. in another thread you say,
[Cayuse]: 'There is experience therefore there is an experiencer' is a
nonsensical deduction.
the statement 'There is experience therefore there is an experiencer' is
a deductive argument. it seems that we agree on that.
however, you apparently believe that the statement *is* nonsensical when
the only evidence you have is that it seems nonsensical *to you*
only in a solipsistic universe would 'it makes no sense *to me*' be
equivalent to 'it is nonsensical'; so, your linguistic behavior
constitutes a language game consistent with a solipsistic philosophy.
there is a second example of this phenomenon in the same passage. I've
pointed out to you several times that my argument is stated in the first
person; for example:
I experience; therefore, I am ... this experiencer.
in a solipsistic language game would 'I experience' be equivalent to
'there is experience'; but, otherwise, translating 'I experience' into
'there is experience' evades the argument *as presented*.
consequently, it *does* make a difference whether your linguistic
behavior is based on the assumption that there *are* other
consciousnesses or the assumption that you are compelled to behave as if
under the influence of an instinctive belief that there are other
consciousnesses.
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/
Other related posts:
