Cayuse wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>the logic of the argument begins with an agreed upon fact: there is >>experience. I will call the discovery of our agreement on this fact >>step 1 of the argument. >>I build on that in step 2. based only on the agreed upon fact that >>there is experience and the principle that nothing unreal experiences >>anything at all, I conclude that there is something that something >>experiences. >Firstly, you don't say how you are using the word "real", and so your >proposition that "nothing unreal experiences" is rather murky. >Secondly, your proposition says nothing about the experiential status >of "real things" -- it leaves as unspecified whether *all* "real >things" experience, or *no* "real thing" experiences, or *some* "real >things" experience and some do not, so as it stands it isn't useful >(unless its purpose is to confer "reality" upon "experiencers" by >sleight of hand). And finally, you don't say how you justify your >assertion that anything at all *experiences* -- a conviction that is >without application anyway. Your step 2 isn't looking very secure. I've previously told you how I use 'real' and 'unreal': whatever is is real (in some sense); consequently, since there is nothing left over for 'unreal' to refer to, it is a word without a referent. the principle 'nothing unreal experiences' doesn't make any statement about how many, if any, realities there are that experience. the only way to prove this proposition false is to show that there is something unreal that experiences. can you do that? the conclusion drawn at step two, 'there is something that experiences', implies only that there is at least one such 'something'. 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/