Joseph Polanik wrote:
it sounds like you are abandoning your hopeless position --- again.
There has been no change in my position -- the argument that "there is conscious experience, therefore there is an experiencer" is invalid.
first, this has nothing to do with the 'hard problem' of explaining how it happens that there is experience at all. it's about whether one can draw a conclusion from the fact that there *is* experience.
The hard problem results from conflating two different language games for the word "experience", one which rightly pertains to the physical organism and its ability to acquire skills (the experiencer), and one which pertains to the existence of the data of conscious experience. The latter is a foray into pointless metaphysical speculation, fine for those with time to waste.
secondly, there is no postulating of the experiencer. that there is something which experiences is a conclusion not a postulate. that we can call that something an experiencer is a choice an act of naming.
My use of the word accords with the dictionary definition, so I'll stick with it thanks: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postulate ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/