[Wittrs] Re: Strawson on Experience and Experiencers

  • From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:34:34 -0000

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:


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: