Cayuse wrote: >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. as I have reminded you on innumerable previous occasions, *my* argument is 'I experience; therefore, I am ... an experiencer'. the argument 'there is conscious experience, therefore there is an experiencer' is your third person version of my argument --- and you have indeed abandoned your efforts to prove it 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. understanding that there are two language games involved may be the first step in unconflating them; but, the hard problem is grasped when there are two related games both seen as worth playing. >>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 obviously, you lack experience in the skill of distinguishing an assumption from a conclusion. Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/