From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 14 1999 - 21:56:52 MST
'What is your name?' 'Kate Riley.' 'Do you deny having written the
following?':
> Since you have said that we are all zombies, Mr. Fabulich, this would mean
> that you also believe that we do not Experience anything. This ultimately
> would seem to be very much akin to the question of whether or not anything
> exists, in the sense that both questions may, at least informally, be
> answered in the same manner. Perhaps you're familiar with the story. I
> forget the names, but let's call them Philosopher A and Philosopher B.
> Philosopher A is going on at length about how nothing actually exists.
> Philosopher B throws a rock at his head.
I'm quite familiar with the story. "Philosopher A," so the story goes,
was Berkeley, and "Philosopher B" was Swift.
> In the same token, there are inevitable base assumptions which must be
> made before any philosophy becomes meaningful: first principles,
> immediate knowledge, etc.. These things arise from experience.
> Without the experience, there /is/ no basis upon which other arguments
> may be built.
Look, I have a perfectly coherent theory in which Experience does not
exist, but in which the real world does. So do cars. So do I. So do
you. It's a theory under which I should dodge oncoming cars, just like
yours.
Indeed, my approach of assuming that we "experience" (in the functional
sense) instead of Experience (in the spooky Cartesian sense) gives me all
the practical value I need: I'll still try to avoid being in "pain," still
attempt to maximize "happiness," etc. Only I don't have to believe that
there's something spooky and Hard about the problem of mind.
You assert that without Experience, there is no basis for argument, but
you make this claim totally without justification! Sometimes I get the
feeling that I'm arguing with 17th century thinkers about the existence of
God. "Look," they say, "You simply have to have a notion of God!
Denying His existence is logically contradictory!" "How?" "It's a
first principle!"
Dennett is in the habit of analogizing this debate to that over vitalism.
Can you imagine a living thing -- a living thing, mind you! -- denying the
existence of elan vital??? It's ludicrous!
You're telling me that your argument for the existence of Experience is
that... it's a FIRST PRINCIPLE??? What the *heck* kind of an argument is
that? This is dogma, not reason!
-Dan, frustrated
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:05 MST