'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
> In the same token, there are inevitable base assumptions which must be
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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'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