Hmmm. Something about this email keeps getting it blocked. Fifth try, breaking it into two parts:
Part 2: And the same goes for any metaphysical theory that claims that our conscious experiences are caused by more fundamental rule-governed processes. No matter what the fundamental components and rules of the proposed ontology are, there is always the question: “Why would this rule-driven configuration, and no other, give rise to something like my experience?” The extra inferred-from-experience "behind the scenes" infrastructure serves no (metaphysical) purpose because I can ask the exact same questions about them as I could ask about the consciousness that they supposedly explain. But, if your a hardened skeptic, and a fellow instrumentalist, whose mind never turns to metaphysical questions, then I suppose we really have no disagreement. If, in a moment of weakness, one's thoughts do turn to metaphysics, then I propose just hypostatizing the skeptical position. Epistemologically, the only thing we can be certain of is that our experiences exist. Therefore, ontologically, the most reasonable conclusion (given my other arguments) is that only our experiences exist. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
