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

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to