Heidegger

Anthony Crifasi wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:

>>>So all you are claiming to actually prove is that self-existence is a
>>>phenomenal reality …

>>I think I’ve proved a bit more than this.

>>after proving that the I-2, this phenomenological experiencer is real,
>>I-2 conclude that I-2 am not self-instantiating (ie self-creating,
>>self-causing or self-originating). first there is no evidence of this;
>>and, secondly, there is not even a coherent explanation of how I-2,
>>somthing whose only know ‘ability’ is the ability to experience, could
>>be self-instantiating.

>>the conclusion seems inescapable: I-2 am a phenomenon that is produced
>>or generated by some other reality or realities — by one or more
>>meta-phenomenal realities of type 1 and/or type 3. there are at least
>>these possibilities: the I-2 is generated solely by the brain or some
>>portion thereof (the I-1); or, solely by an immaterial component of
>>the human individual such as an immaterial mind, soul or self (the
>>I-3); or, by the interaction of both.

>Since all human “evidence” and “explanation” is derived from sense
>experience, which is obviously phenomenal, then I-2 has *never* had any
>evidence or experience of *anything* being instantiated by I-1 or I-3,
>much less I-2 itself.

this is a very much under appreciated insight into the value of Hume’s
experiential effort to detect his own Self by means of introspection. he
noted various perceptions but did not ’see’ his Self. his argument is
usually taken to mean that if he did not detect the I-3 (Self) then
there is no I-3. most people fail to realize that he did not perceive
his own brain (I-1) either; but, we are not obligated to consider Hume
brainless.

>In other words, experience is by definition phenomenal, so it is not
>an argument to say “there is no evidence” or “explanation” of I-2 being
>self-instantiating, since there neither is *nor can possibly be*
>evidence to the contrary. This is Hume’s argument.

which of Hume’s arguments are you referring to?

also, can you explain how you can define ‘evidence’ and ‘explanation’ as
phenomenal (because derived from sense experience) without created an
impasse in which there is no evidence either for or against the claim
that the I-2 is self-instantiating and there is no evidence either for
or against the claim that the I-2 is not self-instantiating?

>>there is also one fact that I accept as proven by others.

>>I-2 accept as proven that I-2 have a physical body — that this
>>experience I-2 have of seeming to have a body is due to actually
>>having a body. I-2 have not proven this by deductive means as
>>Descartes tried to do. I accept this as a matter of scientific
>>investigation. there is overwhelming evidence that I-2 have a physical
>>body made out of the same ’stuff’ that the physical universe is made
>>of; and, I-2 accept it as proven beyond a plausible doubt.

>This seems to completely beg the question, since “scientific
>investigation” is based on empirical observation, which is phenomenal,
>and the meaning of “the physical universe” for us is based totally from
>sense experience (including the empirical experiments upon which
>scientific models of the universe are based), which is also completely
>phenomenal. If so, then the idea of there being “scientific” evidence
>about the “physical universe” is not only mistaken, but a category
>error. Again, this is Hume’s argument.

if there were no evidence concering the physical universe, how would a
philosopher decide either that there is fossil record indicating that
life on earth evolved over billions of years; or, that the earth popped
into awareness a nanosecond ago complete with an illusionary fossil
record and a set of false memories for each person?

are you saying that we are *obligated* to consider these two
explanations as equally plausible or equally likely because there may be
no non-phenomenal evidence on which to choose?

>>there is, however, no basis for saying that the reality of the I-3 is
>>established by empirical evidence; and, thus, if one wishes to
>>investigate the origin of the I-2, one must first pose the question of
>>being: is there an I-3?

>But you just said above that the reality of I-3 is established by
>empirical evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt - you said that
>”scientific investigation” yields “evidence” that there is a “physical
>universe” beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I said that I accept as proven beyond a plausible doubt that the human
body is made of the same ’stuff’ as the rest of the physical universe.
that’s reality type 1, existential. reality type 3, ontological reality,
is any *non-physical* metaphenomenal reality. that there are any
realities of type 3 is very much in dispute. that is why I posed the
question of being as: is there an I-3?

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback