Heidegger

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. 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Posted on Sunday, November 25th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback