Under the stage theory a similar conception holds, but "I" is merely a label to describe the person the counterparts represent. In this sense "I" also tends to experience other experiences. — Mr Bee
So you tend to experience other experiences? How, then, is the only experience you have of sitting at your computer? — The Great Whatever
since as time passes, my experiences will change — Mr Bee
Have you even read my post? I literally just explained how in the paragraph above it. — Mr Bee
Where did I assume that? Can you quote the phrase? — Mr Bee
Let's say (for the purposes of explanation) that the entire duration in which I exist is limited to an instant. — Mr Bee
I said earlier that I did not understand you habitual claim fully. Can you please, in specific detail, explain what that means. — Mr Bee
At the same time, explain what you think having a certain set of experiences only at the time you exist means? — Mr Bee
"Let's assume" was an example to make things easier to understand. That was not my view or built into my P3. I am willing to assume in my OP that our existence can be any duration of time, whatever it happens to be. — Mr Bee
Read this way, the sentence, 'I only experience sitting at my computer' is patently false, since there are many other things I experience. Note that this has nothing to do with any metaphysical assumptions: this is simply a way the English sentence can be read, and on that reading I take it to be uncontroversial that such a claim (that I only experience being at my computer, etc.) is obviously false. — The Great Whatever
I don't know – this sounds like a technical notion. I know what it means to have an experience, and to have an experience at a certain time. — The Great Whatever
Yes, that might have been your intent in the original post of this thread. (You argument then seemed to hinge on something like the synthetic unity of experience). But, just now, you had offered this as an explanation (to The Great Whatever) as to why you only are experiencing sitting at your computer, while excluding other experiences had at earlier or later times in your life. You also meant to insist that this is not meant simply to mean to refer to what you are experiencing now, but rather to what you are experiencing while you exist. This argument, which doesn't appeal to the idea of synthetic unity, now seems to hinge on the restriction on the temporal scope of your existence that distinguishes stage theory from worm theory. — Pierre-Normand
Can you explain what "I only experience sitting at my computer" would mean under the habitual view? I just want to get a clearer idea on what you take this to be. — Mr Bee
Do you need me to explain it to you again? If you don't understand what it means, then why have you been insisting that it was contradictory with your habitual claim? — Mr Bee
Something like, 'in general, the only thing I experience is sitting at my computer' or 'the only thing I ever experience is sitting at my computer.' — The Great Whatever
I have merely been pointing out that it is a contradiction to believe you only experience one thing, and tend to experience other things as well. I'm not sure why you don't see this as a contradiction – yet this is what you seem to believe. — The Great Whatever
I think the reason we are talking past each other is because I am taking the sentences you say at face value as English sentences, and interpreting them that way. You seem to want to interpret them in a theory-laden way. So when you ask "can you clarify what you mean by..." I dont' know what to say. If you speak English, you should be able to understand the sentence. Likewise, you should be able to hear the contradiction. — The Great Whatever
It is a fact of English grammar that simple present sentences can be read habitually (as well as sometimes being anchored to the time of utterance). I do not know of any other way to read the sentences you've said – and since neither reading seems to be what you want, I have no idea what you're claiming. — The Great Whatever
but I have tried to clarify what I meant by both sentences so what the terms I use mean normally in English shouldn't be relevant, — Mr Bee
It is relevant because you are appealing to intuition for the truth of an English sentence and presenting your argument in English. — The Great Whatever
P3 and whatever variations of it you might want to use seem to be either not plausibly true, or not relevant for the conclusion you want to draw. — The Great Whatever
Maybe it is, but even so, I am still not sure why you think that is. Let me repeat once more the version of P3. that I have been proposing:
P3. I find that I am only experiencing sitting in my room during the temporal duration in which I exist. (This is what I find through introspection upon my direct experience) — Mr Bee
But this seems prima facie false, assuming only that your existence extends both to the past and to the future (or even, only to the past). It only appears true under the assumption that your own existence is restricted to the duration of your present experience. But this assumption seems to build stage theory onto your premise P3. — Pierre-Normand
Suspect of what? The identity distinction seems to hold no metaphysical importance at all except to those views that require to tie some non-physical identity to something physical for the purposes of judgement in the non-physical realm.I think the distinction between the worm theorist and stage theorist is suspect. The crashing of the Titanic happened over a finite duration. If we stick to the distinction strictly, the so called stage theroist who isolates a crashing Titanic is effectively posing a worm when we examine just how many finite instances are involved with the accident-- the hitting the iceberg, beginning to sink, and so on, to give a simple example. — TheWillowOfDarkness
You use whichever form is convenient. I deny numeric identity of something like the Titanic between the various stages of the Titanic. For one thing, what happened to that identity when the two halves separated? Yet I use the worm form as a language concept that conveys real meaning.If we are to have an account which fits, the worm and stage must be complementary rather than opposed. The Titanic has to be both a stage (not crashed, crashing, after the crash) and a worm (a particular object with a past and future). Otherwise, we cannot say it is the Titanic which was steaming along unhindered, only to change to make contact with an iceberg, and then alter again into a sinking wreck. — TWoD
Is the crashing Titanic the same one as the steaming Titanic? Certainly two stages chosen from those to states are not the same stage, but are they stages of the same thing? Is a worm an identity? I have a very strange answer to those questions, which is no, the various stages are not of the same numeric identity of Titanic, but they are stages of the same identity of worm. In my view, there is a 1-1 correspondence between a worm and a stage, it being the stage at which the worm ends, and the stage only being defined from a reference point in that stage's future. All the stages making up the worm are part of it, but do not share numeric identity with the worm, since they don't share that identity with each other.In other words: a worm must be a function of many stages, an expression which not any particular stage or moment, given across many stages which are never each other. (e.g. Titanic steaming along, crashing Titanic, wrecked Titanic). — TWoD
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.