>Clearly you _do_ exist in more than the physical sense, or you would
>have no more consciousness than a toaster (assuming toaster's aren't
>conscious :)).
Not at all. My consciousness is a product of my physical body, so it only exists in the physical sense. Entirely physical, merely an autonomous physical pattern of chemical and electrical signals.
>But anyway what I think he is denying is that, for a given set of
>experiences, there is a single subject, the "I", underlying them. (I
>think he is wrong, but let's not go there.)
I prefer to take him literally, rather than try to read something he hasn't said into what he says to make sense of it. The problem with the latter course is that it allows people to talk obscure babble which anyone can interpret anyway they want. But the reality is that he's talking utter nonsense and someone has to be rude enough to tell him so.
Anyhow, you don't make much more sense than he. For example, what exactly do you mean by the single subject "underlying them"? This is too vague to convey any meaning to me. (Having said that you don't want to "go there", clearly you have done so anyhow.)
Or do you mean to suggest that the individual person's pattern of chemical and electrical signals is largely a product of their particular experiences and social relationships, as opposed to being constructed without regard to outside influence?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas