Joseph Polanik wrote:
Cayuse wrote:The invalid step is that which goes from 1 to 2: 1. There is experience 2. therefore there is an experiencer.
<snip>
I present an argument that consists of three steps (one of which has three substeps). you take the first step and ignore the rest (including the last step).
Your analysis fails even before the first step -- you implicitly assume an "either/or" scenario for the existence of a nonsensical item. I don't see much point in continuing to repeatedly tell you this. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and call it a day.
========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
