[Wittrs] Strawson on Experience and Experiencers
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:11:28 -0500
Cayuse wrote:
>It will simply not do to argue that an experienceR exists by virtue of
>the claim that it experienceS (or "has") experience -- this does not
>establish the existence of the putative experienceR. If the putative
>experienceR experienceS (or "has") experience (as though the
>experienceR and its experience were somehow distinct), then what is it
>about the experienceR that permits us to claim that it experienceS (or
>"has") this experience, short of stamping one's foot and proclaiming
>"it just does!" ?
no one knows how it happens that there is experience at all; nor, what
precisely an experiencer is; so, there may be some foot stamping
involved.
what is known is that there is experience and there is experiencing;
but, no way to explain that fact without inferring that there is an
experiencer. for one example, your own attempt to explain how there is
experience without anything that experiences failed miserably.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
