Joseph Polanik wrote:
my experience is all the evidence I need to conclude that 'I experience' is true.
Yes, it's very convincing to speak of /my/ experience as one would speak of /my/ books, or /my/ foot, or /my/ body.
You can say "I am experiencing an afterimage" if you wish, but it doesn't resolve the confusion. Rather the confusion *starts* there.what confusion would that be?
That our use of language encourages us to regard the appearance of an afterimage as a relationship between two distinct objects, namelythe afterimage (the experienced object) and your putative "experiencer" (the "subject of experience").
kindly explain how an afterimage is seen when there is nothing that sees an afterimage.
That there is data of experience is not in question, and in your example the afterimage is part of the data of experience. The inferred "seer" or "experiencer" of the afterimage is a picture that forces itself upon us by virtue of our use of language, but unlike pictures that we exert ourselves to find by way of explanation, this picture confers no such utility. ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/