[Wittrs] I Experience in Ordinary Language

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:34:33 -0500

Cayuse wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>what part of this proves that an afterimage is not an experienceable
>>phenomenon; or, that experienceable phenomena are not different in
>>kind from measurable phenomena (such as the wavelength of
>>electromagnetic radiation)?

>Phenomena such as an afterimage are parts of the *contents* of
>experience.

the phrase 'parts of the *contents*' seems both ponderous and redundant;
and, I'm wondering if it serves a purpose other than signaling an
upcoming mereological analysis?

>Such contents may be categorized as quantifiable and unquantifiable,
>but "experience", taken to mean the sum total of all of that content,
>is not a part of that content. The sum total of the parts cannot be a
>part of itself, but the *idea* of that sum total *is* just such a part.

mereological analysis is problematic in cases of reflexivity; for
example, thinking about thinking is itself thinking.

is there a mereological problem here; or, is there a problem with
mereological analyses?

Joe


--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: