Joseph Polanik wrote:
<snip>Cayuse wrote:It doesn't matter to me whether I say "there is experience" or "there is experiencing". My claim would remain the same -- the argument "there is experiencing, therefore there is an experiencer" is not logically sound.
so, here is the question that challenges your claim that the argument 'there is experiencing, therefore there is an experiencer' is logically unsound: how is it possible that there is an experience of an afterimage when nothing is experiencing that afterimage?
The after-image is part of the data of experience. There is no requirement to postulate an "experiencer" of that data. ========================================== Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
