[Wittrs] Re: Strawson on Experience and Experiencers

  • From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:28:10 -0000

Joseph Polanik wrote:
the last time this issue came up, we got to the point where you
admitted that there is experiencing (of an afterimage, to be
specific); but, you then declined to explain how it was possible that
there is experiencing an afterimage while there is nothing
experiencing an afterimage. you abandoned the argument at that point;
hence, it failed.

Explanation, as I understand the word, involves finding a bigger picture
within which the phenomenon under consideration may be accommodated.
Some explanations have practical value in the world (like the explanation of
how the motion of the moon relative to the earth causes the tides) and some
do not (like the explanation that god created the world). What may or may
not exist in some domain "beyond experience" cannot be known, and so any
attempt to explain the existence of experience would be an explanation of
the latter kind. Declining to engage in such pointless speculation does not
amount to failure but to an acknowledgement that we simply cannot know.
There is a limit to explanation, and this is where we meet that limit.
If anything can be considered a failure here, it is the failure to
acknowledge this and thereby to engage in pointless speculation.


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

Other related posts: