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/