[Wittrs] Re: Strawson on Experience and Experiencers
- From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:09:16 -0000
Joseph Polanik wrote:
let me see if I can summarize the discourse to this point.
I claimed that "there is experience and there is experiencing; but, no
way to explain that fact without inferring that there is an
experiencer" and alluded to the failure your earlier argument to the
contrary.
you challenged my evaluation (that your argument failed miserably). I
pointed out that you admitted that there is experiencing an
afterimage; and, that you were unable to explain how it was possible
that there is experiencing an afterimage while there is nothing
experiencing an afterimage.
Your demand for explanation fails because on this issue we are at the limit
to explanation, as indicated earlier.
your reply is "It will simply not do to argue that an experienceR
exists by virtue of the claim that it experienceS (or "has")
experience".
your response is barely cogent; and, does nothing to carry your
burden:
My response consisted of a reasoned argument for which you have consistently
failed to provide a refutation. Foot stamping carries no weight.
unless you can show that there is experience that is
unexperienced by anything at all, experience implies an experiencer.
I can't even show that there is experience, let alone qualify that
experience, and neither can you. Your conclusion is therefore in error.
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
