Joseph Polanik wrote:
unless you can show that there is experience that is unexperienced by anything at all, you have no basis for denying that experience implies an experiencer.
What is it about the experienceR that permits us to claim that it experienceS (or "has") this experience, short of stamping one's foot and proclaiming "it just does!" ?
If the answer is "nothing" then the claim that the experienceR experienceS the experience cannot be upheld. If the answer is "something distinct from the experience" then this "something" must be yet another experienceR, and we fall into an infinite regress. If the answer is "experience experienceS itself" then experience would be constantly reflexive, which it is not. Why might it be premature to conclude from the above that thisputative experienceR is a prime candidate for Occam's Razor? ==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/