[Buddha-l] there he goes again (sam harris)

[Richard Hayes]

On Sunday 29 October 2006 17:46, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> we cannot experience any absent thing. However, we can experience
> his absence. If we would be unable to experience his absence, then we
> would be unable to say "my dog is absent".

I cannot experience my dog's absence, but I can know it through inference. I 
can reason it out through a process that looks like this: "My dog is the sort 
of object that is visible, and therefore I would see him if he were present. 
I do not see him. Therefore, he is not present."

Note that the key to this inference is that the object whose absence I can 
infer must be one that would be experienced if it were presence. This sort of 
inference would not be conclusive with respect to the kind of object that 
would not be experienced even if it were present, such as space. Another sort 
of object about which no legitimate inference of presence or absence can be 
inferred is the self. So any claims about the self---whether one claims a 
self is rpesent or absent---is an unwarranted claim and therefore a dogma.

> yes, all the things are a construct of the mind. 

That also is a dogma that some people love to spout, probably because they 
think it will make them sound very Buddhist, perhaps even a little wise and 
profound. But I am confident you cannot establish its truth. 

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes