I've given an example of a being whose experience (unless I've missed something) would not involve space. Granted, this being does not exist (unless it's hanging around the galactic core someplace), but we're talking about _necessary_ components.
--- On Tue, 7/28/09, mart <media314159 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> alot of this stuff has been gone through many places
> before.
>
> i would say i find it empirically implausible to think that
> space is not a neccesary component of experience.
> theoretically, no problem (and there are essentially whole
> theories in physics which essentially assume space (azd time
> too) are just illusions or conveniant representations of
> experience for imperfect humans; (the relation between
> kantianism and physics is essentially the middle way between
> plato and say, b f skinner or other constructivists ('it
> from bit')).
>