How do you refute this?

[Dovekin]

If experience contains information, then there is an experiencer who receives it. If noe one receives the info, there is no experience, only an event.
If there is quale, then there is an experiencer by most definitions of quale.
If by mere experience, you mean an event that does not convey information, that would mean there is no experience. It just is not clear to me what that might mean.

The question you offer only allows the second two options for some reason I have not been able to learn. It is not a valid question without the 3rd option. As it stands now, the answer is no.

Definitions:

What I am claiming is that there is a experience wherever there is an event with content of information. Let’s just look at ourselves. We perceive light through eyes. Light turns into signal. The signal go to brain and then we see. Brain is filled by signals, which carry information, and that is all.

I have a definition for mind which is experiencer also: The essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and cause.

 

[STT]

If experience contains information, then there is an experiencer who receives it. If noe one receives the info, there is no experience, only an event.
If there is quale, then there is an experiencer by most definitions of quale.
If by mere experience, you mean an event that does not convey information, that would mean there is no experience. It just is not clear to me what that might mean.

The question you offer only allows the second two options for some reason I have not been able to learn. It is not a valid question without the 3rd option. As it stands now, the answer is no.

Definitions:

STT:

What I am claiming is that there is a experience wherever there is an event with content of information. Let’s just look at ourselves. We perceive light through eyes. Light turns into signal. The signal go to brain and then we see. Brain is filled by signals, which carry information, and that is all.

I express myself well in two posts you quoted.

 

[Gorgias]

Perfect illusion. How about that?

Nope. Because ‘illusion’ is inferior to ‘reality’, and therefore, perfection is not found in it.

What is your definition of reality and illusion, by the way?

You’re the one making propositions in this thread. Since you want us to respond to your construct, let’s see how you define ‘illusion’!

(One note: defining illusion as “requiring God’s continuing sustenance” won’t wash here… )

 

[STT]

Nope. Because ‘illusion’ is inferior to ‘reality’, and therefore, perfection is not found in it.

That is not true.

You’re the one making propositions in this thread. Since you want us to respond to your construct, let’s see how you define ‘illusion’!

(One note: defining illusion as “requiring God’s continuing sustenance” won’t wash here… )

You are kidding me. You constantly defend in favor of a God who creates reality instead of illusion and now send the ball in my field.

 

[Gorgias]

That is not true.

By its very nature, ‘reality’ is superior to ‘illusion’. After all, an ‘illusion’ must, by its very definition, be something that copies either existence or conceivable thought, no?

You are kidding me. You constantly defend in favor of a God who creates reality instead of illusion and now send the ball in my field.

No, I’m not kidding you. I think it’s pretty reasonable to ask you – who have presented a claim that touches upon the notions of ‘reality’ and ‘illusion’ – to define what you mean by those terms. After all, I don’t want to respond to definitions that are substantially different than what you’re offering. I mean, if my definition of reality is “green cheese sandwich” and your definition of reality is “ham and cheese on rye”, then what good do I do if I defend my definition against a claim that uses your definition?

So… let’s see your definitions (and, hopefully, your defense of your claim), and then we can proceed with our response to your claim…

 

[STT]

By its very nature, ‘reality’ is superior to ‘illusion’. After all, an ‘illusion’ must, by its very definition, be something that copies either existence or conceivable thought , no?

No, I’m not kidding you. I think it’s pretty reasonable to ask you – who have presented a claim that touches upon the notions of ‘reality’ and ‘illusion’ – to define what you mean by those terms. After all, I don’t want to respond to definitions that are substantially different than what you’re offering. I mean, if my definition of reality is “green cheese sandwich” and your definition of reality is “ham and cheese on rye”, then what good do I do if I defend my definition against a claim that uses your definition?

So… let’s see your definitions (and, hopefully, your defense of your claim), and then we can proceed with our response to your claim…

Reality is something which has essence and can affect things. Illusion is something which does not have essence and can affect other things.

 

[OceanL]

sometimes people create their own experiences, other times experiences just occur, what is to refute?

 

[Dovekin]

There is no experiencer but mere experience.

There is no “essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and cause“ but mere “event(s) with content of information.”

Is the ability to decide and cause significant to this discussion?

And what does information mean?

 

[STT]

Is the ability to decide and cause significant to this discussion?

Not for this discussion.

And what does information mean?

Information is formation of stuff that we perceive/get. Stuff is what things are made of.

 

[Dovekin]

I know we have been through this before, but I cannot really remember what came of it.

If information is “formation of stuff that we perceive/get,” doesn’ there have to be an experiencer/mind that “perceives/gets”? If there is no experiencer/mind, how can there be any information?

 

[Gorgias]

Reality is something which has essence and can affect things. Illusion is something which does not have essence and can affect other things.

What is your definition of ‘essence’, then, such that what distinguishes reality from illusion is that only the former can “affect other things”?