How do you refute this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not talking about experience having an experience. I am saying that experience as an event is imaginable. Therefore one needs to provide an argument for existence of experiencer.
 
STT said:
There is no experiencer but mere experience.
Click to expand...
As in, if I punch you in the nose there is merely the experience of being punched in the nose, but no you to have your nose punched?

Sure, c’mon over, let’s see how that works out.
 
This question makes me think of 3 things: (1) Bishop Berkeley (of Modern philosophy), (2) Sam Harris’ refusal to draw a distinction between the thinker of one’s thoughts and the thoughts themselves and (3) the rather annoying fact that there are only two actually undeniable truths:
  1. thinking is going on
  2. something exists
 
STT said:
Cogito ergo sum.
Click to expand...
“Non cogito ergo sum” is as valid as the other.

If a subject does something, then the subject exists. If there is no subject, there is neither cogito nor non cogito.

Most definitions of experience require an experiencer. If you think differently, you would have to offer a definition to examine.
Click to expand...
 
STT said:
There is no experiencer but mere experience.
Click to expand...
Do you mean there is no physical sensory experience (such as through the sense modalities) but there is an illusion of a sensory experience (such as a dream or apparition)?
 
Last edited:
There is a tension in Descartes’ reductive act to the cogito. Many philosophers since his time have pointed out that he illicitly inferred a particular self (himself). Rather than, “I think therefore I am,” he could at most infer this: what-seems-to-be-a-singular-I is thinking, therefore thinking is occurring. In other words, contra someone like Plotinus, Spinoza or any monist or pantheist, the singular and separate ‘I’ must be argued-for. It cannot just be assumed because it seems to you that you are a singular and separate ‘I.’ It could be the case, after all, that all things are modes or extensions of God, or the One unindividuated existing Being.
 
neophyte said:
As in, if I punch you in the nose there is merely the experience of being punched in the nose, but no you to have your nose punched?

Sure, c’mon over, let’s see how that works out.
Click to expand...
Our experiences are of course coherent. We however cannot conclude the experiencer is real because our experiences is coherent.
 
STT said:
Our experiences are of course coherent. We however cannot conclude the experiencer is real because our experiences is coherent.
Click to expand...
Then your use if the words “our” and “we” is incoherent.
 
Dovekin said:
If a subject does something, then the subject exists. If there is no subject, there is neither cogito nor non cogito.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really follow.
Dovekin said:
Most definitions of experience require an experiencer. If you think differently, you would have to offer a definition to examine.
Click to expand...
Experience is an event which is informative.

Moreover, one need to explain how an experiencer perceives experience.
 
Vico said:
Do you mean there is no physical sensory experience (such as through the sense modalities) but there is an illusion of a sensory experience (such as a dream or apparition)?
Click to expand...
Yes, like lucid dream.
 
neophyte said:
Then your use if the words “our” and “we” is incoherent.
Click to expand...
I can write those sentences without using “we” and “our”. The experience is coherent. It does not follow that experiencer is real because the experience is coherent.
 
Do you sit here and are you experiencing your world right now.

Tell us what you experience sitting at your device and typing to us
 
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Then it would not be ‘experience’ he’s creating. 😉
Click to expand...
What?
Click to expand...
If it’s not experienced by anyone, then it’s not an experience. A construct, maybe, or even an illusion, but not an experience. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top