How do you refute this?

[Dovekin]

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.

In that case, isn’t “the singular and separate “I”” the same as “a mode or extension of God”?

Cogito implies a first person acting. If that person is a deluded extension of God, or a separate “I” does not matter, someone is thinking if “cogito” happens. That first person acting is the same first person being in sum.

 

[Magnanimity]

I believe the way Descartes put it in the Meditations is “ego sum; ego existo.” He derived this from his having doubted his way all the way down to that which cannot be doubted. But, the complaint that his contemporary and later philosophers offered was that he didn’t actually doubt as far as one can - your apparent singular existence is another thing that can be doubted.

So yes, all could be a mode or extension of God or Being. But, you’re right about the second point you make. So, as I stated earlier in this thread, I know of two actually (not logically) undeniable truths.

1. thinking is going on
2. something exists

 

[Dovekin]

That doesn’t really follow.

Does too.

Experience is an event which is informative.

This definition has two parts, 1) an event and 2) informative. Events certainly happen without being informarive, so that is not a problem. Informative Has an implied “to someone” which requires an informed, ie an experiencer.

Events happen without being experienced, but they do not become experiences until someone is informed.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

There is some consistency in what we are able to sense so there is that, but on it own it might not be a good argument.

 

[STT]

Do you sit here and are you experiencing your world right now.

All I can say for sure is that there is an experience.

Tell us what you experience sitting at your device and typing to us

I can say that there is certain experience but I cannot prove that there is an experiencer.

 

[STT]

If it’s not experienced by anyone, then it’s not an experience . A construct, maybe, or even an illusion, but not an experience.

Let’s call it illusion. There is still an experience created by Demon.

 

[STT]

You are only sure that experience exist. We experience thought and things.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If it’s not experienced by anyone, then it’s not an experience . A construct, maybe, or even an illusion, but not an experience.

Let’s call it illusion. There is still an experience created by Demon.

No, there’s an illusion. Therefore, there’s no problem that needs refuted.

 

[Magnanimity]

Not even that, actually. Experience in our language implies something outside of ourselves that is being experienced. The only thing that is 100% certain in these regards is that thinking is occurring.

 

[STT]

This definition has two parts, 1) an event and 2) informative. Events certainly happen without being informarive, so that is not a problem. Informative Has an implied “to someone” which requires an informed , ie an experiencer .

Events happen without being experienced, but they do not become experiences until someone is informed.

Informative means that experience provides useful information.

 

[STT]

No, there’s an illusion. Therefore, there’s no problem that needs refuted.

I cannot follow you. Do you agree that there could be no experiencer?

 

[STT]

Not even that, actually. Experience in our language implies something outside of ourselves that is being experienced.

Yes, language normally implies certain things but we can use it to imply other things.

The only thing that is 100% certain in these regards is that thinking is occurring.

Many things occurring at each instant all of them have capacity to be experienced. So experience is fundamental.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

No, there’s an illusion. Therefore, there’s no problem that needs refuted.

I cannot follow you. Do you agree that there could be no experiencer?

No. I’m saying that, without someone who is having an experience, there is no experience.

 

[STT]

No. I’m saying that, without someone who is having an experience, there is no experience.

So you get what I mean. How you could refute it?

 

[Dovekin]

Informative means that experience provides useful information.

Useful to whom? Informing whom?

If an event is not informative, it is not experience. The only way an event becomes an experience is if it informs someone, = an experiencer. Useful only underlines the need for an experiencer.

How do events become experiences? If you can answer that, your question might mean something.
Can something be an experience if there is no experiencer? Not if it informs.

I am only offering grammatical explanations. If there are other ways to think of this, you need to define experience in a way that does not require an experiencer, but you have not done that.

 

[STT]

Useful to whom? Informing whom?

Useful to no one. Informing nobody. The idea of self that you are referring to could be illusion. We cannot experience that. We both understand what is meant by there is no experiencer but mere experience.

 

[Magnanimity]

To use the concepts “thoughts” or “thinking” would be more precise for your purposes here. But I may not be following your line of reasoning in this thread…

 

[Dovekin]

Useful to no one. Informing nobody. The idea of self that you are referring to could be illusion. We cannot experience that. We both understand what is meant by there is no experiencer but mere experience.

You are simply negating the meaning of the terms you introduced. There is no “informing” without an informed. If there can be, then you can answer your question. If not, you have a different answer.

I have no idea what you mean by “there is no experiencer but mere experience.” there must be an experiencer who is informed for there to be experience.

 

[MaryEstelle2]

The question cannot be ‘refuted’ because it can not be answered. It is the old ‘what came first - the chicken or the egg’ conundrum and could be batted around forever. I won’t even try to refute it.

 

[STT]

I have no idea what you mean by “there is no experiencer but mere experience.” there must be an experiencer who is informed for there to be experience.

Perhaps someone else who could imagine this could help.