How do you refute this?

[Dovekin]

It is also informative which means its content has information

I read informative differently, as its content is conveyed to someone apart from the event. In space, no one can hear you scream. The scream may exist, but it is not experienced.

Events that contain information exist, and if that is what you mean by experience, then no experiencer is needed. But that really does not match our usual definition of experience, which holds that someone is informed by the experience, someone receives the information.

Did any one hear the scream? Then it was experienced. If not, there was no experience, only an event that contained information. Which you would classify as experience? I would not.

 

[StAugustine]

Okay, this is the issue- Speculative doubt vs. positive probable doubt.

1. Is it reasonable to have speculative doubts without any positive probable reason?
2. If you have probable cause for positive probable doubt, what is the positive probable cause?

Had your experience suggested to you any reason you may not exist?

Wow I just wrote that…

 

[HarryStotle]

neophyte:

“There is no experiencer but mere experience” is sophomoric nonsense.

It is not. So far you have no argument against it.

Let’s call the argument a clear reductio ad absurdum.

If all that is is experience and no experiencer, and it is only those experiences that I experience that can possibly exist because I have no access to anyone else’s experiences, that seems to imply that the entirety of existence is whatever experiences I have access to, otherwise known as MY experiences.

To be consistent with your position I would have to deny the existence of all other experiences completely since I have no access to those. The only thing that could possibly differentiate my experiences from those that others might experience is if the experiences of other experiencers actually exist independently of MY experiences. Since I do not have access to those, I must deny that other experiencers (and their experiences) exist from the start, since only my experiences – those I have access to – actually objectively exist as experiences.

Why are you acting as if you think others, besides yourself, exist by reaching out and attempting to share your ideas with them (us)?

If you are really convinced that other experiencers, besides you, do not exist why are you acting as if they do? You should, at least, be consistent with your own best thinking, no? Since you are not acting as if you consistently believe what you are claiming, then we have good reason to think you don’t believe what you claim to be true is, in fact, true.

Someone whose behaviour completely contradicts their espoused beliefs is not very believable.

Perhaps you can repost when you have convinced yourself and begin acting accordingly?

Since only those experiences that YOU appear to have access to objectively exist as pure experiences, you have no reason to think any experiencers apart from you exist at all – it is only the “experiences” you have access to (I.e., the reality formerly known as your “experiences”) can be verifiably real for you.

 

[STT]

What is experience without an experiencer?

Experience is an event with content of information.

 

[STT]

No, I would never assert that God merely creates illusion. He creates physical reality, though.

I didn’t say that God merely create illusion. I ask whether God can create illusion?

No need to say that according to your teaching we are living in a reality which God sustains it. Everything would perish without God intervention. I call this illusion. What do you call it?

 

[STT]

Actually, no I do not agree. There is a difference between

1. being so absorbed in the experience that the role of the experiencer is minimized.
2. being cognizant (focusing on the experience of experiencing) of being in the role of experiencer (awareness of being aware or meta-cognition as in thinking about thinking)
3. direct awareness of one’s own thoughts and reflections without any mitigating or immediate external (name removed by moderator)ut

You experience in all these cases. Non of the above mentioned cases could possibly exist without experience.

For you to claim that there is no qualitative difference between these different kinds of awareness and they all reduce to mere “experience” is plain being dishonest about your own internal conscious existence.

I am not dishonest. I just don’t know the truth. I would be glad if you could argue in favor of your position instead of calling me dishonest.

In fact, if you wish to get simplistic, there is a stronger case to be made that it isn’t that there is just the mere fact of “objective” experience, it is that all experience is subject-based and not objective fact, at all. Quite the opposite of what you are claiming.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please rephrase?

We don’t need to “deduce an experiencer” because we have immediate and direct existential verification of being one of those. It is much harder to deduce “so called reality” which is what you want us to assume is the underlying strata when you claim “all we have is the fact of experience.” Again, that is opposite to what we have been handed.

You mean you can experience experiencer? All you have is a sense of self which is different than experiencing experiencer.

 

[STT]

Tell yourself.

So you have nothing to offer?

 

[Gorgias]

we are living in a reality which God sustains it. Everything would perish without God intervention. I call this illusion. What do you call it?

“Reality.”

By your definition, if the universe requires God to sustain it, then it is not ‘real’. I see no substantiation for that assertion, but only a bald assertion of it.

I would respond that God does create reality.

 

[STT]

If there is no experiencer, but only experience, there is no importance to the experiences, then, is there?

Who would they impact? No one. Who would there be to care? No one. Who is there to care whether the premise is true or false? No one. How is the insentient universe impacted, even? Not at all.

Everything could be self-driving ideas. An idea gives rise to another one, etc. Everything could also be driven by a Demon.

In other words, if you believe that, give up philosophy, because it is more pointless than self-obsession. It is experience turning itself into the greatest emptiness and futility imaginable. It is pointlessness, par excellence. It is the Ultimate in Futility, Achieved.

Go experience a bath, or something. If you have to be useless and pointless, at least refuse to torment yourself about it. Better yet, go help someone who is too ignorant to know they have no capacity to know life, someone who does not suspect that their existence is imaginary and without meaning. They might appreciate it, and being useful might be a revelation to the has-been philosopher, too. There is nothing like a callous on the hand to remedy an excess of unbridled conjecture.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[STT]

I read informative differently, as its content is conveyed to someone apart from the event. In space, no one can hear you scream. The scream may exist, but it is not experienced.

Events that contain information exist, and if that is what you mean by experience, then no experiencer is needed. But that really does not match our usual definition of experience, which holds that someone is informed by the experience, someone receives the information.

Did any one hear the scream? Then it was experienced. If not, there was no experience, only an event that contained information. Which you would classify as experience? I would not.

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.

 

[STT]

Had your experience suggested to you any reason you may not exist?

Yes. I could be self-driving ideas. Just look how brain produce ideas each related to another. You believe in experiencer? Just point to it. Where is it?

 

[STT]

Let’s call the argument a clear reductio ad absurdum.

If all that is is experience and no experiencer, and it is only those experiences that I experience that can possibly exist because I have no access to anyone else’s experiences, that seems to imply that the entirety of existence is whatever experiences I have access to, otherwise known as MY experiences.

Let’s think it this way. There is a local event with content of information, so called experience. There is no need for a MY.

To be consistent with your position I would have to deny the existence of all other experiences completely since I have no access to those. The only thing that could possibly differentiate my experiences from those that others might experience is if the experiences of other experiencers actually exist independently of MY experiences. Since I do not have access to those, I must deny that other experiencers (and their experiences) exist from the start, since only my experiences – those I have access to – actually objectively exist as experiences.

You don’t need to deny others. In fact others could be events happening in different location with different sort of information.

Why are you acting as if you think others, besides yourself, exist by reaching out and attempting to share your ideas with them (us)?

We could be self-deriving ideas.

If you are really convinced that other experiencers, besides you, do not exist why are you acting as if they do? You should, at least, be consistent with your own best thinking, no? Since you are not acting as if you consistently believe what you are claiming, then we have good reason to think you don’t believe what you claim to be true is, in fact, true.

As I mentioned I could be self-deriving idea. These idea for example could be matter activity. It could be caused by a Demon too. Do you believe in experiecer? Where is it? Please point to it.

 

[STT]

“Reality.”

By your definition, if the universe requires God to sustain it, then it is not ‘real’. I see no substantiation for that assertion, but only a bald assertion of it.

I would respond that God does create reality.

I call that illusion. This is off topic though. By the way can God create illusion?

 

[Gorgias]

I call that illusion.

OK. As long as we’re all clear that you’re using non-standard definitions of terms which are not accepted by others, we’re all good.

By the way can God create illusion?

By definition, no. What God creates is real. (It might not be permanent, mind you, as in the case of an apparition, but that doesn’t make it any less real.)

 

[STT]

By definition, no . What God creates is real . (It might not be permanent , mind you, as in the case of an apparition, but that doesn’t make it any less real .)

What do you mean with real? It is strange to me that God has ability to create real beings with free will but He has no power to create illusion.

 

[Gorgias]

[God] has no power to create illusion

I would say that, rather than identifying a ‘lack’ in God’s power, this is assertion that God does not act contrary to His nature.

 

[STT]

I would say that, rather than identifying a ‘lack’ in God’s power , this is assertion that God does not act contrary to His nature .

What is real? Could you please define it?

 

[Gorgias]

What is real? Could you please define it?

You do realize how big a question you just asked, in the context of philosophy, don’t you?

 

[Benadam]

Everything could also be driven by a Demon.

Every thing can’t be driven by a contingent being.

 

[Benadam]

Experience is an event with content of information.

What is the source of experiences existence?