How do you refute this?

[StAugustine]

That which can distinguish experiencer from experience is already the experiencer. The capacity for distinction necessitates it.

Again, I have no positive reason to doubt. Nor is your reason positive proof for doubt, but mere speculation.

Point to an actual scientific non-speculative reason to generate concern that can rise to the level of positive doubt.

 

[HarryStotle]

STT:

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.

Actually, @STT cannot possibly posit any “reality” except experience since all that he can ascertain is experience. If he is going to just assert “God,” he may as well just assert “an experiencer” beyond mere experience. He has about as much warrant for positing God behind reality in his world view as he has for positing an experiencer behind the experience.

In fact he has less warrant because all he has is brute experience with no reason to think anything else exists – not an experiencer, not reality, nothing but raw experience.

He is being inconsistent if he denies the existence of an experiencer but accepts the existence of God.

 

[PetraG]

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

Thanks for your advice.

I hope you see my point. There is no reason to demean existence on the idea that maybe possibly it could be reduced to something that can be conceptualized as an “idea.” This is the flip side of reducing it on the idea that it could be conceptualized as being material–that is, that ideas are only patterns of electrons in nerve fibers, etc, I think you’ve heard variations on that.

As for the idea that we are helpless pawns of an evil force–again, what can you do, except your best? If it was all as worthless as that, what was lost by the pretense that good was a possibility?

Besides, it certainly seems more plausible that a demon would approach a person is who made in the image and likeness of God with the idea that they are not what they are–“If you are the son of God, then…” So, if everything is as we know it to be through revelation, then we know that demons will lie to us, we know they can twist the truth, even the truths found in Holy Scriptures, and we know they can march around pretending to be angels.

Everything that exists was created by God to have a good purpose. The only way a demon could get an advantage would be to twist things, obscure things, denigrate things or misappropriate things.

 

[STT]

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

Come on I am serious.

 

[Gorgias]

Come on I am serious.

Read up on the topic, then. There’s no way that we can fit all the salient issues in the space of a forum post.

(For the sake of argument, let’s presume we’re talking physical reality.)

 

[STT]

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

I didn’t say that the Demon is contingent.

 

[STT]

What is the source of experiences existence?

Motion of matter for example. It could be all illusion caused by the Demon too.

 

[STT]

That which can distinguish experiencer from experience is already the experiencer. The capacity for distinction necessitates it.

No. We construct many mental things which are not real. We have the capacity to do that.

Again, I have no positive reason to doubt. Nor is your reason positive proof for doubt, but mere speculation.

Speculation. You didn’t answer my question: Where is the experiencer?

Point to an actual scientific non-speculative reason to generate concern that can rise to the level of positive doubt.

We know that experience in general, whether it is thought or feeling, correlates with brain activity.

 

[STT]

I hope you see my point. There is no reason to demean existence on the idea that maybe possibly it could be reduced to something that can be conceptualized as an “idea.” This is the flip side of reducing it on the idea that it could be conceptualized as being material–that is, that ideas are only patterns of electrons in nerve fibers, etc, I think you’ve heard variations on that.

Yes, I see your point. As I mentioned we could be self-driven idea where idea caused by brain.

As for the idea that we are helpless pawns of an evil force–again, what can you do, except your best? If it was all as worthless as that, what was lost by the pretense that good was a possibility?

I cannot do my best in this case. I just do things accordingly, as He wishes.

Besides, it certainly seems more plausible that a demon would approach a person is who made in the image and likeness of God with the idea that they are not what they are–“ If you are the son of God, then…” So, if everything is as we know it to be through revelation, then we know that demons will lie to us, we know they can twist the truth, even the truths found in Holy Scriptures, and we know they can march around pretending to be angels.

I cannot change your belief but I can ask you for an argument. You believe in experiencer? Where is it?

Everything that exists was created by God to have a good purpose. The only way a demon could get an advantage would be to twist things, obscure things, denigrate things or misappropriate things.

Yes, that was mistake of Descartes too.

 

[PetraG]

where idea caused by brain.

Brain? How do you know there is a brain?

I cannot do my best in this case. I just do things accordingly, as He wishes.

You can choose to choose as if you had a choice. Maybe you do. If you choose as if you have no choice, though, then surely you don’t.

I cannot change your belief but I can ask you for an argument. You believe in experiencer? Where is it?

What does it even mean for there to be an experience without someone doing the experiencing? When is there a verb without a subject noun?

What is an experience, after all? It is an occurrence that leaves an impression on someone or the direct contact with and sense observation of an event. The word does not even make sense except as the result of the verb “to experience,” and that word in turn requires a subject.

Yes, that was mistake of Descartes too.

No, that is from the Creed: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

CCC 385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine, ( St. Augustine, Conf. 7,7,11: PL 32,739.) and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”. ( 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 3:16.) The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. (Cf. Rom 5:20.) We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror. (Cf. Lk 11:21-22; Jn 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8.)

So…if you ask why I believe that all of God’s works are good, it is because it belong to the faith of all Christendom, from the East to the West. Descartes added nothing to that.

Likewise, I do not and will not believe in a philosophy that tries to divorce experience in some way that makes it an independent entity that does not require an actor to exist. That notion violates faith, it violates common sense, and it violates our own experience. It is taught by no authority with jurisdiction and there is no independent evidence for it. It is a wild conjecture with no foundation. Therefore, it is the stance that it is even possible for an experience to exist independently of a actor doing the experiencing–let alone, Heaven help us, that this ought to be entertained as being the universal norm!!–that is the stance that bears the burden of proof. Not every piece of word play has standing to demand a rebuttal, after all.

 

[StAugustine]

So brain activity is real.

Now is there any reason to think your brain is not functioning correctly?

If yes, you must doubt your own theories as deluded ramblings, if no, there is no reason to doubt.

QED- your concern is unfounded.

 

[STT]

Brain? How do you know there is a brain?

Because I ate many, of course brain of lamb. But that might be fake. I cannot prove it.

You can choose to choose as if you had a choice. Maybe you do. If you choose as if you have no choice, though, then surely you don’t.

Decision might be an illusion.

What does it even mean for there to be an experience without someone doing the experiencing? When is there a verb without a subject noun?

I already argue against that. We could be self-deriving ideas. Ideas might be produced in brain. They interact with each other, some has causal power to move you, etc.

What is an experience, after all? It is an occurrence that leaves an impression on someone or the direct contact with and sense observation of an event. The word does not even make sense except as the result of the verb “to experience,” and that word in turn requires a subject.

It is an event with a sense of environment for example. It just appears that there is an experiencer. In fact it is absurd to think that matter activity can give rise to an experiencer.

No, that is from the Creed: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

CCC 385 *…

So…if you ask why I believe that all of God’s works are good, it is because it belong to the faith of all Christendom, from the East to the West. Descartes added nothing to that.

These are all good and dandy but they are not an argument.

Likewise, I do not and will not believe in a philosophy that tries to divorce experience in some way that makes it an independent entity that does not require an actor to exist. That notion violates faith, it violates common sense, and it violates our own experience. It is taught by no authority with jurisdiction and there is no independent evidence for it. It is a wild conjecture with no foundation. Therefore, it is the stance that it is even possible for an experience to exist independently of a actor doing the experiencing–let alone, Heaven help us, that this ought to be entertained as being the universal norm!!–that is the stance that bears the burden of proof. Not every piece of word play has standing to demand a rebuttal, after all.

As I said before I am not here to change your belief. By the way, you didn’t answer my question: If there is an experiencer and it is immaterial then where is it?

 

[STT]

So brain activity is real.

Brain might be real. But even if it is real, it just produce a sense of self. It doesn’t mean that brain creates an experiencer. In fact if experiencer is an mental state then it cannot experience another mental state.

Now is there any reason to think your brain is not functioning correctly?

It seems that it function properly.

If yes, you must doubt your own theories as deluded ramblings, if no, there is no reason to doubt.

QED- your concern is unfounded.

I am afraid that that does not follow. Brain cannot create an experiencer.

 

[PetraG]

If there is an experiencer and it is immaterial then where is it?

Who ever said the experiencer had to be immaterial? There is no reason that the experience of the Church Militant might not be entirely different in nature than the experience of the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant prior to the Final Judgment. We are beings that combine material and spiritual. Why not?

 

[STT]

Who ever said the experiencer had to be immaterial? There is no reason that the experience of the Church Militant might not be entirely different in nature than the experience of the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant prior to the Final Judgment. We are beings that combine material and spiritual. Why not?

Ok, forget about immaterial. Where is experiencer and how does it experience?

 

[PetraG]

Ok, forget about immaterial. Where is experiencer and how does it experience?

My argument is that by the nature of what the word “experience” means, an experiencer who experienced it is implied. If, for instance, you say something has been consumed, there has to have been something to consume it. Otherwise, it just disappeared. “Consumed” would be an inappropriate word.

Likewise, if there is no one to experience (name removed by moderator)ut gathered by the senses, there is no experience. There are only (name removed by moderator)uts and the physical effect of the (name removed by moderator)uts on the sense organs. There is only an experience if there is someone who is doing the experiencing. If the situation is otherwise, then “experience” is the wrong word to express what is happening.

An experience is the effect that an event has on a being. We don’t usually say, for instance, that a table “experiences” a blow from a hammer or that a weather station “experiences” a strong wind. We would use words like “record” or “absorb” or something like that. To say there was an experience implies there was someone or something with awareness of the event.

Now, you could ask this: “Is experience a reality or is it actually an imaginary construct of a consciousness?” Certainly, we know that we can experience imaginary events. We can have dreams or go through mental exercises that can seem to have been real, even though none of what we experienced actually happened. We know this happens. You could ask whether or not this always happens…that is, if some experiences are known to be false, is it possible that all experiences are imaginary?

My answer is that there is no reason to believe that experiences are always imaginary, since we also have evidence of experiences that do coincide with permanent and commensurate changes in our environment. There would have to be evidence that this most like possibility is false before I’d abandon it in favor of scary alternative scenarios that aren’t of a nature that make an alternative response reasonable even if they are true.

 

[STT]

All you said is good and dandy but they are not an answer to my question. Where is experiencer?

 

[Dovekin]

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.

As I said, in space no one can hear you scream. There is no experience if there is no experiencer to hear. Events with information happen.

I think this illumines your question well. Eyes experience light and create signal. Brain experiences signal and then what? We generally group these experiencers into a single ego, that is eye sees, brain receives signal, ear hears, atc. are all described as an individual experiencing.

So does there exist something that brain relays info to in the same way that eye relays info about light? One possibility is that there is an area that collects and coordinates the information that other parts receive. It is not simply “brain” but “brain and coordinator.” This coordinator part is the end use/experiencer.

Another possibility is that there is no specific ‘other part” that experiences, but that the brain organizes info to mirror the info signals and rationalizes them by recognizing patterns, counting repetitions, associating likes, unlikes, similars, and so on. This organization, even though it is not physically localized, is the experiencer; it is an image of prior experiences seeking to incorporate continuing experience.

And ther are probably other ideas of how this might work. One of these ideas might even be correct!

 

[STT]

So does there exist something that brain relays info to in the same way that eye relays info about light? One possibility is that there is an area that collects and coordinates the information that other parts receive. It is not simply “brain” but “brain and coordinator.” This coordinator part is the end use/experiencer.

And where is the coordinator? Do you know any study to back up your claim?

Another possibility is that there is no specific ‘other part” that experiences, but that the brain organizes info to mirror the info signals and rationalizes them by recognizing patterns, counting repetitions, associating likes, unlikes, similars, and so on. This organization, even though it is not physically localized, is the experiencer; it is an image of prior experiences seeking to incorporate continuing experience.

So you are saying that experiencer is a mental state which experiences other mental state? This doesn’t make any sense to me. It however seems to me that all we have is just mental states, according to what you suggest. There is no experiencer if you mean so.

 

[StAugustine]

Whose brain?