How do you refute this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not anybody’s brain. Just a brain which produce thoughts and feelings. Thought and feeling can cause another thought or feeling or cause an action.
 
STT said:
you are saying that experiencer is a mental state which experiences other mental state? This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
Why not? That is not exactly what I was saying, but close enough. I ask for clarification to understand what criteria you have set up for experiencer.
STT said:
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.
Click to expand...
That does not follow. Are you saying experiencer cannot be a mental state? Why? Why not? (Pick a question.)

I am offering possibilities, not documented theories. The coordinator in the brain is based entirely on the animated film Inside Out. It is similar to some ideas of the soul, or of psychic and flesh bodies in 1 Cor 15.
 
STT said:
All you said is good and dandy but they are not an answer to my question. Where is experiencer?
Click to expand...
Do you mean where is the being doing the experiencing or do you mean what is the being doing the experiencing?
 
Dovekin said:
Why not? That is not exactly what I was saying, but close enough. I ask for clarification to understand what criteria you have set up for experiencer .
Click to expand...
Because mental state is only a state. By state I mean a specific configuration that neurons fire. That could lead to experience but it cannot lead to an experiencer which experiences other mental state. This is similar to saying that a state experience another state.
Dovekin said:
That does not follow. Are you saying experiencer cannot be a mental state? Why? Why not? (Pick a question.)
Click to expand...
I say that “brain organizes info to mirror the info signals and rationalizes them by recognizing patterns, counting repetitions, associating likes, unlikes, similars, and so on” are all mental state.
 
STT said:
40.png
PetraG:
Do you mean where is the being doing the experiencing or do you mean what is the being doing the experiencing?
Click to expand...
Where is it location? Inside the brain, etc.?
Click to expand...
Location is a space-time characteristic. Who is claiming that the experiencer operates solely within the object-material world? That would be an assumption of yours. It is a baited question.

Why are we to assume that the conscious subject of experience is inherently or integrally within space-time-energy-matter? Location would appear to be a quality that the subject puts upon objects in the field of experience to track or reference them relative to the experiencing subject.

So it wouldn’t be the exact location of the experiencer that we would be interested in but the perspective. Perspective can be relative to objects in space (location,) but it wouldn’t be constrained to that modality. You can have a perspective on even abstract things if you are a subject of experience. So perspective isn’t limited to location in space, which is why the word location is inadequate to capture the place from which an experiencing subject operates.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Location is a space-time characteristic. Who is claiming that the experiencer operates solely within the object-material world? That would be an assumption of yours. It is a baited question.
Click to expand...
So, experiencer is immaterial? How do you relate something which has no location to something which has location, our sensory system and brain?
 
Zaccheus said:
This makes no sense. There can’t be an experience if it is not experienced by some entity.
Click to expand...
There can be experience. It depends if you could imagine the stated claim. Experience could be simply an event with a sense of reality.
 
STT said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Location is a space-time characteristic. Who is claiming that the experiencer operates solely within the object-material world? That would be an assumption of yours. It is a baited question.
Click to expand...
So, experiencer is immaterial? How do you relate something which has no location to something which has location, our sensory system and brain?
Click to expand...
Good question. Welcome to one of the great mysteries of human existence.

You, the thinker have ideas. Where are ideas “located” relative to you if every phenomenon must have location? I wouldn’t go assuming that location is a necessary attribute of every reality, unless you want to assume that reality is only material. You would need to prove that, not merely assert it.

The question of the relationship between material reality and immaterial reality is very important.

Perhaps some aspects of reality are “governed” or limited by certain constraints – space and time, for example – while other aspects are not. Why assume those limitations apply to all reality?
 
So have you ever seen many brains or just one? Whose brains? And how do you know of the effects of brains. What is the basis of your certitude?
 
HarryStotle said:
Good question. Welcome to one of the great mysteries of human existence.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking about this problem for a few years. I am losing my faith that there is any solution to it. I however have an argument in favor of mind. It works fine for one mind but has problem with two and more minds.
HarryStotle said:
You, the thinker have ideas. Where are ideas “located” relative to you if every phenomenon must have location? I wouldn’t go assuming that location is a necessary attribute of every reality, unless you want to assume that reality is only material. You would need to prove that, not merely assert it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that one can disprove or prove monism. You can only show other alternatives, dualism for example, are anomalous.
HarryStotle said:
The question of the relationship between material reality and immaterial reality is very important.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.
HarryStotle said:
Perhaps some aspects of reality are “governed” or limited by certain constraints – space and time, for example – while other aspects are not. Why assume those limitations apply to all reality?
Click to expand...
To me anything except mind is material.
 
STT said:
40.png
Zaccheus:
This makes no sense. There can’t be an experience if it is not experienced by some entity.
Click to expand...
There can be experience. It depends if you could imagine the stated claim. Experience could be simply an event with a sense of reality.
Click to expand...
An event is not an experience. Not unless there is an experiencer.
 
Why do you trust this part of the experience? Logic itself may simply
Be a cruel joke.
 
STT said:
That could lead to experience but it cannot lead to an experiencer which experiences other mental state. This is similar to saying that a state experience another state.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence for this? Can you prove this does not happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top