How do you refute this?

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

An event is not an experience. Not unless there is an experiencer.

Could you prove that?

Can you prove otherwise?

 

[PetraG]

Where is it location? Inside the brain, etc.?

Ah…you know, I do not know that.

You may be aware that scientists have just identified a new organ, which they call the interstitium. They have always known the interstitial space was there, but didn’t realize it functioned as an organ. On that account, I cannot say where awareness resides in the body. I do not know that it cannot reside anywhere except in the body; indeed, I am not aware of the exact nature of human awareness, including my own. I know it can be deeply affected by chemical or physical interference with the brain, but I do not know that human awareness lies exclusively in the brain. Study of the body and of awareness just keeps turning up surprises!

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.

We can’t assume it is, but we also cannot assume it is not. We do know from our own experience and the experience of others that the chemical or physical state of the body does deeply influence a person’s awareness. It does not seem whatever logical to deny the evidence that human awareness has a dimension that at least can be profoundly incarnate. We do not experience or decide or pray without the influence of our body, not in this life at any rate.

What we know with certainty is that while we can confuse ourselves or be confused and that we can obviously be ignorant about ourselves, God, and the universe, God Himself can neither deceive nor be deceived.

CCC 157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but “the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,171,5,obj.3) “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” (John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia pro vita sua (London: Longman, 1878) 239.)

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

What is the source of experiences existence?

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

So you are thinking ;What if God is a demon and everything is a lie?

 

[STT]

Why do you trust this part of the experience? Logic itself may simply
Be a cruel joke.

I don’t 100% trust that experience too.

 

[STT]

Do you have evidence for this?

You are asking about a deep meditate state that I haven’t reached yet.

Can you prove this does not happen?

Any specific motion and configuration of particles in a material sample uniquely leads to either a conscious state or Qualia. You need an experincer which can experience Qualia in first case. The conscious state is experience in the second case so there is no need for an experiencer. The question is which case is the correct one. I don’t have a prove for neither. I only know that negate of one leads proof for another one because there is only two options and both cannot be true.

 

[STT]

Can you prove otherwise?

If I could prove otherwise then I knew the first case is wrong, therefore the is no reason to ask for a refute.

 

[STT]

Where is it location? Inside the brain, etc.?

Interesting.

 

[STT]

So you are thinking ;What if God is a demon and everything is a lie?

No. I ask whether a Demon, evil God, could create this situation. God by definition is Good and illusion is evil.

 

[Benadam]

Ahh. Thus the question of experience. Experience as an entity in of it’self. I have to think about that. My initial response is that a good God wouldn’t allow it.

 

[Gorgias]

I ask whether a Demon, evil God, could create this situation. God by definition is Good and illusion is evil.

You realize, of course, that this should inform you that your ideas on the illusory nature of the universe are false.

 

[STT]

Ahh. Thus the question of experience. Experience as an entity in of it’self. I have to think about that. My initial response is that a good God wouldn’t allow it.

Yes. Experience as an entity in of itself.

 

[STT]

You realize, of course, that this should inform you that your ideas on the illusory nature of the universe are false.

No. I am not convinced.

 

[Gorgias]

No. I am not convinced.

You should be. After all, your claim (“reality is illusion”) is based on what you’re attempting to prove (“a demon has created reality”)!

 

[Dovekin]

Any specific motion and configuration of particles in a material sample uniquely leads to either a conscious state or Qualia.

Here you simply reiterate your idea that a mental state cannot experience mental states. My question, I think, was about what constitutes a mental state. What defines it as conscious or qualia to the exclusion of also being something else? Why does, for example, being awake or asleep preclude being a cube?

 

[STT]

You should be. After all, your claim (“reality is illusion”) is based on what you’re attempting to prove (“a demon has created reality”)!

I claim that a Demon could create such a reality. Could you disprove it?

 

[STT]

To me it doesn’t make sense to say that a mental state experiences another mental state. This is however off topic. I cannot recall how this branching occurred. I would be thankful if you remember and remind me.

 

[Dovekin]

I was trying to get you to explain what you meant by “experiencer.” So I offered a number of ideas, including that the mental state experience other mental states. That idea was meant to echo the soul is the form of the body, that the organization of something is tied to but distinct from the elements of it.

Try it this way. Let us say an array of neuron and axons in the bfain could be described as a sphere. An experience happens, which manifests in the brain as a square. We now have a mental state that looks like a sphere with a square imposed on it. Many experiences later, the mental state looks more like a polyhedron than a sphere as successive experiences of different shapes have organized hem selves to fit together within the sphere. The sphere, a mental state, is receiving the information and reorganizing itself to incorporate that information into itself.

This is not a perfect analogy obviously. Your response saying that mental states are either conscious or quale is true, but it is like saying a polygon is either regular or irregular. True, but does not say much about how the polygon/mental state impacts the polyhedron/mental state.

 

[Gorgias]

I claim that a Demon could create such a reality. Could you disprove it?

It’s your claim. The burden of proof lies on you.

In any case, your argument fails: your putative demon, himself, truly exists, right? If so, then someone who can create reality (aside from illusion) would have had to have created him. Therefore, the basis of reality is a god who is good, not an evil, illusion-peddling demon.

 

[STT]

I was trying to get you to explain what you meant by “experiencer.” So I offered a number of ideas, including that the mental state experience other mental states. That idea was meant to echo the soul is the form of the body, that the organization of something is tied to but distinct from the elements of it.

I see. But you cannot personify organization. Regardless, my question remain unanswered.

Try it this way. Let us say an array of neuron and axons in the bfain could be described as a sphere. An experience happens, which manifests in the brain as a square. We now have a mental state that looks like a sphere with a square imposed on it. Many experiences later, the mental state looks more like a polyhedron than a sphere as successive experiences of different shapes have organized hem selves to fit together within the sphere. The sphere, a mental state, is receiving the information and reorganizing itself to incorporate that information into itself.

This is not a perfect analogy obviously. Your response saying that mental states are either conscious or quale is true, but it is like saying a polygon is either regular or irregular. True, but does not say much about how the polygon/mental state impacts the polyhedron/mental state.

Yes, a mental state is either conscious state or quale and this is not similar to saying that a polygon is either regular or irregular. We just don’t know which case is true.

By the way, how do you define an experiencer?

 

[STT]

It’s your claim. The burden of proof lies on you .

Please read the title of thread.

In any case, your argument fails: your putative demon, himself, truly exists, right? If so, then someone who can create reality (aside from illusion) would have had to have created him . Therefore, the basis of reality is a god who is good, not an evil, illusion-peddling demon.

God doesn’t create evil or Demon.