The elusive "I"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
We can never be sure. Perhaps we are all experiencer or not. There is no evidence nor any proof that I can tell otherwise.
Click to expand...
I see… Do you experience doubts about your belief?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
They are the same. How do they differ?
Click to expand...
There are two different agents one has experiencer and another doesn’t. Experience in the first one is the result of experience act and in the second one the experience is merely a mental state.
 
STT said:
There are two different agents one has experiencer and another doesn’t. Experience in the first one is the result of experience act and in the second one the experience is merely a mental state.
Click to expand...
If there is no “experiencer”, there is no experience.
 
STT said:
That is not for sure correct. Consciousness could be a simple mental/physical state. We are not just sure yet and perhaps can never be.
Click to expand...
Even though consciousness is a simple mental/physical state how could it possibly exist without a subject being conscious? Even the state itself would be the subject.
 
STT said:
That is not for sure correct. Consciousness could be a simple mental/physical state. We are not just sure yet and perhaps can never be.
Click to expand...
Is it uncertainty what you experience?

Can it be said that you are a guy who has no experience at all and, therefore, no reasoning ability?
 
STT said:
Not directly. I reach to it through reasoning.

No.
Click to expand...
Then, if you have certain level of reasoning abilities, and some direct or indirect experiences, then you are an experiencer. Does your level of reasoning abilities allow you to see this?
 
STT said:
Think of consciousness as another state of matter, such as liquid, gas, superconductor, metal, etc.

What do you mean?
Click to expand...
Even if we think of consciousness as another state of matter (like the brain), that matter becomes the subject of the experience.
 
STT said:
Lets start by the Descartes’s argument: “I think therefore I am”. One can say that “I experience therefore I am”. This seems a better argument since thoughts are part of our experience. This means that “I” has the ability to experience. One however can doubt this and argue that experience as an event happens so there is need for an experiencer. Is “I” elusive?
Click to expand...
I do not, as Descartes thought, have to infer my existence from the fact that I am aware of myself thinking. I perceive it directly, just as I perceive directly the existence of all the physical objects that surround me. If there is any doubt at all about the truth of such judgments, it is the merest shadow of doubt about whether I am suffering a hallucination rather than actually perceiving.Six Great Ideas, Mortimer Adler.
 
o_mlly said:
I do not, as Descartes thought, have to infer my existence from the fact that I am aware of myself thinking. I perceive it directly, just as I perceive directly the existence of all the physical objects that surround me. If there is any doubt at all about the truth of such judgments, it is the merest shadow of doubt about whether I am suffering a hallucination rather than actually perceiving.
Click to expand...
What he perceive is what I call “me”, the reference point generated by brain, rather than “I”, experiencer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top