Hmm.
We only have evidence of the existence of first-person subjective experience in the form of persons: we do not have evidence of the existence of anything else. Lifeless matter, therefore, as it cannot be demonstrated to exist must be entirely fictional, thus biological evolution and lifeless matter evolving into living matter is really just “in ones head”: make-believe spoken as if it were something that actually happened.
If there is a chance for the validity of pan psychism, then the difference between life full and life less matter is strictly a rebuttable conjecture.
That. conjecture is implicit in the propositional value of differentiating contential from necessary modes of preception, whereas , there is no probable source.
Particularly to hypothesize a primordial objective preposition, consisting of all inclusive referentiality of all primary sources of information, leaves subjective source undefined.
How do we know that the proposition assigning unique primary sources atotally differentiated , having more probability for factual information then not? We don’t and we cannot.
Therefore the distinction has no merit one way or the other, and the question becomes tedious and irresolutely mute…
To dismiss this propositional synthesis as some sort of a pie in the sky abstract acrobatics, has absolutely no ground, since it seeks a (ground) without having one to be based on
In fact it is tautological excercise using the abstract that is denied.
Okay, somehow, buried deep down in your own existential trajectory from the cradle to, well, here and now, you have thought yourself into believing whatever it is that you think this means.
But then I am back to this:
You clearly don’t see your own reaction above as a “general description intellectual contraption”. At least not in the manner in which I construe them.
How is your point here related to your day to day interactions with others? In other words, its “use value” in a “for all practical purposes” world.
And then the part where the dots are connected substantively to what you construe the “afterlife” to be.
But, yeah, that’s just me. That’s what I want to get out of the exchange. If that’s not what you want to get out of it, fine, there are surely others here more in sync with your own inclination.
this kind of radical berkeleyean skepticism wouldn’t even be possible unless something existed independently of and prior to the skepticism itself, or else it would have nothing of content. you’d end up with an infinite regress of doubting the doubting of the doubting of the doubting, etc., unless there was a pre-existing context in/of which to doubt.
“The questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those [doubts] turn.” - wittgenstein
“Without that context, the doubt itself makes no sense: The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty; A doubt without an end is not even a doubt.” - wittgenstein
give this one a look when you aren’t busy doubting everything but your ‘subjective experience’ (whatever that means).
Promethesn75:
Doubt of everything except the existence of oneself supports an improbable conclusion. I am not a solipsist. I believe an external world exists. I just believe it is made up of first-person subjective experience and is in fact not an infinite space but the inner mind of an infinite Person (guess who).
When I state ‘only subjective experience may exist’ I don’t mean only my subjective experience exists but that reality only consists of subjective experience, as nothing other than persons (may) exist. I derive this conclusion from the fact that yes, existence only appears in the form of a person and that which that person experiences. Existence does not, and it may be inferred has never, appeared or even existed in any other form. A person is not materially composed of something that is not first-person subjective experience, but is composed of subjective experience.
Lifeless matter, in the godless mythology that first-person subjective experience did not exist in the eternity before before lifeless atoms unknowingly (as subjective experience did not exist) and accidentally created brains implies that for an eternity before chance and the laws of physics (Stenger) created brains something other than first-person subjective experience existed and first-person subjective experience did not exist.
But the truth is that we can’t, and have never, demonstrated the existence of anything except our own first-person subjective experience, thus that which is not or that is something other than subjective experience itself must be, and is, entirely fictional.