"Inside" Experience

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Silhouette » Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:57 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I just don't see where the unity (as in " "all one", which is of course what Continuous Experience is") comes in. why? why is it even posited?

This will have only been partly covered in this thread so far - Jakob has already been familiar with my philosophy for a while now, so some of it has probably been skipped.

The logic is that there are no gaps of nothingness to separate "different things", and any gaps of somethingness to separate "different things" will themselves have no gaps of nothingness between them and the things they separate either etc. So with the impossibility of gaps in experience, it must therefore be fundamentally continuous.

Seeing experiences as discrete is therefore fundamentally an error, which makes it even more interesting that it's so useful to do so. You can't formulate knowledge without dissecting the fundamental continuity of experience because knowledge is meaning, and a means requires a start separate from an end. One thing "meaning itself", tautologically, doesn't mean anything - meaning and definitions have to be in terms of something else. Hence the necessity of plural discrete experiences to Epistemology, even though Ontology necessitates singular Continuous Experience as I explained just before.

This is only further corroborated by other things I've been saying so far on this thread. For example, plural fundamental bases either create a "chicken or the egg" circularity or no fundamental basis to know anything at all like with Postmodernism. The utility of models of discrete experiences is in how well they are conceptually reconnected back together to match Continuous Experience - that's how you know and test anything epistemically. The sum of the parts is never quite the same as the "gestalt", so there's an inevitable gap between useful knowledge and truth, making utility relatively "true to" absolute Truth. The world is never more than one way at any one time, and it's this singular ontological standard that's required to evaluate any plural number of epistemologies. And no matter what you try to do away with, to arrive at what this sole unity is, you'll be confronted by experience as the concrete form of existence in the abstract. And without experience as existence, you have nothing at all. That's how you know it's experience that's continuous at the foundation of all ontology. It's all the many things you can do with this foundation, dissecting it and reconstructing it to better approximate this single foundation, that is the challenge of epistemology.

The fundamental "error" of discrete experiencing makes sense though, because knowledge is useful insofar as it differs from "what is", or is becoming. Continuous Experience is naturally continuously emerging unto itself, and so to predict and control this, you need grounds to determine how it's going to be before it gets there. Knowledge is prediction and control, and that's power.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4031
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:54 am

Ok, you say why not a bunch of things, but you still have not said why one thing. Where does that come in?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:11 am

"Why Anchorage?"

"Because not Wisconsin."

"Wait what?"
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Meno_ » Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:17 pm

Silhouette said,


"The logic is that there are no gaps of nothingness to separate "different things", and any gaps of somethingness to separate "different things" will themselves have no gaps of nothingness between them and the things they separate either etc. So with the impossibility of gaps in experience, it must therefore be fundamentally continuous."


The foundation of any proposition establishes the same objective model , as any possible revision may appear to indicate. As memory or recall is the only problem, it is a simulation that a similarity can be understood to sustain a probable equanimity.

It does not matter if the spaces between exist or not, by the same token as lack of memory blocks the reductibility beyond transgressing against a naturally fallacious predicament.

The mind is not the thing, it is it's functional containment , and recall or the lack of it, sets a revision into motion.
Revision always conduits an encapsulation of an appearance, as in the creation of the illusion of motion from being still.
The difference in a grand allusion lays in momentus, primary startup, of elements that appeared in indifferent state, as a whole general, and suddenly that wholeness is compromised and broken up.
The reductive process of the whole, or many wholes is anti productive, weather or not it befits a normative objective value.
The breakup necessitates a simulated object, as a synthetic a priori object established unresolved a posteriori missing elements even in projections that clearly identified generally excluded elements that would not appear to fit into the post modern big picture.

The argument you put forward does not recognize the basic faults with Russell and Ayer, of the problem with the data consisting of sense, the very anti thesis of what the relation between sense as an object is.
The fallacy of this sustains the illusion since Descartes that thinking is not included with the act of thought, since 'thought' is connected to a thing thought about.
ONE can not break this sequence, without disassociating many elemental associations, therefore blocking by emotions that bar for some minds the very illusion they want to , need to sustain.
This becomes a habit, and the problem with synthesizing is that even of material overcomes.the ideal sense of union as definitive of that game,
the habitual functions which sustain such an idea remain unresolved.

Therefore some say why argue about languages?
The only solution is the way AI can resolve the issue without becoming belligerent by way of desperation
and resort to violent control.

The flow consisting of still parts, is reductive, for parts have parts, etc.

Such reductions terminate at epochs, or at times when a review becomes objectively non sensible, and it is getting to the point where the revision validates a revocation, by merely heresy.

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

Communism failes.eidectically by the 60' s and phenomenally it was revised by the 50' s. The non sense of the nothingness of material synthesis failed, because this long adherence.to the cogito as a.zero sum, as people here tend to talk about it, and thus the derivitive of languages (Nietzche) and of games surrounding them (Wittgenstein) squaring with a reduced sense of meaning, syntax, structure- appearing an inadequate equivocation with the prior understand ing.

Some fractures remain internal, some external, but they are always relational on some level of gestalt, and the languages burden simulation, as You may admit, alongside of Peace girl, and others.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Silhouette » Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:35 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Ok, you say why not a bunch of things, but you still have not said why one thing. Where does that come in?

Because, like I said, no fundamental gaps/separation = fundamental unity.

How is that not answering your question?

Let me know what part of this answer is confusing you, and I can attempt to make it clearer.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4031
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:48 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Same idea.
Let me calibrate:
"consciousness is a self-observing" next to "experience is a self-responsiveness"

Why do you say that "consciousness is self-observing". That doesn't seem right to me, else "self-consciousness" would be a redundant term yet it has an unique and explicit meaning. A person can be "conscious of the weather", no? Or "class conscious", "politically conscious", "gender conscious" and so on.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:47 pm

no fundamental gaps/separation...

ok... with you so far...

= fundamental unity.

I don't get it.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Silhouette » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:58 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:no fundamental gaps/separation...

ok... with you so far...

= fundamental unity.

I don't get it.

You've piqued my interest.

What is it about things not being separated that makes you doubt that they're unseparated/together?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4031
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:18 pm

I just don't see the link between "no gaps" and "unity."
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Meno_ » Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:11 pm

Uninvitingly there lays the fallacy behind an illusive sustenance of an inviting naturalism.

{Topicality may be analogous, as in the relatively early study into Moebius effects,}


wARNING: TOPICALITY may deranged intuition into narcissistic disorder.Use limited to 18 years or older by statute.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:44 pm

Experience is any form of existence and also the totality of existence - indeed experience and existence in either context mean exactly the same
You can separate or isolate an individual experience from everything else but everything that it is separated from is also an experience as well
The spaces in between these words are just as much experience as the words themselves even if those spaces are truly empty [ they are not ]

All perception or consciousness is experience but not all experience however is perception or consciousness
An object with no self awareness is experience but that is not the same as the self awareness of an organism

So there are two fundamentals to experience : existence and awareness of existence

These divisions are in reality however entirely arbitrary because reality itself is one and has no such divisions
They only exist within minds that seek to compartmentalise and divide reality up into manageable quantities
Although these minds are themselves a part of reality that are merely peripheral while reality itself is eternal
Minds are experience and their awareness of experience is experience as also is their awareness of their own mortality

There is no inside or outside of experience because experience is eternal and infinite and absolute and exists everywhere for all of time
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Meno_ » Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:48 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Experience is any form of existence and also the totality of existence - indeed experience and existence in either context mean exactly the same
You can separate or isolate an individual experience from everything else but everything that it is separated from is also an experience as well
The spaces in between these words are just as much experience as the words themselves even if those spaces are truly empty [ they are not ]

All perception or consciousness is experience but not all experience however is perception or consciousness
An object with no self awareness is experience but that is not the same as the self awareness of an organism

So there are two fundamentals to experience : existence and awareness of existence

These divisions are in reality however entirely arbitrary because reality itself is one and has no such divisions
They only exist within minds that seek to compartmentalise and divide reality up into manageable quantities
Although these minds are themselves a part of reality that are merely peripheral while reality itself is eternal
Minds are experience and their awareness of experience is experience as also is their awareness of their own mortality

There is no inside or outside of experience because experience is eternal and infinite and absolute and exists everywhere for all of time



Same answer as previous to time travel


Why? -some measure of a unified field.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:03 pm

Silhouette wrote:It's an interesting question to consider exactly how discrete experience is initially arrived at from the starting point of Continuous Experience.

[more]

Silhouette, from this very interesting probe, for me your most interesting post since the one where you announced your theory on H, I conclude that what Experientialism really expresses is that experience is the only thing we can directly approach. It is not so much about what is, as it is about being. "What is" is always discrete, "being" isn't necessarily.

I like that you straight out admit that you have no answer to my question but don't worry about this, it speaks to consistency. I also agree with where you take the uncertainty, into an analysis of grammar. Yes, Latin grammar is often indeed rather contingently amounting in a subject than that it builds on the premise of one.

I still have iron arguments for the technical requirement of the subject but I can agree to suspend their implementation, and investigate what is possible to conceive without one.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:12 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:no fundamental gaps/separation...

ok... with you so far...

= fundamental unity.

I don't get it.

You've piqued my interest.

What is it about things not being separated that makes you doubt that they're unseparated/together?

"No fundamental gaps" doesn't preclude some kind of contingent gaps, just as "no fundamental unity" doesn't preclude contingent unities.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:19 pm

I do believe I am slightly too apprehensive to draw conclusions where you do.

all I know about existence is that it has to be existent, that it cant not exist when it does exist.

Precisely because all I can know comes from experience and the act of defining is experience, I can have no certainty that it is also the case that existence is sufficiently defined as experience.

The existence of which I am certain is my experience - which is the distinct experience of an I, which is sometimes coupled with the I sharing an experience with what appears to be another I. This is all I am truly certain of. I am certain of it because it is my perfectly consistent experience, Ive never experienced anything else.

So annoyingly perhaps, I would only agree with Experientialism as criterion for epistemological method, but consider it too "bold"; too determinate to speak to the whole of ontology.

Regardless, Im interested in the approach.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:38 pm

Existence has to be divided. Without other, no matter what type of being you are, there can be no ability to discern anything (what's inside of you is outside of you, and there's no outside of you, thus no you to distinguish anything in any way).

This unity idea is not true.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8978
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:40 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Existence has to be divided. Without other, no matter what type of being you are, there can be no ability to discern anything (what's inside of you is outside of you, and there's no outside of you, thus no you to distinguish anything in any way).

This unity idea is not true.

Personally, I agree with all you are saying,
My whole philosophy is based on the question what is otherness - what is it to relate to what one is not.

I call this valuing.
Valuing is a nice indicator of existence because it implies, thus logically contains that what it values i.e. an other, otherness.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:49 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Existence has to be divided. Without other, no matter what type of being you are, there can be no ability to discern anything (what's inside of you is outside of you, and there's no outside of you, thus no you to distinguish anything in any way).

This unity idea is not true.

Personally, I agree with all you are saying,
My whole philosophy is based on the question what is otherness - what is it to relate to what one is not.

I call this valuing.


I wanted to clarify what may have seemed confused.

A blood cell is inside of me, but the moment I name it, it's outside of me.

So what is the "me", the observer?

If the observer were universal (without division), there'd be nothing to observe.

This is why I always tell people that existence is fractured.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8978
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:50 pm

Ive long ago come to that quite liberating conclusion.
Existence must be discontinuous for there to be resistance, and there has to be resistance for there to be experience
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:13 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Ive long ago come to that quite liberating conclusion.
Existence must be discontinuous for there to be resistance, and there has to be resistance for there to be experience


People are looking for some sort of Omni being...

What they don't understand is that if this were to occur, existence can't exist.

But they are dead set (pun intended) on there being an omnibeing ...

The ONLY Omni whatever that I know is non contradiction. That's my higher power. Do I fall short? Hell yes I do!!

Do we all? Hell yes!!

I've got a pretty good gig here being someone who's less contradictory now, but I can tell you, it's not all rainbows and shit either. Much better than before though. Being at the forefront of non contradiction is scary and it affords luxury.

The thing is to never forget where you came from, and to keep eyes on the prize, non zero sum realities, non consent violating realities. To unzero sum this.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8978
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:20 am

To take that forward - can you synthesize the concepts of non zero sum and resistance?


re: experience:
Whatever is in this experience behaves according to the valuator logic, which of itself accounts for experience.
Thus I know that whatever experience is, it is always of this principle.
What I do not know is that this principle, being experience, applies only to experience.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:23 am

Does it have to be fractured for not to be a unity?

Are we now not succuming to a superstition of mathematics?

In my opinion, neither fractured nor not fractured. There is no one "it" the fracturdness or completeness of which can be pondered.

There is Zeus.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:24 am

Rainbows and shit.

This is a good man.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Meno_ » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:27 am

[quote="Pedro I Rengel"]Does it have to be fractured for not to be a unity?

Are we now not succuming to a superstition of mathematics?

In my opinion, neither fractured nor not fractured. There is no one "it" the fracturdness or completeness of which can be pondered.

There is Zeus.[/quote

It probably depends
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: "Inside" of Experience

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:28 am

For those who have to guess, I suppose.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ecmandu