Silhouette! Experientialism!

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

Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:51 pm

You asked me why I disagree with your concept of experientialism.

In short, your concept deals with a bottom up concept. Basically, evolution 2.0.

The problem I have with this, is that if something is novel, then it’s unprecedented and by being unprecedented in all of existence (even if it came from something else) came from nothing at all.

You also argue, in terms of experientialism that the universe is continuous, but then state that in order for us to conceive it, we must use the discrete. Well, if the universe is continuous, how is it possible for any being to even abstract the discrete ?! (They must be super natural)

And this is where we butt heads.

My solution that resolves all these problems is eternal forms. Now, with eternal forms, I’m thousands of years late in the game, but, then again, with evolution you are a couple hundred years late in the game. (Although I think there was an Ancient Greek philosopher who had a rudimentary idea of evolution).

So... either something comes from nothing (completely novel) (something coming from nothing)

Or!

Eternal forms exist! Take your pick!

The other reason I think eternal forms exist as templates is because we could not possibly conceive categories if categories didn’t always exist. Without categories, everything in all of existence would need a new name!

I’ll stop there for now.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10099
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:32 pm

Can I borrow your thread, Ecmandu?

I don't want to post this in John's thread (it would be off-topic) and I don't want to start a new one because it looks like yours will do the job.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195793&start=525#p2769237

Silhouette wrote:Simple experiment: observe your surroundings. Consider the scientific explanation of what is going on: light bounces off everything, and the rays that enter your eyes' pupils project a flat image onto your retina. What you "see" goes on in your brain with regards to the flat information that your retina passes on. It's a 2D area of vision of various shades, and if like me you're lucky enough to not be colourblind, various colours too. The image is a continuous variation of shades and/or colours. A competent artist will instruct you never to draw black lines to distinguish one feature from another if you want to paint or draw a realistic looking picture. Photographs are the same - there is a contuous variation of shades and/or colours with no "gaps" in between. It's like a continuous steady fluctuation of visual data. You have to focus on one "part" of it to distinguish it from another, but whenever you go to lengths to distinguish it from another part, there is never a distinct dividing line. This is actually a huge difficulty for AI technology - the distinction of sensory data is infamously difficult to parse.

The same goes for sounds, touch, smells, tastes - the entire sensory plethora that constitutes overall "experience". It is continuous, thus "Continuous Experience".

Let me know if that helped or not.


I am not sure it helped me much. I understand what you're saying, but at the same, I still don't know what you mean when you say that experience is continuous.

I assume that you use the word "experience" to refer to what we subjectively see, hear, smell, feel and so on.

I assume that this image can be used to represent an experience of looking at a tiger.

But what does it mean to say that such an experience is continuous? What makes this two-dimensional array of colored dots a continuous experience?

You say that an experience is said to be continuous if there are no gaps of nothingness separating its parts. But I don't know what a gap of nothingness is ):

John tried to help:

By “continuous experience”, he means no gaps in between moments of time. But, as I pointed out, those “gaps” are timeless, which means you can get a feeling of continuous experience despite the indivisible unit of time like in a movie film. Each frame is a discrete indivisible unit that when played in sequence gives the sensation of “continuous experience”.


According to him, the experience of a movie played at a normal frame rate such as 30 FPS is an instance of a continuous experience whereas the experience of the same movie played at 1 FPS is an instance of a discrete experience.

But according to you, all experience is continuous, including the experience of playing a movie at a super low frame rate.

So I am lost.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4434
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:40 pm

Magnus, you can borrow all of it (free of charge) =)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10099
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:16 pm

Ecmandu wrote:You asked me why I disagree with your concept of experientialism.

In short, your concept deals with a bottom up concept. Basically, evolution 2.0.

The problem I have with this, is that if something is novel, then it’s unprecedented and by being unprecedented in all of existence (even if it came from something else) came from nothing at all.

You also argue, in terms of experientialism that the universe is continuous, but then state that in order for us to conceive it, we must use the discrete. Well, if the universe is continuous, how is it possible for any being to even abstract the discrete ?! (They must be super natural)

And this is where we butt heads.

My solution that resolves all these problems is eternal forms. Now, with eternal forms, I’m thousands of years late in the game, but, then again, with evolution you are a couple hundred years late in the game. (Although I think there was an Ancient Greek philosopher who had a rudimentary idea of evolution).

So... either something comes from nothing (completely novel) (something coming from nothing)

Or!

Eternal forms exist! Take your pick!

The other reason I think eternal forms exist as templates is because we could not possibly conceive categories if categories didn’t always exist. Without categories, everything in all of existence would need a new name!

I’ll stop there for now.

But you are stuck in time. Beyond time, things are seen to come from themselves.

their essence is their origin.
their self-enjoyment? Maybe.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10551
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:55 pm

Fixed Cross,

Like I said to John Bannan,

Space is otherness.
Time is patterned change.

Can any being exist without these?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10099
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:48 pm


Yes, it can.
How, you ask -
the answer is he same as to the thread right below this one in the forum now;

What do you make of Coincidence? (Life's Odd Mystery)
by Berkley Babes » Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:20 pm
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10551
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Silhouette! Experientialism!

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:17 am

We can't know much about time until/unless we know... or I should say can either prove or disprove a theory of origin for the universe. For instance if there was indeed a creation event, there'd be metaphysical issues to deal with regarding how and from whence such an event could happen (if time didn't yet exist). On the other hand, if a material universe is eternal - meaning some substance will always exist - and consists of moving parts (hasn't reached maximum entropy), time would exist... if there were intelligent creatures to observe this movement of things against a background.

Wait lemme explain.

Kant mentions we don't necessarily experience time when we observe the position of the hands change. Rather we see a physical thing move into another position, that's all.

Time is a kind of psychologistic side effect of our peculiar mode of apperception, maybe. In a sense it's purely a posteriori... and yet we conceive of it as a rational and logical concept identifying a real phenomena that exists independently of our experience.

But finally, the problem is this; we can't experience the history or the future of the universe, so could never know, a posterior, the origins. Theory is not enough here. And yet when we do experience what we call time, we're only watching something move (as kant points out).

Bit of a pickle there.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2926
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users