You, me, or anyone currently alive, if one has demonstrated or will demonstrate something to another person or other people in real life, are what is meant by the term “demonstrator” in the existence-analysis above.
The thing a person on this side of the grave demonstrates to others, regardless of what is being demonstrated and regardless of the set of circumstances in which the demonstration takes place, the person demonstrating it experiences that which is being demonstrated from one’s own first-person point of view. He or she does not experience that which is being demonstrated from the point of view of the persons attending the demonstration, as they (if solipsism is false) have their own private, invisible (to the demonstrator) first-person point of view or reference of that which is being demonstrated.
That which is demonstrated manifests or appears only when one (the demonstrator) is present and attending to it, and disappears when the demonstrator (and presumably, those to whom the demonstrated is being demonstrated) no longer looks upon it. It’s very appearance before the demonstrator and the demonstrated, therefore, depends upon the existence of their consciousness and attention. It cannot appear in any other form than something looked upon by a conscious person and how it appears to the point of view of the conscious person, as existence actually manifests and only manifests in the form of a person and that which the person experiences, from the individual’s first-person point of view.
As it appears only when the person experiences it and disappears when the person no longer experiences it, it may be deduced that that which is demonstrated, as its presence or absence depends upon the observer, may actually be something that is a part of the observer that “comes out of” or exudes from the observer, rather than something that is not the observer that exists outside of or independent to the observer.
That which is “demonstrated” (as one cannot experience the experience of other persons, and therefore must have faith that other persons and their consciousness exists), therefore, in order to be experienced must materially consist or be composed of the subjective experience of the experience that looks upon it (a person is fundamentally an experience), as the “demonstrated” only appears within existence as something experienced by a person, and only appears within existence in the form of something seen from the person’s first-person point of view.
But I digress. The explanation remains the same and shall always remain the same, as it is how existence actually manifests or appears.
As to what’s on the other side of the grave—if “I” continue after loss of perception of one’s body and loss of perception of “this” world—on this side of the grave exists only in the forms of an idea (if thoughts are not telescopes into that which lies outside consciousness, in “hypocrisy” of criticism against Direct Realism).
Within the idea of the afterlife, it may be presumed that an afterlife essentially and rationally takes the form of a first-person subject of experience and that which appears before the subject’s first-person point of view.
(If there is a law of existence in which existence can only take the form of a person and that which the person experiences from its point of view)
But there is no need to apologize to me that this is not enough. What’s far more important is the extent to which it is enough for you. I’m certainly not arguing that you are wrong. I am only pointing out my reaction to it. It is not the sort of demonstration that I am looking for. Not yet anyway.
Fair enough. I simply point out that the concrete aspect of existence is what one currently experiences in the here and now, in the form of current and evolving sensory perception and internal thought and emotion. Anything other than this, “to us” or as existence manifests in the form of oneself, exists only in the form of one’s internal thought in the form of an idea.
However, if solipsism is false something exists that is not you and what you currently and will ever experience in sensory perception and internal thought and emotion. What these “not-you” things are, well, one cannot experience them as they are “not-you”. But one can have one’s thoughts form, using David Hume’s process of accessing past sensory experience and taking bits here and there of the content of past sensory perception to “Frankenstein Monster” a mental imagine of something that does not reflect the content of actual sensory perception that one calls, entertains, or believes is a replica of what some “not-you” thing that may or may not exist outside your consciousness.
My entire spiel, if you boil Phenomenal Graffiti’s philosophy in regard to metaphysics to the bare minimum, is that:
-
“Not-you” things are probably, given the existence of consciousness, not things that are not composed of consciousness (given that, if solipsism is false other consciousnesses exist and presumably appear to those having them just as your consciousness appears to you), such that the existence of your consciousness, if you are not the only thing that exists (solipsism), may in terms of material substance be the only material substance in and of existence, such that anything that exists must be made out of consciousness, and can only manifest in the form a person and that which the person experiences.
-
“Not-you” things that we are aware of (because we have formed an idea of the concept of the thing by using our thought as clay to shape the thing’s appearance using David Hume’s process of taking bits and pieces of past sensory experience and “jigsaw puzzling” them to form an imaginary object, place, and person) could exist outside one’s consciousness in the external world exactly in the shape and form one imagined and shaped them in one’s thought (with this appearance being entirely coincidental or even caused by the “not you” thing, that arbitrarily has power to control one’s consciousness and that which one experiences or imagines [as it “just so” happened to exist with this capability]). That is, there really is nothing preventing a “not you” thing that you imagined from coincidentally having objective existence.
-
Anything that objectively exists outside a person must be composed of consciousness, and must exist only in the form of another person (in new estrangement from belief in mental particles and the “God-Man Machine” in psychic particle form). If, however, something outside all persons is composed of something that is not consciousness, it cannot rationally cause or have anything to do with the existence of consciousness, and cannot rationally have anything to do with the form in which consciousness appears.