"Inside" Experience

Indeed, such was the situation, for thousands of years. But VO solves the ship of Theseus problem, thus the problem of the self, revealing that behind the theoretical problem lay a deeper, existential problem at the heart of mankind.

That the problem could hitherto not be solved does not mean that we ought to disregard it and thereby consider it to no longer present itself.
It only means that mankind had not yet matured enough to look behind the question at what is actually being pined for.
“God”
This lack of understanding has been transposed to the inside of, if you will, experience – so that it now no longer means ignorance but cowardice.
Or, more mercifully; fear and confusion as to the source of the fear.

As stated in my previous post, I reject the notion of discrete experiences.
“Entity”, as stated, is in no way cognate with “discrete experience”.
Im not sure how crucial the equation of these two things is to your ontological argument.

All I know of experience is that it involves an “I”.
Anything beyond that suggesting there is no I, contradicts experience. Therefore, when we stay really true to actual experience, experimentalism refutes itself.

What is of course the case is hat the I is continuous and fluid. But certainly it isn’t border-less; run against a wall.
Experience reveals the limits to the I, and thus the I’s existence.

Man engineered in terms of these resistances and built nuclear reactors. Premises used were thus accurate. This is revealed directly by experience.

The problem as I see it is that you do interpret your experience logically, before letting it speak for itself.
In your argumentation, experience is an abstract thing which doesn’t need to be falsified by experience.

I wonder if you can rebuild your argument without the assumption that “entity” equates to “discrete experience” and that it stands in contradistinction to “continuous experience”. Remember, this challenge was also present in my previous post.

*I do invite you to read through this thread to learn of my methods. Ill reveal that indeed, it is still the ship of Theseus. What matters is the terms we set out initially to define the ship, but equally important is the logical method we use to give and uphold a definition. That is really what ontology comes down to, the structure of the definition; thus a proper ontology includes a complete philosophy of epistemology.

S -

The structure of our disagreement is rather complex and subtle.

Your premise is: being is experience.

I argue: experience when investigated leads to the conclusion that it is not its own cause, and that there are other things that do not experience of which experience is made.

You argue: but “causes” and all things are all experience.

I argue: but that is only a valid equation if one accepts the premise (being is experience) to begin with.

Furthermore, I will challenge experientialism on its own terrain with what I believe is a stronger argument of the same type; situationalism, once proposed on H by James;

“Being is the continuous situation in which discrete situations appear and disappear.”

Being is always the situation, beings are always situations.

Whereas I can refute experientialism to my own understanding by the above method (identifying a tenuous step is enough for me to refute an ontology), I can not refute situationalism in this way.

Wait! Before you guys get going in this highly technical academically specialized ontologically metaphysical philosophy and construct entire dazzling theses around the misuse of a simple word like ‘being’, watch this first.

Watched first first 1.4, maybe 1.5 seconds.

Dont do this, Prommie. Stick to being cool.

For Silhouette, as for the value of our respective theories;

I do not consider any philosophy serious if scientific rigour invalidates it. Philosophy is the very rigour of science.

Value Ontology is all round falsifiable and accurately and universally predictive. Thats why I like it so much.

If you wanna talk about ‘being’ as if it were a thing or category instead of using the word sensibly as the present particible, knock yourself out. Can’t promise it’ll make any sense, but this is philosophy after all.

goes back to being cool

(present participle to ‘be’ cool)

You seem to be lost.

Philosophers don’t generally take words at face value. Good ones don’t anyway.

If you’re not a man of science, or of falsifiable thought in general, then thats cool. But know your league. Don’t be like a girl running around in a Super Bowl match.
If you’re gonna be a girl keep to the side and tickle some balls and wave some pom-poms. Is that the word, pom-pom? I learned that from Mowk.
If you do not know what any of these terms like “falsifying” mean, then look them up. Not knowing what you’re talking about isn’t cool.

See what Ive done is create a working theory of being - a way to address being in general scientifically.
No need to isolate quantities in hermetically sealed environs. The theory itself does that.

Learn it.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … e-ontology.

Alright man. I’m woikin’ right now but I’ll get with ya later. I want you to know you forced my hand here, though. I didn’t wanna do this. I was fine with letting you enjoy yourself.

The word is ‘prom-proms’. Or it should be anyway.

Yes, excellent.

so i’ll just pick some random statements, jump in, say a few things about them, and then leave you guys to do your thang.

i’d say you two neither agree or disagree on a grander scale than maybe regarding a few single statements scattered throughout (on account of them making sense). but there wouldn’t be, couldn’t be, actually, general agreement or disagreement because neither of you understand each other. not because you to lack the capacity of understanding, but because what you’re saying can’t be understood.

i don’t know if he said that or not, but it’s not important. what is important is that if he did say it, it’s a typical metaphysical statement which makes no sense (which i’ll address in a moment). or, he may have said something else which led you to believe he meant that… but then that’s impossible. one, because one can’t mean nonsense, and two, nothing someone says that is understoood could lead someone else into believing they meant something nonsensical. in other words, you couldn’t take something he said sensibly and infer that he meant that… that premise, i mean.

now this is interesting because it assumes that the statement ‘being is experience’ is also stating that ‘being is its own cause’, or else your objection wouldn’t be what it was. but, there is no way to deduce from his statement that he didn’t also mean that - he doesn’t state or not state it explicitly. so, in addition to the statement being senseless, your interpretation of it yields a conclusion which you couldn’t deduce from it. this means you re-appropriated the statement and understood it in the way you would mean it, and then disagreed with it. but here you’re arguing with yourself. and this goes on much more in these debates then folks realize.

so on to the statement ‘being is experience’ (X, we’ll call it)

behind the indicative mood of this grammar is a hidden violation of logical form, meaning, the things about indicative statements that enable us to understand them and draw inferences from them, are absent. it appears like an empirical proposition about matters of fact, but is actually not at all such a proposition.

take a real empirical proposition: jakob owns a cheeseburger.

now in order to understand this statement, we’d not need to know if it were true or false. we know what it means even if we haven’t a clue whether or not you do own a cheeseburger. but comprehending X goes hand-in-hand with knowing it is true or false. as soon as it is understood, its truth status follows immediately. which is to say, we accept or reject it solely on the basis of what its trying to express, not on any evidence (like whether or not jakob owns a cheeseburger).

the truth status of the statement will be based on the following considerations:

The meaning the words it contains, the definitions of the terms employed, a series of supporting arguments, and one or more ‘thought experiments’.

and yet in each above case, the truth status of the statement will depend entirely on the supposed meaning of yet more words. no evidence is needed, and neither is it possible to devise experiments or observations that could validate the proposition, even in theory.

it is possible to reject the statement right out of hand, but that repudiation won’t be based on evidence, either. most likely it will have been motivated by yet another (perhaps rival) philosophical theory. again, involving yet more words, and still no evidence.

now what you don’t know is that i have just shamelessly plagiarized something written by the late and great rosa lichtenstein… something i have posted at least twice here at ILP. did you get the weird feeling like you’ve read something like that before as you were reading? if so, excellent. it means you read it. if not, excellent. this means you get to read it.

anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_al … nsical.htm

scroll down to ‘metaphysical theses’ and pick up where i left off. it gets better. well, in your case, worse. much worse.

No evidence! Mama mia!

I submit, words are evidence.

Omg I can’t do it. i was gonna memetize it and ran into this:

imgflip.com/i/3i4z0b

imgflip.com/i/3i4doj

imgflip.com/i/3i48ew

Oh fuck

20191202_195129.jpg457×567 71.3 KB

imgflip.com/i/3i8aur

imgflip.com/i/3i8ayt

imgflip.com/i/3i8b15

imgflip.com/i/3i8b2d

imgflip.com/i/3i8b5x

imgflip.com/i/3i8b88

Experience when investigated leads to the conclusion that it cannot be its own cause because it is caused by something happening before
That is because the law of cause and effect [ at the classical level ] is specifically a temporal one and time only travels in one direction

But another way of looking at this is to class cause and effect as a single event rather than as two separate ones
And if the effect is so predictable that it is the only possible outcome then cause and effect cannot be separated

It is important to remember that there are no actual gaps in reality itself so everything that happens is effectively an uninterrupted sequence of causes and effects
Separating them from each other is to separate one aspect of reality from another aspect of it but it is more realistic to think of everything as being interconnected

I would also say that being is experience because being is existence and all experience is existence too
So from an ontological perspective these three words - being / experience / existence - are exactly the same

Being here does not refer to human being or any biological organism but simply the natural state of a thing whether it be an object or an organism
Being is the continuous situation in which discrete situations appear and disappear is therefore a true statement in relation to the above definition

One could also equally say either of the following is true as they mean exactly the same :

Experience is the continuous situation in which discrete situations appear and disappear /
Existence is the continuous situation in which discrete situations appear and disappear /
[ Experience is Existence / Existence is Experience ]

imgflip.com/i/3i8bp2

imgflip.com/i/3i8c0h

Enough forever

Thank you internets

ok onelastmore imgflip.com/i/3i8ccj