No evidence! Mama mia!
I submit, words are evidence.
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 ]
I disagree, I do understand Silhouettes position.
And you make a valid point about that later, a laziness in my formulation.
It is in the end “nonsensical” - but the sport is to prove that.
I think Ive proven quite well that what Silhouette says can not be formally denied in the traditional sense, but is still untrue.
Like I said before, he is smart. Only James and I have made a serious dent in his theory.
So this is where you have a point - Silhouette never says Experience is its own cause. He doesn’t say anything about causes, he might say they’re not actually there as experience is undivided - there is no thing which causes another thing. So cause isn’t a thing either.
So far so good, his theory makes sense up to quite a relevant level in the discipline of philosophy. But not in the volcanic forge of ontology, which I claim only came to fruition with Archimedes.
He demonstrated, more than that he formally proved, that the measure of what is is not merely in the mind, but in nature itself.
He made the first synthetic proof, and thus created theoretical physics, meaning physics as a form of math, meaning power.
I was actually quite aware of implying Silhouette did attribute cause whereas this wasn’t explicitly the case at all and he might even go on to refute it, but Ill grant you this point.
Not all truths follow as immediately from a statement. Say, for example, action equals -reaction.
That seems intuitive now, but it took a lot of physical experimentation to verify it.
But it was falsifiable. So we could find out if it is true or not by testing it.
We cant very easy test the premise that being equals experience.
This is the point of my challenge, whether you wish to examine it or not.
Ah okay you were in fact being a bit of a bookworm (I didn’t see the quotations as I was in reply mode) but, my dude, philosophy has had an inductive nature since the enlightenment and is never reducible to past thinkers. Nietzsche was the first to make this explicit by urging to surpass him, being a philosopher of the future, his Magnum Opus carrying the title of prelude - that was not merely about what is coming for mankind, but about a method of thinking which has been developed from the spark Machiavelli and then the grand arranger Francis Bacon onwards into Schopenhauer who produced the first inductive ontology meaning the first cohesion of ontology and epistemology.
Valuator logic is a technical means to employ this Schopenhauerian synthesis. Nietzsche stands between as an Existentialist, as basically a Sphinx.
Who is I?
I doesn’t exist as a subjective experience. Identity, this whole modern “don’t let others tell you who you are” is obviously a lie. Identity is identity of other people. Experiencially, that’s why it exists and how it makes sense. That’s why some people could be god kings. It doesn’t mean they thought they were god kings, but that that was what was made of them given the circumstances. A course, identity can be experienced in the sense that certain mechanisms were built for that partial identity, like genes, that can be inhabited experiencially. There is a reason we do not choose our own names.
Subjectivity is experienced. Or experience is subjective. Therefore there IS something that experiences that is not itself experience. This is true. The question for philosophy is: what is that thing? Valuator logic does a good job here, which is a praise that will only be understood by the go-deepers of philosophy. Nietzsche himself felt philosophy had better things to do with its time. Whatever it was, he felt, it was meant to be lived and not defined. Battle as the only form of consciousness that can fully encompass all the relevant elements.
He asked another question. He actually managed to make the subject of experience itself an experience.
A human self valuing in the terms you posit - cosmopolitan terms of inter-human meaning giving which, as despicable as it was, was the inevitable result of Athens’ maturity (it was the wine that was produced, sour or not) - includes every one he ever encounters to the extent that this encounter had an impact on either. In the Presocratic paradigm the selfvaluing relates not to other people but to nature and a select few minds (which as minds are like snowflakes, are never remotely comparable, comparable minds emerge only in large pools, in the cosmopolis) and hereby they relate to themselves in more expansive ways - I would argue that social meaning is the strongest meaning giver but not the kingly one. Kingship is in the stars, everything that matters about being a king is to understand the stars.
I don’t mean their patterns, I mean them.
This is the way humans properly understand each other - by their respective understanding of the stars. And only some people really attempt such magic as proper understanding.
Who is “I” - it is what resists the social, what offers up a different role any time something places it somewhere - it is simply the snake and the eagle, whichever is required to free itself of the great dragon Thou Shalt which is mankind in most of its form.
Cats, eagles, snakes…
I use Odin. Whatever of him is in me I use, to become more and more something resembling an “I”.
The path of the righteous man is indeed beset as the Book has it.
Ecmandu proven wrong - the Torah does not lie, at the very least not in this case.
It, too, is experience, of the densest material.
Experience made of self responsive experience, something of great importance. It was made important by the degree to which it valued.
This book, as do many books, discloses experience - it identifies experience.
Scientific virtues are particularly important for refining concepts and conceptual models in terms of discrete experience.
However, there is a crucial problem inherent to all methodologies: that they necessarily cannot arrive at themselves.
What this means with respect to science is that the scientific method was not first founded as a result of implementing the scientific method, as before the scientific method was founded it did not yet exist to found itself.
This is the kind of thing I’m referring to when I’m talking about circular logic.
It’s the same as for any logically valid statement, they require at least one given premise to apply logic to.
It’s the same as in set theory, for either the set of all sets that do not contain themselves leading to Russell’s Paradox, or for a solution to naive set theory such as by Zermelo and Fraenkel that cannot prove itself according to Godel’s incompleteness theorems.
There is a remainder - always and necessarily.
It’s the same problem as with tautologies not being valid definitions: definitions have to be in terms of something else circularly to have meaning relative to one another.
Given that some knowledge is better than other knowledge, we know for sure that there’s a fundamental standard against which all knowledge can be compared non-circularly and without any paradox.
This standard can only be singular in order for the standard to be non-circular, it has to precede everything plural to be non-circular - including all knowledge and scientific method, and it has to be undeniable and unavoidable.
Non-plurality is undivided unity: continuity. It has to encompass everything, or it’s leaving out some aspect of existence: it has to be all existence in its entirety in continuous unity.
It has to either exist, or for there to be no possible way to propose any kind of existence. In concrete rather than abstract terms: this is experience.
So you see, scientific virtues like everything else that’s discrete and definable come from something else more fundamental, and if there is to be any foundational basis for anything, “coming from something else more fundamental” must not reduce infinitely - there must be a singular starting point. So we see that there is no other possible foundation than Continuous Experience to found everything else - including scientific virtues. To hold Continuous Experience accountable to scientific virtues is either backwards or circular. Logically, there can be no other conclusion than Continuous Experience. Even illogically you can’t escape direct experience whilst retaining any grounds of existence at all - Continuous Experience exists unaccountably, and must do however you slice it up.
There is no dent in this theory, by James, yourself or anyone - there literally can’t be.
It’s not its own cause, continuity defies cause.
You can deconstruct it into causes, but then it’s something else: discrete experiences.
But even doing this, as explained above, you physically and logically cannot avoid the inevitability of Continuous Experience.
You’re really missing the points Im making. Its not about virues, it is about certainty. We can be absolutely certain that experience is not all there is. And yes, this certainty is also experience. This is what Im getting at; experience shows us certain things.
It is only through faith in the literal truth of language that we can pull of an argument like yours and convince ourselves.
But no one would bet his life on the premise that being equals experience. Not even you, I bet.
Let me make it very explicit and straightforward.
Your theory only works if we abstract “experience” (the word is abstraction) and make it itself a “discrete thing”; the word “experience”.
Both “experience” and “continuous experience” and even “non-discrete” are discrete things.
I didn’t want to go for this easy refutal as I found it more interesting to refute it through phenomenalist-positivist approach, which I did. But this also works.
This is very easy to refute: all living humans have a head, but not all beings who have a head are living humans.
Yes, experience is a form of being.
But it is proven that experience results from a non-experiencing being.
If we want to say that reality ends with our proof and does not include what is proven, then we are making those artificial breaks in existence which experientialism presumes to resolve.
Yes, existence is the situation in which experiences appear, but there is absolutely no argument to be made that existence is sufficiently defined as experience.
Yeah I know, I’m just explaining how whatever you think you’re arguing, it necessarily can’t be valid if it denies Experientialism.
The theory works whether we abstract or don’t. Experience is directly and concretely unavoidable and undeniable whether or not you abstract it into discrete things. Continuous Experience is the absence of abstraction - it’s not a discrete thing - even the words used “continuous” and “experience” respectively imply concrete and fundamental. It’s what happens before abstraction, whether you abstract from it or not.
This is why I observed and remarked to Sil that experience investigates itself (to which he objected that to posit a self is unwarranted, to which I clarified that I did not posit a self but merely observe the concept of experience which his theory seems to leave entirely uninvestigated) and comes to the conclusion that it has a certain place in a greater order.
We can infer this positively from the actual reality of experience.
This is why people are easily mislead by politics, too - they do not really study the implications of words, but only go by the explicit “meaning” (reference).
“Experience” absolutely implies discontinuity. But one has to think about it for a while to realize that.
This is why one cant make an ontology out of a single term.
(VO uses three terms: being is self-valuing and valuing in terms of self-valuing. It extends into modulation, i.e. in a “cosmos”, so that process, such as thought, can occur on its account, and from there on, certainty can be established. Certainty isn’t as quickly attainable as S, again quite cleverly, suggests.
Paradoxically, it s precisely because synthetic experience is required to establish certainty, that we can not posit experience as an “arche”.
In fact, the self-valuing, the “integer” out of valuator logic, takes on he role of “god particle” but not as a physical particle. Why Im rapped Im a “big Higgs boson player”
What coheres the atom is simply - its coherence.
Because, hear this - let me end all the nonsense pseudo-science has been engaging in; everything larger than atoms is uncertain definite. Everything smaller than atoms is uncertain, indefinite. Only the atom itself is certain, definite.
The atom is actually the smallest discrete particle.
Consistency with that, it also lives by far the longest, can in fact exist eternally.
Subatomic physics is like predicting the weather inside of the atom.
We can surely predict heat at the equator, which is like working with electricity.
We work with electrons, but without knowing what or where precisely they are. We can get them moving in directions, but that doesn’t mean we grasp their existence.
know google claims otherwise, but Alpha Zero, its chess engine, turns to to be fake as well. Someone just replayed the matches vs Stockfish using the actual Sockfish engine and Sockfish just makes very different moves in reality than in the matches reported to have occurred against Alpha Zero.
Safe to say Im skeptical about Googles claim to have developed Qubits.
Well that is the Analytical, I would call it early-Wittgenstein fallacy.
Heidegger causes no such problems, for him logic isn’t a closed system, and being an open system it can actually resemble reality. (and not end up in entropy, as Experientialism does)
But neither does Aristotle.
I will go into that soon, in The Philosophers thread.
Indeed.
“A entails B only if A and B share at least one non-logical constant.”
-Alan Ross Anderson.