"Inside" Experience

[Pedro I Rengel]

Nonsense. All one is a deliniation. And, more importantly, a quantity. Why? Why is this posited?

[Silhouette]

Nonsense. All one is a deliniation. And, more importantly, a quantity. Why? Why is this posited?

Go on then, delineate "all" - give it an outline/a bound to define it.

What's outside of that bound? More "all"? Nothing?
If more, then it wasn't "all" that you were delineating, and if there's nothing outside its bounds then there are no bounds.

A lack of bounds literally means infinite: unbounded.
Infinity is a quality of endlessness that has no quantity and cannot have quantity.

"All one" necessarily means no delineation, and a quality - not a quantity.

This is logically exhaustive - the literal opposite of nonsense.
So why are you positing the accusation of nonsense? I can only assume you simply don't get the logic when you merely protest and simply claim otherwise with no acknowledgment of the reasoning or any counter-reasoning to support your claim?

[Pedro I Rengel]

"Go on then, delineate "all" - give it an outline/a bound to define it."

All one.

[Silhouette]

And there we have it, the definition of "all one" is "all one".

Just like I was saying at the top of page two:

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 interchange is boring, Pedro, I'll wait to see if Fixed Cross or anyone else has anything else of import and substance to add.

If not, this investigation can be considered closed.

[Meno_]

I don't understand why levels of meaning can withstand the charge, that such 'meaning' is somehow at par with other interpretations. Just because it's not understood, the levels of interpretation may correspond with no underlying ' deeper ' lacks between them: efforts to make such claims may murky, or collude them.
As difficult it is to pry for connections, even in such colluded waters, the are merely existentially reduced into epochs where no further clarification can be squeezed out. ( of meaning) Hence this is the reason for the weary effort to separate the phenomenologically patent understanding from the ideas Being inherent, since they patently are colluded within differential sets of continuous functions overlapping in variable sets.
The logic and the logistics are two such sets, and although the differences reside in a grey structural area -they harbor the underlying variations between subjective OR objective criteria, by which they are attempted to qualify, ( with or without 'understanding'), whereby that bounded grey area is loaded into the reduction of the dialectic into substantial, ....
That the failure of that is historically uncontested, -------resulted in the CONCLUSIVE political reality stood on it's head today.
The material substantiality of the ideas underneath, is no example of a double talk, ideas do manifest prior
necessity before literally applying for the after the fact necessity of developing variability in the incorporation of sets belonging even in a set that incorporates it's self, in the continuum.
How are why are auxiliary questions, and translate as totally redundant saturated sets in an absolute sense.
That sense and sensation are pivotal in this sense, draw analogy with the concept of tautology.
Sure, but that is not the field into which such descriptive apologies can be fitted, in an entropic attempt to handle them in the way Sartre describes Being and Nothingness.
The nothingness is what the abyss represents under the phenomenological existence of the uncertainty, later minimally, in quantum theory.
That the have not been able to find the absolute minimal particle in the 'god-particle , is an irony in disguise, for if god did 'exist' , wouldn't he be capable to cover his tracks? After all he does not play with dice of uncertainty?

This is why the differential is infinitely extended, and the last unit of differencealways have to 'exist', even toward the infinitely variable substantial number.
Why? -
Logic and language and math are such continua, that necessarily always connect at a level, that if it did not 'exist' existence it's self could not exist, could not. Here , the naturalistic fallacy is a string of near infinite weakness, holding up a mass of near infinite mass of the universe.
This merely an analogy that presents the pressures of a curve of time and space.

The particles and the gaps between them always pre determine their flow, or, their continua, which are nothing else then their functional representation, in the logic-mathematical Sense, and are Similar to the bricks which subsist in the finished building,
The flow is calculated in a calculation of near infinite sets of possible functional derivitives, minus one, creating two identical spheres.
That one is immeasurable in time space, and it does exist in time space, and it does not. It consists in absolute antithesis, of variable synthesis.
Sense resides in non-sense, but not in nonsense.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And there we have it, the definition of "all one" is "all one".

Just like I was saying at the top of page two:

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 interchange is boring, Pedro, I'll wait to see if Fixed Cross or anyone else has anything else of import and substance to add.

If not, this investigation can be considered closed.

Fair enough.

[Meno_]

With that You ignore the insensible problem which are bounded by logic and language and limit the sensible to sense.
Therefore the double take of meaning is bounded by language it'self, where the logic limits it.(it's self)
But infinity is unbounded, therefore it behooves to at least explore the possibility for revision-for phenomenology can set a logical antithesis.
The bounded argument leaves logic at the point, where meaning can be left at a level where data of sense or 'sense-data' becomes indisputably an assumptive boundary.
Ill go with that, although I don't agree with it's 'literal closure', for a literal closure does not correspond to it's functional equivalence.

In other words how can inside of experience ever be analyzed, when the experience is looked at merely from the outside, as it is bounded by literal descriptions of finitude?
The boundary becomes strange, and sets up the reduction absurdum that ends with 'sense data' ? That suggests the insolvency of the proposition, " what comes first. the chicken or the egg"?


Ref: 'Mysticism and Logic', Bertrand Russell

[Fixed Cross]

I simply trust my experience as it is over any thought about it, and as it is includes simply the world which I have come to know, however true my impressions may be it is my impressions which are the certain reality, not what they are impressed with

Why would you trust your experience? You might say nobody has any choice other than to do so, since "your experience" is all you have available to you to access existence in the first place.

Indeed, that's where I tried to start from myself - just the same as anyone.
But in realising that there are no gaps in experience, making it a continuous unity, "I" am not distinct from anything else, nor anything else to me, nor other things from other things than me. I can think of experience as thought it was discontinuous, dividing it up into parts that I feel I have more direct control over than others, and from this emerges traditional concepts of self. It's no coincidence then, that the self has been notoriously evasive in the world of philosophy, with thought experiments like the Ship of Theseus or generally trying to imagine if you'd still be you if you lacked this part of experience and/or some other part etc. Experientialism already solved these problems through the truism that if your premise is faulty, so your conclusion will be also: divide up Continuous Experience, and you'll be misled toward faulty concepts such as the self.

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.

There's no necessary requirement for the self to be constituted only from the more directly controllable "parts" of experience. "You" experience others and all "parts" that aren't "your self" all within the same experience. Why are they then not "you" as well? And if you count everyone as you, where does the pronoun "you" make any difference as a concept since there's nothing else against which to give it relative meaning. The "self" is all in unity, in more or less degrees of direct control or otherwise, with therefore no reason to think of it as "self" in the first place since since there is no "other" when you think of it in this wider way.

So "your" experience already inserts these value judgments of discrete experiences

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.

into the fundamental premises - and in just the same way as I just covered: if you have a faulty premise you will reason faulty conclusions.
This is why I threw out the initial assumption of self and "my" experience - as it didn't fundamentally match up with experience as it exists in continuity. "My" experience could therefore not be trusted, and only "Experience" could be. You have to be able to let go of ego and all instinctive assumptions to be able to see experience as a whole in this way. You'll find that even if you're successful, what you thought of as yourself goes along and does its thing in just the same way as before regardless.

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.

Nuclear physics and all science and knowledge involves resistance only because of the above faulty premises.

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

It's only once we accept such premises that we can perceive knowledge about resistance and power. Experience has a continuous variation in consistency throughout its fabric - obviously it's not homogenous or there would be no grounds to superimpose "boundaries" between discrete entities. But rather than heterogenous it's more "congeneous". To overcome the strong nuclear force within an atom, you might perceive a resistance against your efforts - but there simply needs to be the correct conditions, and the atom is split or fused with another. The correct conditions can occur just by the sun being the sun, or it can occur just by a person being a competent enough scientist. Whatever the route, it's nature being nature and the spectrum of consistency that pervades experience continually shifts itself around simply through being what it is. Any "resistance" here is a human valuation injected into the premises, thus leaving open the possibility to detect dissonance between discrete experiences and Continuous Experience. You can only get out resistance if you inject in the resistance of forcing "discrete" experiences from Continuous Experience in the first place. Our conceptual models of how these concepts interact can only contain all these "artworks of resistances" if you're assuming things that involve resistance from the start: it's circular.

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[promethean75]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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;

Bayesian view of scientific virtues

A number of scientific virtues are explained intuitively by Bayes' rule, including:

Falsifiability: A good scientist should say what they do not expect to see if a theory is true.
Boldness: A good theory makes bold experimental predictions (that we wouldn't otherwise expect)
Precision: A good theory makes precise experimental predictions (that turn out correct)
Falsificationism: Acceptance of a scientific theory is always provisional; rejection of a scientific theory is pretty permanent.
Experimentation: You find better theories by making observations, and then updating your beliefs.

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.

[promethean75]

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)

[Fixed Cross]

You seem to be lost.

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

[Fixed Cross]

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.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology.

[promethean75]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, excellent.

[promethean75]

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.

The structure of our disagreement is rather complex and subtle.

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.

Your premise is: being is experience.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

No evidence! Mama mia!

[Pedro I Rengel]

I submit, words are evidence.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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

https://imgflip.com/i/3i4z0b

[Pedro I Rengel]

https://imgflip.com/i/3i4doj

[Pedro I Rengel]

https://imgflip.com/i/3i48ew

Oh fuck

[Pedro I Rengel]

20191202_195129.jpg (92.7 KiB) Viewed 1116 times

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8aur

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8ayt

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8b15

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8b2d

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8b5x

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8b88

[surreptitious75]

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 ]

[Pedro I Rengel]

https://imgflip.com/i/3i8bp2