Existence only appears or manifests....
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Existence only appears or manifests....
Existence does not appear in any other form.
Existence may not appear in any other form.
In order for something to be experienced, it must be composed of subjective experience.
If something is not composed of subjective experience, it cannot be experienced.
In other news...
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
Living "pocket dimensions" made up of subjective experience.On this view, what are people supposed to be?
In the absence of what Bishop George Berkeley termed "unperceived substance" (i.e. that which is not subjective experience or the fact or act of experiencing), there would only be "Matrix"-like simulated or invented realities made up not of physical matter and energy, as these do not exist....but of the subjective experience of the person experiencing the "Matrix" or constructed reality. That is, in the absence or non-existence of mind-independent, non-experiential bodies, trees, buildings, grass, hills, rivers, etc. there would only be a construct of these things in the form of one's subjective experience.They'd obviously not be bodies as we think of them, situated in a world with things like trees and grass and hills and rivers etc.
And....these constructed or simulated realities exist in the mythology that brains create consciousness. Especially given the mythology holds that consciousness winks out of existence should the brain be destroyed or cease to function, taking the simulated reality made up of a person's subjective experience (as opposed to the subjective experience of any other being in existence) with it.
Thus in the mythology that brains create consciousness there are two versions of the bodies of other persons, trees, grass, hills, rivers, cars, DNA, etc. There is the perception of an object created by the brain, i.e. a "put up job" or construct made up of the person's subjective experience and an external world-dwelling doppelganger not created by the brain that, as it has never been inside the brain in order to hop out of it like the perceived copy, is entirely uncaring and unaffected by any state or function of the brain as it does not depend upon the brain in order to exist.
Thus in the belief that consciousness or subjective experience must be accounted for by some neural circuit(s) in the brain, there is a simulated or constructed reality or "Matrix" world: perceived objects are believed to be perceptions of objects in the external world, but perceived objects are created by the brain thus "come from" or "spring out of" the brain while external objects are not created by the brain, have never existed within a brain, and thus do not "come from" or "spring out of" the brain like perceived objects. So we have two separate existences, separate from each other, that cannot be one and the same things as one comes from the brain and the other has never been inside the brain and is unaffected by whether or not the brain functions or even exists in the first place.
When one views a chair, for example, there is the chair created by the brain and another, separate chair not created by the brain that is not one and the same thing as the chair created by the brain because the external doppelganger never was in the brain to come out of it, like the chair created by the brain. The chair created by the brain, unlike (barring Idealism or Panpsychism) the chair not created by the brain, is made up of subjective experience.
The external chair cannot be made to fit inside the brain without rupturing the neurons and killing the person, if you could force the chair through the skull. This is further, albeit absurdly entertained, proof that the external chair is not one and the same thing as a chair that can immaterially wink into existence and emerge from neurons within a skull.
The upshot being that especially in the mythology that consciousness "comes from" or is created by the brain, persons and that which persons experience are a "Matrix" or simulated or constructed reality, albeit one created by neurons.
In Idealism, there are no non-experiential doppelgangers of perceived objects and events, as these are only constructs made up of the person's consciousness or subjective experience, ergo, they consist only of subjective experience and not something that is not subjective experience.
Er, because of the evidence appearing right before your eyes (or mind). Look at what you are: a first-person subjective experience or "POV camera shot" made up of subjective experience. That's the form your existence assumes or takes, the form we all take, the only form in which existence has ever appeared, manifested, or assumed. Every single thing that demonstrates it exists from planets, to nebula, to DNA, to functioning brains, has only ever appeared within the conscious experience of a person made up of the consciousness of that person (it must be: in order for something to be experienced by a person it must be made up of that person's experience of it; if something is not or is other than a person's subjective experience, it cannot be experienced by the person as it is, well, something other than that person's experience).And why would we believe this? What would be a good reason to buy this over other ideas?
Existence has only ever appeared and manifested in the form of a person and that which the person experiences.
From this, one can safely eschew anything that is not a person or the experience of a person and logically assume that only persons exist. From here, one can note the logical existence of something that is external to all persons, and eschewing the existence of non-experience (as it cannot logically or rationally have anything to do with something it is not: experience), surmise that the external world is not a non-experiential infinite space but is itself a Person, within which all other persons reside.
In other news...
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
Correct, ...and to put it more succinctly - "EVERYTHING we experience, is just ...another ...EXPERIENCE"phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Existence only appears or manifests.... ....in the form of a subjectively experiencing person and that which the person experiences at the moment the person experiences it.
-Existence does not appear in any other form.
-Existence may not appear in any other form.
-In order for something to be experienced, it must be composed of subjective experience.
-If something is not composed of subjective experience, it cannot be experienced.
But be careful, this does NOT mean that existence is not "objectively" (ontologically) real. A person's inability to directly experience 'objective' existence itself is not proof of the non-existence of existence (of real objects). On the contrary, a person's ability to experience "subjective" experiences, is PROOF of the "objective" reality/existence of the "person" himself (aka the "Experiencer"). Without some-thing experiencing, there is no experience. If experiences exist, then so must an Experiencer.
Simple Logic tells us:
- 1. Everything we experience is just an 'experience'.
2. A "subjective experience" is not possible without an "objective (real) Experiencer". If "SUBJECTIVE experience" exists, then so MUST an "OBJECTIVE experiencer". One cannot be without the other.
3. The Experiencer can never experience himself, for Experiencers can only experience "experiences", not 'real' existent objects themselves. Therefore, true "self-awareness" is a myth.
4. Although the Experiencer cannot directly "experience" objectivity, he can subjectively know of its objective existence.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
When I look at the evidence appearing to me, I see that I'm a body--flesh, blood, limbs, etc. situated in a world made of trees and rocks and so on.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 5:05 am
Er, because of the evidence appearing right before your eyes (or mind).
To conclude that a phenomenal tree, say, is really just my mind, I have to do something theoretical. The phenomenal tree doesn't appear to be mental. It simply appears to be a tree.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
To see a chair is certainly not to have a chair in one's brain/mind but a chair-appearance or -impression, which is not itself a chair. A visual sensation functioning as a visual appearance or impression of a chair is neither a chair nor a chair-model or chair-picture.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 5:05 amWhen one views a chair, for example, there is the chair created by the brain and another, separate chair not created by the brain that is not one and the same thing as the chair created by the brain because the external doppelganger never was in the brain to come out of it, like the chair created by the brain. The chair created by the brain, unlike (barring Idealism or Panpsychism) the chair not created by the brain, is made up of subjective experience.
The external chair cannot be made to fit inside the brain without rupturing the neurons and killing the person, if you could force the chair through the skull. This is further, albeit absurdly entertained, proof that the external chair is not one and the same thing as a chair that can immaterially wink into existence and emerge from neurons within a skull.
The upshot being that especially in the mythology that consciousness "comes from" or is created by the brain, persons and that which persons experience are a "Matrix" or simulated or constructed reality, albeit one created by neurons.
In Idealism, there are no non-experiential doppelgangers of perceived objects and events, as these are only constructs made up of the person's consciousness or subjective experience, ergo, they consist only of subjective experience and not something that is not subjective experience.
The basic mistake of idealism is to equate the experiential content of sensory perception (qua medium of sensory perception) with its intentional object, and then to reduce all physical objects to mental objects ("sense-data").
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
As a Judeo-Christian Pantheopsychic Theist, in which we are "living ideas" (ideas having tiny, internal consciousnesses of their own granted by or borrowed from the consciousness of the external Person) residing in the subconscious mind of the Judeo-Christian God, I must agree with this.Correct, ...and to put it more succinctly - "EVERYTHING we experience, is just ...another ...EXPERIENCE"
The qualifier, of course, is EXPERIENCE, i.e. the fact or act of experiencing and that which only appears when it is experienced as it is composed or materialistically made up only of the subjective experience of the person experiencing it. You are correct: everything we experience is just another experience, not something that is not experience at all. That's probably logically impossible.
Also true. I am certainly not saying that humans experiencing themselves as children, teenagers, young adults, elderly, etc. simply pop magically into existence after having previously not existing at all, or living eternally in an infinite void wherein human consciousness is the only thing that exists, or that the external world is chock full of human consciousnesses that fill every single interstitial psychic space in the external world ("standing room only, folks"). This would be a very bizarre (but not logically and metaphysically impossible!) state of affairs.But be careful, this does NOT mean that existence is not "objectively" (ontologically) real. A person's inability to directly experience 'objective' existence itself is not proof of the non-existence of existence (of real objects). On the contrary, a person's ability to experience "subjective" experiences, is PROOF of the "objective" reality/existence of the "person" himself (aka the "Experiencer").
There is probably ("probably" as we can only imagine what may exist in the external world and it's causal power and connection to human consciousness) something outside us that is probably (as we can only imagine things and how they work in the external world that may or may not be true for all anyone knows) responsible (logically) for the existence of the "Matrix" worlds that are the simulated or constructed realities that are each and every individual human being: my confident assertion is that this "whatever" that is outside and responsible(?) for the existence and content of human experience is itself made up of subjective experience (the only logical and rational conclusion, as anything else requires the most absurd magic) and more, may indeed by an external Person.
Of course one could alter the belief to state that instead of only a single Being (God), there are external persons responsible for the existence and content of each "Matrix" of each individual human that shall or can exist (gods), but it's still just our imagination trying to define the external "thing", logically made up of subjective experience (illogically made up of something else), from which our individual "Matrix" worlds derive it's substance (first-person subjective experience) and content (the various forms the substance of first-person subjective experience assumes).
I like this. Couldn't have said it better myself.Without some-thing experiencing, there is no experience. If experiences exist, then so must an Experiencer.
True. Something that is not an experience, particularly if it is not the experience of the person experiencing and not materialistically composed of experience, particularly not the subjective experience of the person experiencing it (this person's experience held in isolation from the subjective experience of any and every other being in the whole of existence), cannot be experienced...as, well, it is not experience nor the experience of that particular person.Simple Logic tells us:
1. Everything we experience is just an 'experience'.
True. A subjective experience qua something that is subjectively experienced has only ever existed when experienced by an experiencer. There have always only been, when something, say, a tree, is experienced, there is a person experiencing it as the tree cannot be experienced unless a person is present to experience it. There has never been a moment (presumably) when an experience existed without someone experiencing it, so it's (probably) safe to say #2 is obviously true.2. A "subjective experience" is not possible without an "objective (real) Experiencer". If "SUBJECTIVE experience" exists, then so MUST an "OBJECTIVE experiencer". One cannot be without the other.
Hmm. 'Real' existent objects probably do not exist, and even if these external objects were themselves made out of subjective experience, it does not follow how they can be both themselves and the experience of a person. I suppose, using our wild imaginations, we can imagine the external object "Mr. Fantastic-ing" itself into a person or morphing into the person and its current perception, but it's probably easier to do away with the existence of external objects and events altogether, holding they only "exist" as constructs in the consciousness of a person made up of the consciousness of a person, "props" made up of a person's subjective experience which is essentially a constructed world made up of the person, i.e. the person's consciousness, as 'real' objects do not exist.3. The Experiencer can never experience himself, for Experiencers can only experience "experiences", not 'real' existent objects themselves. Therefore, true "self-awareness" is a myth.
Really? The only thing that demonstrates it exists is a person and the subjective experience of that person. Everything that is not that person and what the person currently experiences is, to the person, entirely imaginary. That is, anything that is not you and what you currently experience is make-believe, "made-believe" by you...by your counsciousness, that you then happen to find you are convinced exists outside you so you then come to believe it. But as there is only evidence of the existence of you and what you currently experience, anything that is not you can only, in terms of their experience, be supported only by your belief and a quasi-religious faith they objectively exist.4. Although the Experiencer cannot directly "experience" objectivity, he can subjectively know of its objective existence.
We all perform this cognitive "trick".
That being said, it may be that these "not you" things actually exist for all you know and your faith is secretly rewarded...but you cannot really know (experience) their existence: you can only experience you and the objects and events surrounding you that are, well, actually made out of you.
In other news...
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
Umm no, you can't actually find that "person" once you look for it. You can only find the thoughts and sensations etc. saying that they are that person.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 5:47 am ....in the form of a subjectively experiencing person and that which the person experiences at the moment the person experiences it.
Existence does not appear in any other form.
Existence may not appear in any other form.
In order for something to be experienced, it must be composed of subjective experience.
If something is not composed of subjective experience, it cannot be experienced.
"Subjective" experience and the "objective" universe are one and the same thing.
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:05 am
When one views a chair, for example, there is the chair created by the brain and another, separate chair not created by the brain that is not one and the same thing as the chair created by the brain because the external doppelganger never was in the brain to come out of it, like the chair created by the brain. The chair created by the brain, unlike (barring Idealism or Panpsychism) the chair not created by the brain, is made up of subjective experience.
The external chair cannot be made to fit inside the brain without rupturing the neurons and killing the person, if you could force the chair through the skull. This is further, albeit absurdly entertained, proof that the external chair is not one and the same thing as a chair that can immaterially wink into existence and emerge from neurons within a skull.
The upshot being that especially in the mythology that consciousness "comes from" or is created by the brain, persons and that which persons experience are a "Matrix" or simulated or constructed reality, albeit one created by neurons.
In Idealism, there are no non-experiential doppelgangers of perceived objects and events, as these are only constructs made up of the person's consciousness or subjective experience, ergo, they consist only of subjective experience and not something that is not subjective experience.
True, as there are two "chairs"...a chair created by the brain and one not created by the brain, as the chair not created by the brain has never been inside the brain in any form, whole or disintegrated, that it might to emerge from a brain in the way a perceived or experienced chair does (for those believing brains create consciousness).To see a chair is certainly not to have a chair in one's brain/mind but a chair-appearance or -impression, which is not itself a chair. A visual sensation functioning as a visual appearance or impression of a chair is neither a chair nor a chair-model or chair-picture.
The basic mistake of non-idealism is to assume that intentional or physical objects exist. Given we only have evidence of the existence of mental objects that only appear within the consciousness of a person and are constructed of the consciousness of that person, we have no evidence (experience) of something that is not a person and that which the person experiences. Physical objects are therefore fundamentally imaginary (the imagination made up of, well, subjective experience) and probably do not exist.The basic mistake of idealism is to equate the experiential content of sensory perception (qua medium of sensory perception) with its intentional object, and then to reduce all physical objects to mental objects ("sense-data").
As "physical" means "that which is not first-person subjective experience/that which is something other than first-person subjective experience" (a consequence of the mythology there was a time when consciousness did not exist as there was a time when brains or any other brain-like or consciousness-creating mechanism did not exist), it is probably logically impossible that 'not-experience' has anything to do with the existence of subjective experience as, well, not-experience is 'something other than or that is not experience'.
In other news...
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
You certainly can't find the consciousness of any other person in the whole of existence were you to look for them. You can only have faith they objectively exist. As for you, the thought and sensations, etc. given that one is experience one's own thoughts and sensations, etc. means that a person, some person, exists. The term "person" applies to the thoughts and sensations that say they are a person". I certainly will not call it an "apple".Umm no, you can't actually find that "person" once you look for it. You can only find the thoughts and sensations etc. saying that they are that person.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:47 am
....in the form of a subjectively experiencing person and that which the person experiences at the moment the person experiences it.
Existence does not appear in any other form.
Existence may not appear in any other form.
In order for something to be experienced, it must be composed of subjective experience.
If something is not composed of subjective experience, it cannot be experienced.
In a sense this is true, but with a logical stipulation: only subjective experience exists, and exists only in the form of persons (denying solipsism as might be implied by my statements). As a Judeo-Christian Pantheopsychist, I go further to state that all persons reside in the mind (the subconscious mind) of an infinite, external Person (you know who)."Subjective" experience and the "objective" universe are one and the same thing.
In other news...
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
I mean that "you" can't actually find "yourself" either, once you try. But idealists usually don't perform this test.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 1:38 pm You certainly can't find the consciousness of any other person in the whole of existence were you to look for them. You can only have faith they objectively exist. As for you, the thought and sensations, etc. given that one is experience one's own thoughts and sensations, etc. means that a person, some person, exists. The term "person" applies to the thoughts and sensations that say they are a person". I certainly will not call it an "apple".
So the idea that it's a given that those thoughts and sensations etc. are "your own", is just a false idealist belief. In that sense, there is no "you" that could own anything.
No, both idealists and physicalists are wrong. One claims the primacy of subjective experience, the other claims the primacy of matter, even though these two are one and the same. Both are talking about two things where there is only one.In a sense this is true, but with a logical stipulation: only subjective experience exists, and exists only in the form of persons (denying solipsism as might be implied by my statements). As a Judeo-Christian Pantheopsychist, I go further to state that all persons reside in the mind (the subconscious mind) of an infinite, external Person (you know who).
Positing that external Person is just a way to take idealism one step further into a wrong direction.
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
But your body: flesh, blood, limbs, etc. are made up of your subjective experience of them. This is the only form in which they have ever existed. You cannot experience them in a form other than your experience of them, in the moment you experience them, for as long as you experience them. Thus, it follows they are not made up and cannot logically be made up of something that is not your experience of them. Ergo, they are made up of experience, not something that is not experience. Same goes for the world made of trees and rocks and so on. These things only appear when you observe them, and have only ever appeared when you observe them, thus their very appearance is dependent upon and connected to your presence. They never appear when you are not present.When I look at the evidence appearing to me, I see that I'm a body--flesh, blood, limbs, etc. situated in a world made of trees and rocks and so on.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:05 am
Er, because of the evidence appearing right before your eyes (or mind).
They are, one might surmise, actually only constructs within your consciousness made up of your consciousness, and thus depend upon you (my theology notwithstanding) for their very existence. The idea of them as external objects not made up of you that exist and remain were you to cease to exist is actually just an imagined fiction supported only by quasi-religious faith in the existence of external "not you composed" doppelgangers of the objects you experience residing in the invisible, inaccessible external world.
The term "mental" in this type of metaphysical subject means not so much "thoughts" or "something only in the imagination or mind" as it does "consciousness qua subjective experience" which is "mental" in the sense that it ain't physical (something that is not or that is other than subjective experience). Use of the term "mental" implies subjective experience when it comes to talk of the difference or causal relationship between perceived objects and "real" objects not made up of subjective experience perceived objects purportedly "experience" and mimic. The phenomenal tree appearing to you as a tree, therefore, is visual experience of a tree that is the visual version or mode of subjective experience: it was never meant to be "mental" in the sense of being a tree you can only imagine or that is made up of thought re: the thought version of subjective experience.To conclude that a phenomenal tree, say, is really just my mind, I have to do something theoretical. The phenomenal tree doesn't appear to be mental. It simply appears to be a tree.
In other news...
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
That's fine. The phenomenal appearance of a tree doesn't appear to be consciousness qua subjective experience. I have to do something theoretical to get to that point. The phenomenal appearance of a tree simply seems to be a tree.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 2:07 pm The term "mental" in this type of metaphysical subject means not so much "thoughts" or "something only in the imagination or mind" as it does "consciousness qua subjective experience"
That's a theoretical, not a phenomenal or experiential conclusion. How do we get to that theoretical conclusion?The phenomenal tree appearing to you as a tree, therefore, is visual experience of a tree that is the visual version or mode of subjective experience
- phenomenal_graffiti
- Posts: 125
- Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley
Re: Existence only appears or manifests....
What does 'do something theoretical' even mean? When you state: 'the phenomenal appearance of a tree seeming to be a tree' do you mean 'tree' as in the tree as it appears in the absence of consciousness? Do trees independent of persons exist, given that existence only appears as a person and it's experience of a tree?That's fine. The phenomenal appearance of a tree doesn't appear to be consciousness qua subjective experience. I have to do something theoretical to get to that point. The phenomenal appearance of a tree simply seems to be a tree.phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:07 pm
The term "mental" in this type of metaphysical subject means not so much "thoughts" or "something only in the imagination or mind" as it does "consciousness qua subjective experience"
Again, the need for a 'theoretical conclusion' is unclear. There are only experiential conclusions when it comes to the experience of a person.That's a theoretical, not a phenomenal or experiential conclusion. How do we get to that theoretical conclusion?The phenomenal tree appearing to you as a tree, therefore, is visual experience of a tree that is the visual version or mode of subjective experience
In other news...
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023