I understand what you mean and I agree that it might be best on a forum. In the podcast Partially Examined Life it is a rule to never "drop names" and explain everything in the podcast, which may be something similar.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 13th, 2022, 1:51 pmTo me, that's not the point at issue. You will learn more, and so will we, if you state your own opinions and beliefs, and listen to our responses, just as we listen to you. I don't mean that you, or anyone else, should/must post only new and unique ideas; few of us indeed could manage that! I only mean that quoting (say) Plato is not as beneficial to any/all of us as stating them in your own terms, according to your own understanding. That's my take on it, anyway.
My previous reply to GE Morton contains more info, including my personal opinion on citations of Kant.
It is very easy to understand: how can you envision yourself (as a subjective experience) in complete nothingness to then explore an outer world? The subjective experience that is required at the root of life wouldn't have any ground to be subjective of.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 13th, 2022, 1:51 pmI would hesitate to disagree with ideas that I have yet to properly understand. Although you believe you have offered a detailed account of what you believe, I find that I can make neither head nor tail of them. The question you ask simply makes no sense to me.
When it concerns sensing, it concerns an aspects that provides any potential sense-data that can be used to facilitate subjective experience (consciousness). This is a paradox.
The sensory experience potential that is required at the root of life demands the same fundamental explanation in complex life forms and their habitual sense-organ machinery cannot be formed a posteriori.
The 'conscious I' cannot have preceded the sense-data and that means that sensing is primary and therefore causes a paradox because sensing requires intentionality (attention).
Do you understand the paradox?