How can "experiencing" exist if there is no one or nothing to have the experience? Descartes was too logical to have missed that point. IMO
Gee
No. All life, ALL LIFE, is sentient, which simply means that it has some awareness (consciousness) of somethings. When you talk about thoughts, you are talking about sapient -- we are thinking sapient beings.
There's a difference between physiological sensitivity (reactivity/responsivity to physical or chemical stimuli) and psychological sentience in the form of subjective sensations. Bacteria, fungi, plants, and brainless animals are physiologically sensitive organisms but not psychologically sentient ones.
Does that mean if they feel pain they don't really suffer (physically), they don't actually feel it? How memory helps to bring in suffering along with the pain, i.e. to 'realize' feeling of pain along with the pain signal.
It's not if "experience" is used to refer to acquired, accumulated knowledge or skills (e.g. "He has a lot of experience in his profession"), or to nonmental events or actions (e.g. "The concert was an enjoyable experience", "Base jumping is an exciting experience").
What is true is that all inner experiences qua mental occurrences are subjective experiences.Consul wrote: ↑November 9th, 2019, 9:15 pmIt's not if "experience" is used to refer to acquired, accumulated knowledge or skills (e.g. "He has a lot of experience in his profession"), or to nonmental events or actions (e.g. "The concert was an enjoyable experience", "Base jumping is an exciting experience").
That feels quite true to me. Is it possible to 'feel' the truth? Where did you get that? Anyway, reflection is a concept which certainly must have a role in sentience. It may be for a good reason we use it as a synonim for thinking, as in when we're reflecting upon something.
Where is the difference between _extern sensation and _inner 'emotion and thought' if you say all are "bodily reactions"? It also doesn't look right 'cognition is categorized along with emotions and feelings opposite to 'knowing' when cognition must be a part or involved in the act or process of knowing.RJG wrote: ↑November 9th, 2019, 7:56 am No, not at all. Emotions, sensations (sensory), and cognition (thoughts) are all just bodily 'experiences' (bodily reactions). The consciousness (knowing) of these experiences are 'conscious experiences' (i.e. the knowing/recognizing of our bodily reactions/experiences).
Your "logical impossibility" has been disproven by clinical studies. Mental control of the body's physiological processes has been achieved by advanced yoga practitioners and has been observed in cases of dissociative identity disorder (a.k.a., multiple identity disorder).RJG: Logical impossibility #2: We can only experience 'experiences' (thoughts, ideas, sensations, etc), not 'actual' things, or "selfs" themselves.
That theory is quite flawed. While "constitutive panpsychism" is a roughly correct view, the "universal consciousness" is not some kind of personality, it's simply just the world. It's not something that has alters, it's simply the sum of all existing things, including personalities.Felix wrote: ↑November 10th, 2019, 1:28 amYour "logical impossibility" has been disproven by clinical studies. Mental control of the body's physiological processes has been achieved by advanced yoga practitioners and has been observed in cases of dissociative identity disorder (a.k.a., multiple identity disorder).RJG: Logical impossibility #2: We can only experience 'experiences' (thoughts, ideas, sensations, etc), not 'actual' things, or "selfs" themselves.
For example, I recall reading about the case of a man who had a dissociative identity who was extremely allergic to peanuts, we'll call this allergic identity Tom. The ingestion of a single peanut would send Tom into anaphylactic shock. However, this man had another personality that did not have this allergy, let's call him Jim. Tom had eaten some peanut butter and was starting to react to it. However, a physician familiar with this man's psychiatric history was immediately called and he told Tom that it was very urgent that he speak to Jim (the non-allergic personality). When the man assumed the persona of Jim, his allergic symptoms quickly dissipated - symptoms that would have led to Tom's death.
Here's a novel consciousness theory related to dissociative identity disorder -- https://bit.ly/2X1fzdY
RJG wrote:Absolute truth = "experiencing exists"
Logically (hint hint), it can't! The existence of "I" can only be known as a 'logical' truth, not an 'absolute' truth. Gee, please refer back to the earlier discussions for more clarity on this point.Gee wrote:How can "experiencing" exist if there is no one or nothing to have the experience?
RJG wrote:Correct, not initially anyways. Without a developed memory capability, they [babies] are essentially just little "experientially reactive" animals (beings). They can't "know" (recognize) what they experience until their memory capability develops.
Physically, they (their bodies) certainly do suffer, and auto-reacts accordingly. Mentally, they just have no idea (literally!) of what is causing the extreme discomfort.Zelebg wrote:Does that mean if they feel pain they don't really suffer (physically), they don't actually feel it?
Bodily experiences (bodily reactions) are non-conscious. The "knowing" (recognition) of our bodily experiences/reactions is conscious. We have X, and we have the consciousness-of-X (recognition-of-X); TWO distinct things. Experiences [X] and Conscious Experiences.[consciousness-of-X].Zelebg wrote:I fail to see the difference. Can they not be the same thing, or cause and effect like mirror reflection?
RJG wrote:Emotions, sensations (sensory), and cognition (thoughts) are all just bodily 'experiences' (bodily reactions). The consciousness (knowing) of these experiences are 'conscious experiences' (i.e. the knowing/recognizing of our bodily reactions/experiences).
It is 'recognition' that creates 'knowing' (i.e. the matching; or the re-experiencing of a past experience held in memory).Zelebg wrote:Where is the difference between _extern sensation and _inner 'emotion and thought' if you say all are "bodily reactions"? It also doesn't look right 'cognition is categorized along with emotions and feelings opposite to 'knowing' when cognition must be a part or involved in the act or process of knowing.
Consciousness comes and goes. Without something to be conscious of, there is no consciousness. E.g. without something to see, there is no seeingZelebg wrote:By the way, is consciousness continuous stream, succession of individual events, or state of being as a property of some dynamics or system state changes, or...?
They were not suggesting that consciousness is some sort of god-like persona, but that it fabricates the sense of self and is the vehicle for conscious action in the world. This is similar to the Hindu concept of Brahma, the primal source of consciousness that transcends the ego. I imagine they elaborate on the theory in their book, the blog article was just a teaser.Atla: That theory is quite flawed. While " constitutive panpsychism" is a roughly correct view, the "universal consciousness" is not some kind of personality, it's simply just the world.
What do you see when you stand in a pitch-black room with your eyes open? What do you see when you press your fingers against your eyeballs and experience phosphenes? – The answer: nothing! That is, you experience something—a visual sensation/impression—, but you don't visually perceive (see) anything. In this case, you are (phenomenally) conscious without being (perceptually) conscious of anything.
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