Is it possible to doubt you are experiencing?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Are you asking us for the mechanism of doubt, or the experience of doubt? The fist time a child has a dream and then wakes up wondering what happened to the magical unicorn it was just riding through a gum-drop forrest would be an example of having the experience of doubt, which in turn would tend to fuel an on-going doubtful condition in most human children.

Or the first time you experience an optical illusion. Or the first time you try to remember some previous experience, but either cannot or get certain facts wrong....or the second time....or the twentieth time....

Iow, and ironically, experience is what allows people to doubt experience.

 

[untermensche]

The fist time a child has a dream and then wakes up wondering what happened to the magical unicorn it was just riding through a gum-drop forrest would be an example of having the experience of doubt...

Talking about the thoughts of children or the mentally disabled is muddying the waters. This is about what normal adults can know as is most of philosophy without saying it.

This is not doubt the experience occurred.

It is confusion about the experience.

Confusion and doubt are not the same thing.

Misunderstanding and doubt are not the same thing.

Not believing your eyes or not fully understanding what you are experiencing is not doubting you are having the specific experience.

Is it possible to doubt you are experiencing that which you are experiencing? I know it is possible to be confused or not fully understand what you are experiencing which is a totally different thing from reasonable doubt that you are experiencing it.

It is a simple question for those without twisted minds.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, so, once again this is just the untermensche masturbation thread. Got it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The fist time a child has a dream and then wakes up wondering what happened to the magical unicorn it was just riding through a gum-drop forrest would be an example of having the experience of doubt...

Talking about the thoughts of children or the mentally disabled is muddying the waters.

With clear examples of how doubt first enters into our heads.

This is about what normal adults can know

And by "know" you are referring to ontology; to what can (or cannot) be directly experienced NOT the content of the experience. Just the act of experiencing.

This is not doubt the experience occurred.

So, strictly the act of experiencing, not the content of the experience.

It is confusion about the experience.

Yes, confusion over the fact that one experienced something that seemed real only to then wake up and realize it was not real.

Confusion and doubt are not the same thing.

Confusion leads to doubt, which is what you were asking about.

Misunderstanding and doubt are not the same thing.

But it likewise leads to doubt.

Not believing your eyes or not fully understanding what you are experiencing is not doubting you are having the specific experience.

Of course it is. Unless you're playing idiotic semantics games.

Is it possible to doubt you are experiencing that which you are experiencing?

Are you asking whether or not it is possible to doubt that you are in the act of experiencing? Because that is a different question than doubting the content of the experience.

I know it is possible to be confused or not fully understand what you are experiencing

Content.

which is a totally different thing from reasonable doubt that you are experiencing it.

Process.

It is a simple question for those without twisted minds.

Then why do you insist on twisting things?

 

[untermensche]

Confusion leads to doubt, which is what you were asking about.

This was the question asked:

Is it possible to doubt you are experiencing that which you are experiencing?

The phrase "you are experiencing" means it is in the present as it is experienced.

Confusion about what you have experienced does not lead to reasonable doubt you are experiencing it when you are experiencing it.

This is about experiencing, in the present as you are experiencing it.

Not thinking about past experiences.

So again since simple things cause trouble with some.

Is it reasonable to doubt that what you are experiencing is what you are experiencing?

Not a hard question unless you have problems with the easy questions.

Some confuse later confusion over content with present confusion that you are experiencing it.

Two different types of doubt over two different things.

The question was not: Is doubt about anything possible?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oh, so, once again this is just the untermensche masturbation thread. Got it.

Don't kinkshame him

 

[untermensche]

Oh, so, once again this is just the untermensche masturbation thread. Got it.

Don't kinkshame him

If that is what this is then go the fuck away.

It is total ignorance to participate in such a thread and I never would.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Confusion leads to doubt, which is what you were asking about.

This was the question asked:

Is it possible to doubt you are experiencing that which you are experiencing?

Yes, I know. Which is why I asked you to clarify if you meant, "doubt that you are in the act of experiencing" or "doubt about the content of the experience"? It would appear that you are asking doubt about the content of your experience, but then your next sentence is:

Confusion about what you are experiencing does not lead to reasonable doubt you are experiencing it.

So, if you are experiencing riding on a unicorn (content) this does not lead to reasonable doubt that you are in fact riding on a unicorn, or merely reasonable doubt that you are dreaming or having an hallucination (process)?

This is about experiencing, in the present as you are experiencing it.

Ok. Then, let's say that you are experiencing riding on a unicorn. Are you asking something utterly trivial, like, the fact that I am experiencing riding on a unicorn means--at least--that I am in the act of experiencing something? Because that would simply be tautological.

Is it reasonable to doubt that what you are experiencing is what you are experiencing?

Is it reasonable to doubt that you are actually, objectively riding on a unicorn (and not dreaming or hallucinating or under some other form of delusion), if you are experiencing riding on a unicorn? Yes, it is reasonable to doubt that, because unicorns are mythological beings.

Yawn.

Now, by all means, pretend you've asked a really deep and probing and difficult question again while really just regurgitating the trivial bullshit from two other similar threads about the difference between the content of an experience and the act of experiencing.

 

[untermensche]

So, let's say that you are experiencing riding on a unicorn. Are you asking something utterly trivial, like, the fact that I am experiencing riding on a unicorn means at least that I am in the act of experiencing something? Because that would simply be tautological.

Tautologies are true.

And not trivial as some small minds might believe.

They are not just sitting there in the open. They must be discovered.

And this tautology is in response to the claim that a person can be mistaken when they experience having to give a command before the arm moves as desired and mistaken about giving a command.

There is an effort and a specifically targeted effort. The mind does something. It is not a passive experience like listening to something or seeing something can be.

To deny it is to deny a tautology.

To deny a truth.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, let's say that you are experiencing riding on a unicorn. Are you asking something utterly trivial, like, the fact that I am experiencing riding on a unicorn means at least that I am in the act of experiencing something? Because that would simply be tautological.

Tautologies are true.

Trivially so, due to their structure.

And not trivial as some small minds might believe.

Great, so now you don't know what trivial means either.

They are not just sitting there in the open.

Yes, they are actually.

And this tautology...

Is in the wrong thread. We were talking about the experience of riding a unicorn itt. Try to keep simple things simple.

 

[untermensche]

That was the babbling of a disturbed child.

A petulant crying child.

That has nothing to offer.

And thinks truths are trivial.

Pathetic.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That was the babbling of a disturbed child.

A petulant crying child.

That has nothing to offer.

And thinks truths are trivial.

Pathetic.

Wow. Hit the bone in one, did I?

So, are you asking is it reasonable to doubt that you are actually, objectively riding on a unicorn (and not dreaming or hallucinating or under some other form of delusion), if you are experiencing riding on a unicorn?

The answer is, yes, it is reasonable to doubt that, because unicorns are mythological beings. So, if, for some unknown reason, you just one day--out of context--found yourself riding a unicorn, then, absolutely it is reasonable to doubt that you are in fact riding a unicorn.

Any other monumentally stupid questions you need answered?

 

[untermensche]

That was the babbling of a disturbed child.

A petulant crying child.

That has nothing to offer.

And thinks truths are trivial.

Pathetic.

Wow. Hit the bone in one, did I?

So, are you asking is it reasonable to doubt that you are actually, objectively riding on a unicorn (and not dreaming or hallucinating or under some other form of delusion), if you are experiencing riding on a unicorn?

The answer is, yes, it is reasonable to doubt that, because unicorns are mythological beings. So, if, for some unknown reason, you just one day--out of context--found yourself riding a unicorn, then, absolutely it is reasonable to doubt that you are in fact riding a unicorn.

Any other monumentally stupid questions you need answered?

Childish gibberish does not confuse me.

I see where it comes from.

You are again twisting things.

It is not whether you can doubt you are objectively doing something.

It is about doubting you are experiencing doing something.

Whether you can doubt you experience doing something with your mind before the arm you experience moves.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You are again twisting things.

No, per usual, I was untwisting your things.

It is not whether you can doubt you are objectively doing something.

It is about doubting you are experiencing doing something.

So you are asking whether or not it is reasonable to doubt being in the act of experiencing while we are in the act of experiencing? I just want to make things perfectly crystal clear so you can't slip and slide later on.

 

[untermensche]

If you don't know what is even being asked yet that is telling.

And again you twist.

Twisted minds.

The question is not: Is it reasonable to doubt you are experiencing.

The question is and has always been.

Is it reasonable to doubt that what you are experiencing is what you are experiencing?

If you are experiencing being in control is it possible to doubt you experience being in control?

If you experience being in control but are not why is the brain going to all the trouble to create this delusion?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If you don't know what is even being asked yet that is telling....If you are experiencing being in control is it possible to doubt you experience being in control? If you experience being in control but are not why is the brain going to all the trouble to create this delusion?

So now you've just slipped in the notion that "You" are not your brain and added meta-gibberish about the "You" that is not your brain experiencing being "in control".

In control of what, not addressed, just asserted. How there is a "you" separate from "brain," not addressed, just asserted.

So the original question: "Is it reasonable to doubt that what you are experiencing is what you are experiencing?" Is now irrelevant and we are once again three tits deep into your asserted objective nature of the mind as it just is by untermensche.

Iow, this is the THIRD IDENTICAL THREAD where all you are going to do is make objective declarations you can't possibly make from your own conditions and accuse others of your own crimes of childish petulance.

Got it.

 

[untermensche]

I am not slipping anything in.

My brain can be seen.

I cannot.

There is no way to see me.

I am not a brain.

To claim I am without any argument or evidence is childish gibberish.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I am not slipping anything in.

You STARTED with:

Is it reasonable to doubt that what you are experiencing is what you are experiencing?

And NOW you are shifting to:

If you are experiencing being in control is it possible to doubt you experience being in control? If you experience being in control but are not why is the brain going to all the trouble to create this delusion?

Those are entirely different questions, with your bullshit about "mind" and "brain" just inserted into the mix, as if "mind" is a fully and exhaustively established objectively true condition or something and then for the purposes of guessing about "control" between the "mind" and the brain, whereas the first question was a general question about reasonableness in doubting the content of one's experiences.

 

[untermensche]

And NOW you are shifting to:

If you are experiencing being in control is it possible to doubt you experience being in control? If you experience being in control but are not why is the brain going to all the trouble to create this delusion?

Those are entirely different questions.

Not shifting, explaining the point.

Accepting truths simple minds find trivial as if they have any truths themselves are necessary to move on.

You have no reason to think the mind and the brain are the same thing.

If the brain experienced it would not need to create color.

Color is not just an experience. It is something created from experience. A transformation of one experience into something else.

If the brain experiences what is it creating colors for?

It already experienced the stimulation. Experiencing it in another form serves no purpose.

This absolute nonsense that the brain and the mind are the same thing is too ignorant to even talk about.

Especially in the complete absence of any rational argument or evidence.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And NOW you are shifting to:

If you are experiencing being in control is it possible to doubt you experience being in control? If you experience being in control but are not why is the brain going to all the trouble to create this delusion?

Those are entirely different questions.

Not shifting, explaining the point.

Horseshit. The "point" to the original question was about reasonableness and doubt. This second set of questions is all about the assumption of a "mind" and whether or not it is in "control" (of what is still unaddressed) and if not, then why is the brain "going to all the trouble to create this delusion?"

Those are radically different questions with a whole shitload of complex assumptions just thrown into the mix as if they were exhaustively detailed, objectively true conditions. They are not.

You have no reason to think the mind and the brain are the same thing.

We have no reason to think a "mind" even exists at all! Assertions where the subject is assumed to be true are not reasons.

If the brain experienced it would not need to create color.

And we're back to thread number one. Cue a shitload of objective declarations:

Color is not just an experience. It is something created from experience. A transformation of one experience into something else. If the brain experiences what is it creating colors for? It already experienced the stimulation. Experiencing it in another form serves no purpose. This absolute nonsense that the brain and the mind are the same thing is too ignorant to even talk about.