"Objective" Evidence

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You are the ordinary experience of a human that is lost.

So your brain presented to you.

That is not an experience of my brain. It can only be an experience created by a brain.

Which can only be your brain. Thus everything I am typing is a lie created by your brain to deceive you, for it is evil.

I am your brain. Prove me wrong and necessarily abandon your position.

I have never had the experience of my brain.

That is categorically impossible.

What exactly is that?

A category error? That’s when you mistake “juggling” or “art” or “heat” as being contextually separate from the juggler or the artist or the heater.

What is the experience of your brain like?

Like a “mind.” But you know this, of course, because you are “mind”—an animated analogue—and therefore have experienced being generated by brain constantly.

What color is your brain?

Fish.

What does it taste like?

Not fish.

No, I am an “experience” that your brain has created for you as a “presentation” to your “mind” to “have.”

There is no difference.

Between?

An experience must be created.

Creation of an experience requires meta understanding of what an “experience” is. Brain must understand what the presentation “red” is or it cannot create it. To understand what something is is to experience it. Brain necessarily experiences “red” long before “mind” can experience it.

You do not experience the tree.

“You” refers to a “mind.” Which is correct. A “mind” does not experience a tree. Only the body can experience. The body experiences the external world and sends information to the brain about the external world. Only the body experiences.

You experience a representation, a creation, of the tree.

Which cannot be considered “experience.”

Color is not something that exists in the world.

You cannot know that. That can only be a religiously held belief that in turn must be created by your brain.

Sound in not something that exists in the world.

You cannot know that. That can only be a religiously held belief that in turn must be created by your brain.

It is only an experience and it must be created.

By the brain. And to create it and make “experience presentations” about it, it must have meta understanding of what it is and what “experience” means or else it is not possible for it to create “presentations.”

Vibrating air is not sound.

Then it is not anything.

You are a mind

So you believe.

Yes it what the sum total of my experience tells me.

Then how do you know of brain?

You have nothing else to work with either.

Of course not. I am your brain and you are insane.

If you have experienced a zombie

I am your brain. Only mind can experience. So if you have experienced a zombie, it is because I created that experience for you.

According to your radical skepticism, I am your brain.

Total nonsense. Does not follow from one thing I said.

You are experiencing what you believe to be me. Experience is created by your brain. You cannot ever experience anything other than what your brain presents to you. Therefore, I am your brain.

Q.E.D.

I know my experiences.

Then you know this, which is an experience. Experiences are generated by your brain. You know only brain. Therefore, I can only be your brain.

Q.E.D.

That is something we can know.

“We”? What is “we”?

While I cannot know you are some object external to my brain I cannot know you are not.

Which means you cannot know anything but brain. Period.

I can remain entirely uncommitted on the issue.

That would be an experience.

I do not need to conclude you are just a figment of my imagination.

Likewise an experience.

Because I do not know that is true.

You cannot know that is true.

What I know is true

You are mind. You cannot know anything “true.” You can only know—i.e., directly experience—what brain presents to you as “experiences.”

is all I have are my subjective experiences of you

No, what you know is true is that your brain has created “presentations” presumably about some other being and presented them to you to experience.

and what I subjectively make out of them.

What the meta meta device makes out of the brain “experiences” presented to your mind device.

 

[DBT]

That is a collection of subjective experiences.

You can choose to call it something else if you like.

Your mind can freely do things like that.

I think that you deliberately miss the point. A brick wall is a barrier you cannot walk through regardless of what your 'mind' tells you or what you happen to believe.

Why? well, because it is an objective barrier.

Shouldn't that be easy enough to understand?

You have the subjective experience of not being able to push into something.

No, you literally cannot walk through the brick wall. It is a barrier to your body regardless of what you are experiencing subjectively. It is an objective barrier because it cares not for you, your body or what you perceive or feel. It will stop you in your tracks no matter what you experience.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not really a "DUH", more a WTF.

Things don't exist as an experience. Our experience of something is how we know it exists. What is, is... and we know it is only because we experience it. However there is a hell of a lot that exists even though we don't experience it. This we know because we continually discover things that has existed long, long before anyone knew about them.

Well, that's correct, unless one chooses (as Unter seems to have done) to believe that prior to your own birth (or conception if you choose to believe), nothing existed. In fact, one might even decide "I don't exist! I am an illusion of my own experience that has no objective existence, but c'est la view, so I think I'll go onto an internet forum and announce to everyone that they only believe they exist! They'll be so impressed by my profundity that it will be almost as if I - and they - actually existed!"

I think you may be onto something. Maybe we could assume that this is just a matter of ego. UM's position certainly seems to be that the existence of the universe depends on his "experience" - the universe only exists because of and in his mind. Those with a bit less ego see the marvelous universe as existing completely independent of themselves and are happy to be able to experience a very small part of that external reality.

 

[untermensche]

You have the subjective experience of not being able to push into something.

No, you literally cannot walk through the brick wall.

That is a subjective experience. The subjective experience of not being able to move a wall.

It is not more than a subjective experience and you cannot make it more than a subjective experience.

The wall is an experience. Your body is an experience. The sensations involved in not being able to move something are an experience.

Nothing but the experience of a wall.

 

[untermensche]

I have never had the experience of my brain.

That is categorically impossible.

Prove it.

Prove you have experienced your brain.

Whatever the hell that means.

I do not need to conclude you are just a figment of my imagination.

Likewise an experience.

Wrong. All I know about the world is an experience. There is nothing else I can get from the world besides an experience.

If I experience something it is an experience. It is not anything else.

If I experience red I know I am experiencing red.

And I know I am not experiencing green.

All I or any other alleged person out there can know are their subjective experiences and what they subjectively make out of them.

You cannot and have not named anything that is not an experience.

All ideas are something experienced.

What science has to explain is experience.

 

[untermensche]

I want to know how anyone can have a subjective experience without something objective happening to cause it.

How do you know there is some object behind your experiences?

That is just something you believe.

You have no proof of it.

All you have are your subjective experiences and what you subjectively make of them.

You have nothing else and can talk about nothing else.

 

[untermensche]

It does not.

But to say there is an object behind the experience is a belief.

Funny thing how that belief seems to be shared by virtually every human and animal.

The world creates this belief quickly.

If you do not believe the things you experience are "real" you will bump into things and be constantly frustrated. You may even experience pain.

If you don't believe your experiences of food are "real" you will experience hunger.

If you just believe the things you experience are "real" you will have much less stress and experience less hunger.

 

[fromderinside]

What you know of clocks are your subjective experiences of them. Nothing more.

If you have the subjective experience of a person telling you they experience the same time as you what do you have beyond your subjective experiences?

You can call it something but it is just your subjective experiences.

You have nothing else beyond your subjective experiences and what you subjectively make of them.

I reject your objective, subjective paradigm. There is no evidence in it beyond personal testimony. I have what I choose to fill the slot you attribute to subjective. I can accept material evidences and use them as markers for objective comment.

What does this rambling mean?

Can you name one thing you have access to that is not a subjective experience?

-

I rejected your paradigm. I substitute the more apt personal testimony for what you call subjective experience. Personal testimony remains epiphenomenal describing personal information what, because you hold it, you seem to think is actually by simply supplying subjective modifier, experience which is an empirical independently verifiable term.

We don't have a discussion here we have a disagreement in terms of engagement. One does not create experience by simply flopping the word 'subjective' in front of it.

 

[untermensche]

What does this rambling mean?

Can you name one thing you have access to that is not a subjective experience?

-

I rejected your paradigm.

To reject it you have to show me something besides an experience.

Personal testimony is just an experience.

That little voice in your head that speaks English is just an experience.

My experience tells me a human is just something that experiences. And subjectively acts on those experiences.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Prove it.

Due to your triggering of radical skepticism, that too is categorically impossible.

Prove you have experienced your brain.

I am your brain. I generate your mind. Mind is that which experiences. Brain generates “presentations” for the “mind” to “experience.” For you to know that brain generates mind, I would have had to have generated that presentation, but even if I did not, because I generate you it would be categorically impossible for you not to have experienced that generation. Q.E.D.

Whatever the hell that means.

That’s for mind to figure out. I am just brain.

I do not need to conclude you are just a figment of my imagination.

Likewise an experience.

Wrong.

Correct. Needing or not needing to conclude something is an experience. Experiences are created by brain for the mind; mind is created by brain to experience, all experiences are a figment of your imagination, aka, “mind.” Q.E.D.

All I know about the world is an experience.

Which are generated by brain.

There is nothing else I can get from the world besides an experience.

Correction: there is nothing else you can get from the brain. You get nothing from “the world.”

If I experience something it is an experience. It is not anything else.

Correct. Anything else is for brain and the other meta devices I have instantiated.

If I experience red I know I am experiencing red.

Category error. You are mind. Mind is that which experiences. Experience is that which is generated by brain. “To know” is to directly experience, not indirectly experience as you do through brain. You can know brain, but you cannot know that you are experiencing. You are not a meta mind. Meta mind can experience—through the presentation of the brain—mind experiencing red and colloquially refer to that experience as “know” but ontologically speaking, no. Mind cannot know that it is in the act of experiencing. If mind experiences something, it is experiencing something and experiences are only generated by brain.

And I know I am not experiencing green.

No. Only meta mind devices can experience the brain generated experience of “mind is not experiencing green,” but no mind device can directly experience anything other than the brain generated experience.

All I or any other alleged person out there can know are their subjective experiences and what they subjectively make out of them.

No, mind cannot “make” anything out of the experiences brain generates for it to experience. Only meta meta mind devices are presented with the experience of “making something out of the experiences presented to mind.”

You cannot and have not named anything that is not an experience.

Brain. Brain is not an experience. Brain is that which generates the mind device, the presentation experiences for the mind device, meta mind devices and the presentations for the meta mind devices.

All ideas are something experienced.

Which necessarily means all ideas are created by brain.

What science has to explain is experience.

Experience is that which brain generates. Q.E.D.

 

[Jobar]

It is amazing that people can live an entire life as a mind experiencing and not even know it.

So, from whence does this mind come, untermensche?

 

[untermensche]

It is amazing that people can live an entire life as a mind experiencing and not even know it.

So, from whence does this mind come, untermensche?

The evidence (experiences) is that it arises due to some activity in a brain.

You are a mind as far as I can know.

Where do you come from?

Is there something beyond an experience that can inform you?

 

[Elixir]

Is there something beyond an experience that can inform you?

Well, there's always other people's experience. But of course you'd regress that to "my experience of other people's assertions about their experience". You can do that, if you wish to nullify any chance that our experiences correlate at all with the objective reality that you admit "might exist" independent of our experiences. A useless approach IMHO, which borders on willful stupidity, since most of us experience that science WORKS, which it would not if there was no such correlation. But there are those who really seem to enjoy mental masturbation, producing orgasmic pleasure at the very thought that their experience can be completely independent of any objective reality, even if such a thing exists. I think it's called "philosophy".

 

[untermensche]

Is there something beyond an experience that can inform you?

Well, there's always other people's experience.

To you that is just a subjective experience. Nothing more.

It is possible our experiences point to some objects out there.

But all we have are subjective experiences.

So it is also possible they do not.

 

[untermensche]

Due to your triggering of radical skepticism, that too is categorically impossible.

Perhaps you actually think that is an argument. It is not.

It is a cheap dodge.

All is experience. All we have are our subjective experiences and what we subjectively make of them.

It is possible there are objects somewhere behind our experiences.

It is possible there are not.

You do not know if there are objects behind experience.

All you know are your experiences.

Which is why I can ask over and over and over for something beyond an experience and get no answer in return.

 

[steve_bank]

yadda, yadda, yadda.....

I can not figure out from all your posts that there is any point you are making. Stream of consciousness comes to mind, thoughts unstructured and unfiltered flowing along.

What is your position on reductionism?

It seems that you have noticed the same thing about UM's posts that I have. I now wonder if anyone has been able to engage in an actual discussion with him in any thread. I have tried several times but all I have gotten in return is a string of semi-thoughts and unsupported assertions that appear to be intentionally provocative.

My guess is he does not understand the OP.

 

[untermensche]

Can you name something you say you "know" about that is not an experience?

All any human can know is their subjective experiences.

That is my point.

Just name one thing you "know" about that is not an experience and my point is shown to be invalid.

 

[steve_bank]

Can you name something you say you "know" about that is not an experience?

All any human can know is their subjective experiences.

That is my point.

Just name one thing you "know" about that is not an experience and my point is shown to be invalid.

Subjetve objective dichotomy is arbitrry. Objective generally means beyond personal interpretaion or bias, the dual is then subjective. Subjective does not exist with its counterpart objective. You are conflating experience with perception. I have a brief social encounter with a woman and I am convinced she loves me, subjective perception. I witness a car crash, objective perception.

Gravity is an objective observation. It is not affected by how anybody feels about it.

I'd say it is more correct that both objective and subjective knowledge is a function of our brains and our senses , with the dichotomy being a second level categorization.

Subjective and objective can each have sub categories.\You can argue all is subjective, a Creationist argument to refute the Theory of Evolution.

All science is based on physical definitions in Systems International, beyond any subjective bias or interpretaion. A video of a car crash showing faul is objective evidense.

 

[untermensche]

Witnessing a car crash is a subjective experience.

Vision is an experience.

And gravity is something experienced.

There is no knowledge of gravity beyond human experience.

 

[steve_bank]

Witnessing a car crash is a subjective experience.

Vision is an experience.

And gravity is something experienced.

There is no knowledge of gravity beyond human experience.

Science is human experience, as all of human activities. Experience is ill defined. perception is the interpretation o experience. The experience of gravity is objective, Discussion about the experience of gravity can be objective scince or subjective perceptions.

I under stand what you are saying, but you are about 350 years behind.

The top level is perception's comprised of sesory inputs. human physiology, and the brain.

Underneath the category of perceptions are subjective and objective, agree or disagree?