Karl Posted October 28, 2016 Your words rather than mine... So, then, all experience is always real but an experience of something not based in reality is not real. Correct? You are chasing negatives. Stated positively. ALL experiences are real. It is for perceiver to understand the experience. This is the origin of concept formation. The perceiver has to first differentiate an experience from all other experiences, then to integrate them into a conceptual hierachy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 28, 2016 I don't hold the primacy of consciousness... "abstract" was used to mean that it wasn't a thing within reality but something related to the definition/composition and understanding of reality. Sounds obscure. Reality isn't abstract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted October 28, 2016 Logic, Karl. We're sticking to simple logic. That syllogism used your propositions and you agreed with the conclusion but it is in direct conflict with your statement that if we experience something not based in reality then it isn't real. All experiences are real. Experiences meeting certain criteria are not real. Both statement cannot be true. Which is it, Karl? So, now help me understand where you are going with this new angle... Are you saying it is the perceiver who determines which experiences are real and which are not real, and that the determination is based on the perceiver's conceptualization? All experiences are real An experience requires cognitive understanding of the conceptual framework in which the experience existed Help me understand how this is consistent with the earlier definition of an experience as conscious awareness in real-time of perception of a physical phenomenon which leaves an impression on the perceiver. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redcairo Posted October 28, 2016 I thought previously the view was that if it wasn't perceivable through the senses it was not real. But now it seems like it's the opposite view, that anything experienced is real. I must have misunderstood one of those. Anyway... I am still trying to track this back to the quoting of me that led to all this... and the base argument I made after: that there is much which needs describing but the only words in our shared-language world tend to be about physical things. So a word like 'darkness' doesn't mean a lack of light by humanoid standards of frequency bandwidth 'only' -- it can mean many other things, including at least one probably too ineffable to have any corollary. But the 'context' for my a-bit-of-defense was that some of the things we have to talk about when addressing daobumian topics :-) don't have words. We have to use the words we have. It requires the ability of a person -- perhaps the "capacity" is a better word there -- to use a combination of empathy, imagination, experience, the sort of "more than the sum of its parts" effect that good poetry can have -- so that the communication can be understood. Otherwise... it seems like there'd be little point to communicating about any topic even slightly esoteric. RC 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 28, 2016 Logic, Karl. We're sticking to simple logic. That syllogism used your propositions and you agreed with the conclusion but it is in direct conflict with your statement that if we experience something not based in reality then it isn't real. All experiences are real. Experiences meeting certain criteria are not real. Both statement cannot be true. Which is it, Karl? So, now help me understand where you are going with this new angle... Are you saying it is the perceiver who determines which experiences are real and which are not real, and that the determination is based on the perceiver's conceptualization? All experiences are real An experience requires cognitive understanding of the conceptual framework in which the experience existed Help me understand how this is consistent with the earlier definition of an experience as conscious awareness in real-time of perception of a physical phenomenon which leaves an impression on the perceiver. No, that is an added your caveat which didn't appear in you syllogism. I gave the positive so there could be no error in understanding. Experience doesn't require conceptual understanding, perception is automatic, conception has to be carried out actively. If we are to differentiate and integrate the experience we need to have conceptualised it. The perceiver percieves reality directly. He can make an error in conceptualisation, or even choose to evade the perception. Whatever he chooses to do, he cannot avoid the reality of doing so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted October 29, 2016 No, that is an added your caveat which didn't appear in you syllogism. I gave the positive so there could be no error in understanding. Experience doesn't require conceptual understanding, perception is automatic, conception has to be carried out actively. If we are to differentiate and integrate the experience we need to have conceptualised it. The perceiver percieves reality directly. He can make an error in conceptualisation, or even choose to evade the perception. Whatever he chooses to do, he cannot avoid the reality of doing so. LOL No, Karl. I call bullshit. Those were your words, plain and simple -- copied and pasted from your posts in this very thread. I offered you several opportunities to correct your starkly contrasting statements and you, instead, fabricated and disassembled, claiming to have said something yet again different and claiming, yet again, that your position was solid and everyone else is mistaken or confused. Once you can demonstrate that your personal belief system is at least internally consistent, we can try -- if you wish -- exploring whether it is complete. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 29, 2016 LOL No, Karl. I call bullshit. Those were your words, plain and simple -- copied and pasted from your posts in this very thread. I offered you several opportunities to correct your starkly contrasting statements and you, instead, fabricated and disassembled, claiming to have said something yet again different and claiming, yet again, that your position was solid and everyone else is mistaken or confused. Once you can demonstrate that your personal belief system is at least internally consistent, we can try -- if you wish -- exploring whether it is complete. EOD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
