Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree and this conversation has been productive. "You are the Light that you Experience." sums it up.

When I am looking at a Tree, for example, I realize that the Visual Experience of it is painted with all the Tree Colors. But these Colors are all part of the Internal Workings of my Mind. I am not Seeing the actual Tree but my Minds depiction of the Tree. I still think there is an actual Tree out there in the External World. But I believe Idealism would say that the actual Tree does not exist but only the Visual Experience. Is that how you see it?

[SteveKlinko]

But since that Color is generated inside you, that Color is part of what you are. You are the Experience of Redness, Greenness, Blueness etc. You are the Light that you Experience.

Color-experiences are part of my mind; but, using John Foster's distinction between mental items (items of mentality) and mental subjects (subjects of mentality), color-experiences are mental items, whereas I qua mental subject am not a mental item or a complex of mental items.

I think you are saying that the Experiencer cannot be Experienced and I agree with that. If you take this further and speculate that maybe the Experiencer does not even Exist then you realize that maybe You are just a Collection of Experiences.

[Consul]

I think you are saying that the Experiencer cannot be Experienced and I agree with that. If you take this further and speculate that maybe the Experiencer does not even Exist then you realize that maybe You are just a Collection of Experiences.

I am not saying that experiencers or subjects of experience cannot have perceptual experiences (perceptions) of themselves. For example, when I look in a mirror I see myself.
Anyway, the subject or ego is "a transcendental condition of the possibility of" experientiality, because experience is essentially experience for an experiencer, whose experience it is. The for-ness of experience is presentedness or givenness, and experiences can only be presented or given to experiencers qua nonexperiences.

[Belindi]

Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree and this conversation has been productive. "You are the Light that you Experience." sums it up.

When I am looking at a Tree, for example, I realize that the Visual Experience of it is painted with all the Tree Colors. But these Colors are all part of the Internal Workings of my Mind. I am not Seeing the actual Tree but my Minds depiction of the Tree. I still think there is an actual Tree out there in the External World. But I believe Idealism would say that the actual Tree does not exist but only the Visual Experience. Is that how you see it?

I think there is "an actual tree out there in the external world" only because the tree is an experiencer too. The tree is more one with its environment than we are so it's hard to say where a particular 'tree' begins and ends. It is not only its crown and its roots it's also its commensal organisms and its exchange of gases. We on the other hand dominate what we believe to be our environments. Nevertheless I believe a tree exists for itself as a bundle of experiences each of which is oriented towards what has not yet come to exist.

This attitude contrasts with that of a corpse, or a ship, which have no attitude towards what does not yet exist and are nothing but what has happened to them in the past. A corpse, or a ship, would have been better examples to illustrate your point of view as many people feel an affinity with trees as fellow mortals. True, the corpse, and the ship, are undergoing chemical dissolution but unlike trees and people they don't care.

[Pattern-chaser]

...my mind is my brain.

That is an unjustified assertion, although we all can see that it is plausible; it could be true. Do you have any justification to add to your claim? I assume not. We are speculating here, without conclusive evidence. But it isn't helpful to assert certainty in the face of the unknown; that's just wishful thinking, not philosophy.

[SteveKlinko]

I think you are saying that the Experiencer cannot be Experienced and I agree with that. If you take this further and speculate that maybe the Experiencer does not even Exist then you realize that maybe You are just a Collection of Experiences.

I am not saying that experiencers or subjects of experience cannot have perceptual experiences (perceptions) of themselves. For example, when I look in a mirror I see myself.
Anyway, the subject or ego is "a transcendental condition of the possibility of" experientiality, because experience is essentially experience for an experiencer, whose experience it is. The for-ness of experience is presentedness or givenness, and experiences can only be presented or given to experiencers qua nonexperiences.

That Image in the Mirror is not the Self I am talking about. I am talking about the Conscious Self and you are talking about the Physical Self. But you are not even really Experiencing the Physical Self but rather the Light reflected from the Mirror. And taking this even further you are not really Experiencing the reflected Light but rather you are Experiencing Neural Activity. But even further you are not really experiencing Neural Activity but rather you are Experincing the Conscious Light created by your Brain/Mind that is presented to your Conscious Mind.

[SteveKlinko]

Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree and this conversation has been productive. "You are the Light that you Experience." sums it up.

When I am looking at a Tree, for example, I realize that the Visual Experience of it is painted with all the Tree Colors. But these Colors are all part of the Internal Workings of my Mind. I am not Seeing the actual Tree but my Minds depiction of the Tree. I still think there is an actual Tree out there in the External World. But I believe Idealism would say that the actual Tree does not exist but only the Visual Experience. Is that how you see it?

I think there is "an actual tree out there in the external world" only because the tree is an experiencer too. The tree is more one with its environment than we are so it's hard to say where a particular 'tree' begins and ends. It is not only its crown and its roots it's also its commensal organisms and its exchange of gases. We on the other hand dominate what we believe to be our environments. Nevertheless I believe a tree exists for itself as a bundle of experiences each of which is oriented towards what has not yet come to exist.

This attitude contrasts with that of a corpse, or a ship, which have no attitude towards what does not yet exist and are nothing but what has happened to them in the past. A corpse, or a ship, would have been better examples to illustrate your point of view as many people feel an affinity with trees as fellow mortals. True, the corpse, and the ship, are undergoing chemical dissolution but unlike trees and people they don't care.

I don't think Trees care either. But until Science can understand Consciousness we won't know if you are right or if I am right.

[Consul]

That Image in the Mirror is not the Self I am talking about. I am talking about the Conscious Self and you are talking about the Physical Self. But you are not even really Experiencing the Physical Self but rather the Light reflected from the Mirror. And taking this even further you are not really Experiencing the reflected Light but rather you are Experiencing Neural Activity. But even further you are not really experiencing Neural Activity but rather you are Experincing the Conscious Light created by your Brain/Mind that is presented to your Conscious Mind.

I beg to differ:

* I think there are no invisible conscious nonphysical "selves" or subjects.

* Light is the external material medium of visual perception rather than its object. We cannot see things without light, but light is not the thing seen.

* Visual sensations are the internal experiential mediums (contents) of visual perception, and I think they are constituted (not caused!) by patterns of neural activity.

[SteveKlinko]

That Image in the Mirror is not the Self I am talking about. I am talking about the Conscious Self and you are talking about the Physical Self. But you are not even really Experiencing the Physical Self but rather the Light reflected from the Mirror. And taking this even further you are not really Experiencing the reflected Light but rather you are Experiencing Neural Activity. But even further you are not really experiencing Neural Activity but rather you are Experincing the Conscious Light created by your Brain/Mind that is presented to your Conscious Mind.

I beg to differ:

* I think there are no invisible conscious nonphysical "selves" or subjects.

* Light is the external material medium of visual perception rather than its object. We cannot see things without light, but light is not the thing seen.

* Visual sensations are the internal experiential mediums (contents) of visual perception, and I think they are constituted (not caused!) by patterns of neural activity.

* Of course you do.
* But you don't really See things either.
* So you think Visual Perception is Neural Activity.

Nobody really knows anything with regard to Consciousness, and we can only Speculate.

[Belindi]

That Image in the Mirror is not the Self I am talking about. I am talking about the Conscious Self and you are talking about the Physical Self. But you are not even really Experiencing the Physical Self but rather the Light reflected from the Mirror. And taking this even further you are not really Experiencing the reflected Light but rather you are Experiencing Neural Activity. But even further you are not really experiencing Neural Activity but rather you are Experincing the Conscious Light created by your Brain/Mind that is presented to your Conscious Mind.

I beg to differ:

* I think there are no invisible conscious nonphysical "selves" or subjects.

* Light is the external material medium of visual perception rather than its object. We cannot see things without light, but light is not the thing seen.

* Visual sensations are the internal experiential mediums (contents) of visual perception, and I think they are constituted (not caused!) by patterns of neural activity.

I understood SteveKlinko's original reference to light( a few posts back) to be a metaphor for the active influence of the receiver of information upon the meaning of the information.

[SteveKlinko]

That Image in the Mirror is not the Self I am talking about. I am talking about the Conscious Self and you are talking about the Physical Self. But you are not even really Experiencing the Physical Self but rather the Light reflected from the Mirror. And taking this even further you are not really Experiencing the reflected Light but rather you are Experiencing Neural Activity. But even further you are not really experiencing Neural Activity but rather you are Experincing the Conscious Light created by your Brain/Mind that is presented to your Conscious Mind.

I beg to differ:

* I think there are no invisible conscious nonphysical "selves" or subjects.

* Light is the external material medium of visual perception rather than its object. We cannot see things without light, but light is not the thing seen.

* Visual sensations are the internal experiential mediums (contents) of visual perception, and I think they are constituted (not caused!) by patterns of neural activity.

I understood SteveKlinko's original reference to light( a few posts back) to be a metaphor for the active influence of the receiver of information upon the meaning of the information.

The Light I talk about is not just a Metaphor. It is a real Conscious Phenomenon that happens in the Conscious Mind. But maybe that's what you said.

[Consul]

When I am looking at a Tree, for example, I realize that the Visual Experience of it is painted with all the Tree Colors. But these Colors are all part of the Internal Workings of my Mind. I am not Seeing the actual Tree but my Minds depiction of the Tree.

"I go for a walk with a companion. I see a green field; I have a visual impression of the green as well. I have it but I do not see it."

(Frege, Gottlob. "The Thought: A Logical Inquiry." [1918.] Mind 65/259 (1956): 289–311. p. 299)

That is, the color-impressions you have or undergo are not the objects of your visual perception. You see things by means of color-impressions of them, but the color-impressions are not the things seen.
Visual impressions can themselves become objects of inner perception aka introspection, and the word "introspection" is derived from the Latin verb "specere", which means "to see" or "to look"; but introspection as "the looking into our own minds and reporting what we there discover" (William James) isn't literally a case of vision. The so-called "inner eye" of the mind isn't literally an eye.

[SteveKlinko]

When I am looking at a Tree, for example, I realize that the Visual Experience of it is painted with all the Tree Colors. But these Colors are all part of the Internal Workings of my Mind. I am not Seeing the actual Tree but my Minds depiction of the Tree.

"I go for a walk with a companion. I see a green field; I have a visual impression of the green as well. I have it but I do not see it."

(Frege, Gottlob. "The Thought: A Logical Inquiry." [1918.] Mind 65/259 (1956): 289–311. p. 299)

That is, the color-impressions you have or undergo are not the objects of your visual perception. You see things by means of color-impressions of them, but the color-impressions are not the things seen.

If Color Impressions are the same thing as Color Experiences and Color Qualia then I agree.

Visual impressions can themselves become objects of inner perception aka introspection, and the word "introspection" is derived from the Latin verb "specere", which means "to see" or "to look"; but introspection as "the looking into our own minds and reporting what we there discover" (William James) isn't literally a case of vision. The so-called "inner eye" of the mind isn't literally an eye.

I think it is a mistake to think that since there is this Visual Experience, that there needs to be some Inner Eye that Sees it. This just leads to the old infinite regression of further Experiences and Eyes. There is no need for this. The Visual Experience is the final stage of the Seeing Process. Period. We may not understand it but there it is floating and Embedded in the front of our faces letting us move around in the World without bumping into things or walking off cliffs.

[Consul]

If Color Impressions are the same thing as Color Experiences and Color Qualia then I agree.

I use the following terms synonymously: "sensation", "sense-impression ", "sense-experience", "sense-appearance", "sense-quale", "sense-datum", "sense-content".

I think it is a mistake to think that since there is this Visual Experience, that there needs to be some Inner Eye that Sees it. This just leads to the old infinite regression of further Experiences and Eyes. There is no need for this. The Visual Experience is the final stage of the Seeing Process. Period. We may not understand it but there it is floating and Embedded in the front of our faces letting us move around in the World without bumping into things or walking off cliffs.

I think the higher-theories of experiential/phenomenal consciousness are right insofar as no mental/neural state is an experiential/phenomenal one unless its subject is (somehow) conscious or aware of it. That is, conscious perception requires what Leibniz calls apperception and what Locke calls reflection, i.e. "the perception of the operations of our own mind within us" or "that notice which the mind takes of its own operations". For example, one isn't visually conscious of a tomato unless one is also apperceptively/reflectively/introspectively conscious of its visual appearance (a round patch of phenomenal red).

"It is well to make the distinction between perception, which is the internal state of the monad representing external things, and apperception, which is consciousness or the reflexive knowledge of this internal state itself and which is not given to all souls, nor at all times to the same soul."

(Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, par. 4, G VI 600: L 637)

[SteveKlinko]

If Color Impressions are the same thing as Color Experiences and Color Qualia then I agree.

I use the following terms synonymously: "sensation", "sense-impression ", "sense-experience", "sense-appearance", "sense-quale", "sense-datum", "sense-content".

I think it is a mistake to think that since there is this Visual Experience, that there needs to be some Inner Eye that Sees it. This just leads to the old infinite regression of further Experiences and Eyes. There is no need for this. The Visual Experience is the final stage of the Seeing Process. Period. We may not understand it but there it is floating and Embedded in the front of our faces letting us move around in the World without bumping into things or walking off cliffs.

I think the higher-theories of experiential/phenomenal consciousness are right insofar as no mental/neural state is an experiential/phenomenal one unless its subject is (somehow) conscious or aware of it. That is, conscious perception requires what Leibniz calls apperception and what Locke calls reflection, i.e. "the perception of the operations of our own mind within us" or "that notice which the mind takes of its own operations". For example, one isn't visually conscious of a tomato unless one is also apperceptively/reflectively/introspectively conscious of its visual appearance (a round patch of phenomenal red).

"It is well to make the distinction between perception, which is the internal state of the monad representing external things, and apperception, which is consciousness or the reflexive knowledge of this internal state itself and which is not given to all souls, nor at all times to the same soul."

(Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, par. 4, G VI 600: L 637)

I agree that we can move our Attention to certain things in our Visual Field of view or certain Sounds in our Auditory Experience. We can even concentrate on Tastes, Smells, and Touch Experiences. But it does not mean we don't Perceive and Experience other things that we are not paying Attention to.