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

[snt]

Experience precedes a human body-mind.

If we think of experience as body-mind experience there is no paradox. I think there is a way to combine dual aspect monism with absolute idealism, but I can't remember what it is.

I would have to disagree.

Experience is subjective and that subjectivity would demand a fundamental explanation.

When it concerns a body-mind, it is easy to understand that an aspect is required beyond subjectivity and that there is a paradox.

It is very easy to understand: how can you envision yourself (as a subjective experience) in complete nothingness to then explore an outer world? The subjective experience that is required at the root of life wouldn't have any ground to be subjective of.

When it concerns sensing, it concerns an aspect that provides any potential sense-data that can be used to facilitate subjective experience. This is a paradox because sensing requires subjectivity (intentionality and attention).

Do you understand the paradox?

I understand how there seems to be a paradox and I try to dispel it.

Intentionality and attention are oriented experience in a temporal world, but are not experience itself. In the absolute sense, experience is all there is, and in the absolute sense, orientation is irrelevant.

In the temporal or relative sense, subjective experience is all there is. However I try to not deceive myself the word 'subjective' determines that there be an actual subject of experience over and above the memories which a fully -functioning body-mind accumulates . Scepticism demands we must query the existence of anything other than experience.

This 'outer world' thing is integral to subjectivity and is bound up with "privileged access" to a bundle of experience. "Privileged access" to the bundle necessitates the apprehension of what is other than the bundle of experience. However, subject-object dualism does not apply to absolute experience.

Many people would reasonably object to any claim there be absolute anything. Experience is the only idea that can be both subjective and absolute with no contradiction or paradox.

I have a difficulty with comprehending absolute experience and experience without memory.

Can you explain the nature of experience without memory? What would be the essence of being of experience if not being an experience 'of'?

From my perspective, the nature of the idea of a meaningful connection implies memory and without a meaningful connection there cannot be the idea of experience. Do you believe that this is incorrect?

With regard privileged access to a bundle of absolute experience being the fundamental explanation of the aspect 'outer world' and subjectivity. What would be the provider of such access or how can it be explained?

[Belindi]

Experience precedes a human body-mind.

If we think of experience as body-mind experience there is no paradox. I think there is a way to combine dual aspect monism with absolute idealism, but I can't remember what it is.

I would have to disagree.

Experience is subjective and that subjectivity would demand a fundamental explanation.

When it concerns a body-mind, it is easy to understand that an aspect is required beyond subjectivity and that there is a paradox.

It is very easy to understand: how can you envision yourself (as a subjective experience) in complete nothingness to then explore an outer world? The subjective experience that is required at the root of life wouldn't have any ground to be subjective of.

When it concerns sensing, it concerns an aspect that provides any potential sense-data that can be used to facilitate subjective experience. This is a paradox because sensing requires subjectivity (intentionality and attention).

Do you understand the paradox?

I understand how there seems to be a paradox and I try to dispel it.

Intentionality and attention are oriented experience in a temporal world, but are not experience itself. In the absolute sense, experience is all there is, and in the absolute sense, orientation is irrelevant.

In the temporal or relative sense, subjective experience is all there is. However I try to not deceive myself the word 'subjective' determines that there be an actual subject of experience over and above the memories which a fully -functioning body-mind accumulates . Scepticism demands we must query the existence of anything other than experience.

This 'outer world' thing is integral to subjectivity and is bound up with "privileged access" to a bundle of experience. "Privileged access" to the bundle necessitates the apprehension of what is other than the bundle of experience. However, subject-object dualism does not apply to absolute experience.

Many people would reasonably object to any claim there be absolute anything. Experience is the only idea that can be both subjective and absolute with no contradiction or paradox.

I have a difficulty with comprehending absolute experience and experience without memory.

Can you explain the nature of experience without memory? What would be the essence of being of experience if not being an experience 'of'?

From my perspective, the nature of the idea of a meaningful connection implies memory and without a meaningful connection there cannot be the idea of experience. Do you believe that this is incorrect?

With regard privileged access to a bundle of absolute experience being the fundamental explanation of the aspect 'outer world' and subjectivity. What would be the provider of such access or how can it be explained?

Memory is the psychological basis of selfhood. This being so, a person without memory is moribund; people die of dementia.

To explain or even describe absolute experience 'when' individual memory and memories is and are irrelevant is beyond the power of the best poets and artists. I can understand the absolute only by understanding by analogy with causality which ultimately is absolute necessity.



The "provider" of privileged access is the nature of closed systems. Psychologically, in order to stay alive, we need to recognise some boundary between me and not-me.That being said, the not-me is needed by the memory-self just as much as the memory-self to which privileged access applies. The "meaningful connection" i.e. the experience is the relationship between me and not-me.

[snt]

Memory is the psychological basis of selfhood. This being so, a person without memory is moribund; people die of dementia.

What you are referencing to seems to be memory-recollection (the psychological ability to use memory) while memory itself is a retro-perspective for perseverance.

With idealism, the Earth and the Solar system can be seen as a memory in time.

Can it be said that experience is possible without the aspect perseverance? As mentioned, it would result in the idea of an aspect without the potential for a meaningful relation which would be absurd in my opinion.

To explain or even describe absolute experience 'when' individual memory and memories is and are irrelevant is beyond the power of the best poets and artists. I can understand the absolute only by understanding by analogy with causality which ultimately is absolute necessity.

What would be the ground for the argument that causality involves absolute necessity? It seems to be an argument for determinism.

With idealism, the root of existence would not involve an aspect that can be empirically described and necessity is purely empirical in nature.

There is evidence that conscious experience in time can exert an effect on physical reality in the past. One of the several ways that that is possible is through Quantum Post Selection. This would imply that the idea of absolute causality is invalid.

The "provider" of privileged access is the nature of closed systems. Psychologically, in order to stay alive, we need to recognise some boundary between me and not-me.That being said, the not-me is needed by the memory-self just as much as the memory-self to which privileged access applies. The "meaningful connection" i.e. the experience is the relationship between me and not-me.

Some questions:

1) What would explain the closing of a system?

2) You argue that experience is the relationship between me and not-me and that it is "the meaningful connection".

Assertion 2) seems to be absurd in my opinion since it is to be assumed that not-me is a reference to an aspect that equally has not yet been, i.e. an aspect that lacks the potential for a connection of which it can be said to be meaningful. And where such a connection to be possible, the world would be predetermined.

In my opinion, a meaningful relation always involves something of which it can be said that it is empirical in nature, by means of memory. That which precedes the potential for a meaningful relation would concern the foundation of reality.

Sensibility vs experience

Can it be said that the cosmos is sensible? If yes, that implies memory for memory is perseverance following sensibility.

Any matter in the cosmos can only exist subjectively sensible in an 'outer world'. What are called 'physical laws' may in fact not be absolute laws but merely observed consistencies (repeatability) in the context of a tiny fraction of observation time.

When sensibility lays at the root of the cosmos, that means that one should seek a fundamental explanation for a priori sensing.

Experience in my opinion cannot be the answer since it would follow sensibility. Only when the concept sensibility is established, one can imagine the concept experience since otherwise experience would stand on loose ground (i.e. in a meaningless context).

Two articles for an idea that the idea of sensibility at the foundation of reality is plausible:

Cosmopsychism might seem crazy, but it provides a robust explanatory model for how the Universe became fine-tuned for life. It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Biocosmology: the birth of a new science?
https://iai.tv/articles/the-most-comple ... _auid=2022

[Belindi]

Memory is the psychological basis of selfhood. This being so, a person without memory is moribund; people die of dementia.

What you are referencing to seems to be memory-recollection (the psychological ability to use memory) while memory itself is a retro-perspective for perseverance.

With idealism, the Earth and the Solar system can be seen as a memory in time.

Can it be said that experience is possible without the aspect perseverance? As mentioned, it would result in the idea of an aspect without the potential for a meaningful relation which would be absurd in my opinion.

To explain or even describe absolute experience 'when' individual memory and memories is and are irrelevant is beyond the power of the best poets and artists. I can understand the absolute only by understanding by analogy with causality which ultimately is absolute necessity.

What would be the ground for the argument that causality involves absolute necessity? It seems to be an argument for determinism.

With idealism, the root of existence would not involve an aspect that can be empirically described and necessity is purely empirical in nature.

There is evidence that conscious experience in time can exert an effect on physical reality in the past. One of the several ways that that is possible is through Quantum Post Selection. This would imply that the idea of absolute causality is invalid.

The "provider" of privileged access is the nature of closed systems. Psychologically, in order to stay alive, we need to recognise some boundary between me and not-me.That being said, the not-me is needed by the memory-self just as much as the memory-self to which privileged access applies. The "meaningful connection" i.e. the experience is the relationship between me and not-me.

Some questions:

1) What would explain the closing of a system?

2) You argue that experience is the relationship between me and not-me and that it is "the meaningful connection".

Assertion 2) seems to be absurd in my opinion since it is to be assumed that not-me is a reference to an aspect that equally has not yet been, i.e. an aspect that lacks the potential for a connection of which it can be said to be meaningful. And where such a connection to be possible, the world would be predetermined.

In my opinion, a meaningful relation always involves something of which it can be said that it is empirical in nature, by means of memory. That which precedes the potential for a meaningful relation would concern the foundation of reality.

Sensibility vs experience

Can it be said that the cosmos is sensible? If yes, that implies memory for memory is perseverance following sensibility.

Any matter in the cosmos can only exist subjectively sensible in an 'outer world'. What are called 'physical laws' may in fact not be absolute laws but merely observed consistencies (repeatability) in the context of a tiny fraction of observation time.

When sensibility lays at the root of the cosmos, that means that one should seek a fundamental explanation for a priori sensing.

Experience in my opinion cannot be the answer since it would follow sensibility. Only when the concept sensibility is established, one can imagine the concept experience since otherwise experience would stand on loose ground (i.e. in a meaningless context).

Two articles for an idea that the idea of sensibility at the foundation of reality is plausible:

Cosmopsychism might seem crazy, but it provides a robust explanatory model for how the Universe became fine-tuned for life. It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Biocosmology: the birth of a new science?
https://iai.tv/articles/the-most-comple ... _auid=2022

Conatus explains the closing of a living system.

Strong determinism implies every event is was or will be a necessary event. The foundation of reality is not chaotic but is an integrated whole.


Snt wrote:

Any matter in the cosmos can only exist subjectively sensible in an 'outer world'. What are called 'physical laws' may in fact not be absolute laws but merely observed consistencies (repeatability) in the context of a tiny fraction of observation time.

It's rather a pity that we are not omniscient and must , so to speak, feel our way by means of empiricism -deduction. Nonetheless it's obvious that science works well and its predictions are a main source of increased and more powerful choices.

The word 'cosmopsychism' is unattractive because cosmos is solely extended matter whereas ontic reality is at least extension and thought, and for all we can know also may be unlimited attributes.