Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote: What I'm doing is pointing out the causes of the object itself, which is not the same as "invoking" them.
Your invocation happened here: "experience and its object are caused by other objects". Since those other objects are experiences with their "objects" as well, you are just invoking "object" without reason.
According to the premise wherewith you accuse me of "invoking" objects by stating they are caused by other objects without reason (blatantly untrue, unless you are now trying to refute causality itself), my invocation itself is an experience - being a vague object-experience experienced by you - and therefore valid by default (an invalid experience cannot exist and therefore cannot, according to your premise, be an object and therefore cannot be experienced by you). Thus, your premise defeats itself as nonsensically as you are trying to prove it. And besides, for the hundredth time, where is *your* *reasoning* for equating experiences with their objects?
If the only thing you know is that they are experiences then it is impossible to differentiate or identify them, and consequently impossible to know that they are experiences or indeed anything else. I've addressed this cheap piece of sophistry multiple times but you keep parading it around like a prize pony.
Why do you think it's impossible to differentiate experiences when knowing they are experiences? What "else" could experiences be? Objects perhaps?
What differentiates one experience from another? If we assume that all objects are experiences, it would be another experience, which would mean there is no difference. The exact same thing cannot differentiate two things that are exactly the same.
I understand that you're trying to show me where you think I am wrong by playing the devil's advocate. I can, through a simple search in the forum archives, show you past posts of yours that contradict many of your current assertions. But the nature of a pretense reveals the underlying motivations which led to that pretense in the first place, and that is where I'm faulting you. Your real aim here is not to teach me the virtues of vagueness (too ridiculous for you to seriously maintain) but to disabuse me of the notion that consciousness is just another part of the Grand Tapestry, and not its weaver..
If so, then it's not clear to me how one experience would somehow be "object" and the other not.
If an experience can be experienced then it is an object. But it is logically impossible to do so, and I've never made the claim that some experiences can be objects of other experiences. You're interpreting my statement about experiencing objects that way, but you have no reason to do so. It is your responsibility to justify the premise that objects equate the experiences of objects before refuting any assertions based on this premise.
In the end it's logically impossible to know with absolute certainty if your experiences are "real" or a result of some simulation or some dream.
Experiences are absolutely certain. The question of reality or simulation is not relevant here, because it refers to *other* experiences of objects. I cannot deny that all this *may* be a dream, but then what is this "dream"? It is just another object that is experienced that supposedly resembles what we call a dream.
And yet we can not do anything else but assign values, preferring one interpretation and thought over another. But that doesn't mean we have now some "object" in some actuality sitting somewhere in some of the cases and not in others.
We don't prefer or evaluate in a vacuum, which is precisely what you are suggesting.
If there was really *just* experience, it would be impossible for anyone - sage or fool - to infer *anything* from them, not even experience (see above).
That's like saying that if there was just change, it would be impossible to infer anything from that, not even change.
Indeed! If you disagree then tell me how one might do just that?
By the way - the accusation that I believe in "self-existent objects" is your own neo-Christian postmodernist "God-as-vagueness" complex projected onto me.
We're all projecting everywhere, that's not really big news. The question is about awareness. And you clearly argue for self-existence object but you might not be aware of that either. It's your "last temptation of Christ" I suppose.
No, but I'm pretty sure you are going through such a phase right now. Intercourse between mid-life crisis and disappointment in the forum and its members perhaps? In any case, I wish you the best with whatever it is.
And if you can't nut up and face that truth then frankly you have no business moderating this forum.
So that's your real issue then? You think it's about moderating truth
? Or that I would reason from authority? You just show your own immaturity here.
My problem is with your lack of intellectual integrity in this discussion. Your moderation itself is almost excessively fair.
So I can identify th[/i] your things. That's all what was being said.
Looks like you messed up here. Care to repeat?
Secondly, neither change nor permanence is absolute or self or any other kind of nature.
You're just invoking "no-nature" as nature. Fine by me. But in the context of discussing reality, we do speak of absolutes and nature of that reality. The alternative is not to speak about it at all. Which is fine by me as well.
I'm speaking of change and permanence as no-nature, specifically. Nature, i.e., finite nature, is something that distinguishes one thing from another. Although we differentiate between the enduring and fugacious nature of different things, we are still not referring to endurance or fugacity itself as their nature. For example a building is more permanent than a bubble, but both of them can be called changing or permanent in different contexts. It's like saying that simplicity and complexity, or orderliness and disarray, can be the nature of things. That is not how those words are defined.