Philosophy Now Forum

I am sure that you agree with the fact that we are aware that we experience or we experience experience. One can argue that the only thing which is real is experience. The problem is then experiencing of experience which seems absurd.

Isn't this just due to the way that we can reflect on things? An experience triggers thoughts about the experience which in turn produces further experiences?

thought addict wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:13 pm Isn't this just due to the way that we can reflect on things? An experience triggers thoughts about the experience which in turn produces further experiences?

Yes, it is like that. What puzzles me is that how we could experience experience.

We can experience a perception when we are aware of the act of perceiving.
Our focus is on the act of perceiving and not on the subject of perceiving.

We can watch a butterfly and then experience that our eyesight goes wrong a little and we focus on our perception as such. Like a photographer who focuses on the camera and its lenses and not on what he wants to make a picture of.

It´s a question of focus.
If our organs of perception do not work properly we focus on them and not on what we wish to perceive using them.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:38 pm Yes, it is like that. What puzzles me is that how we could experience experience.

When you say "experience experience", are you talking about experiencing any kind of experience like experiencing the color red for example? Or are you talking about experiencing what it feels like to be able to have experiences?

duszek wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:09 pm We can experience a perception when we are aware of the act of perceiving.
Our focus is on the act of perceiving and not on the subject of perceiving.

We can watch a butterfly and then experience that our eyesight goes wrong a little and we focus on our perception as such. Like a photographer who focuses on the camera and its lenses and not on what he wants to make a picture of.

It´s a question of focus.
If our organs of perception do not work properly we focus on them and not on what we wish to perceive using them.

Exactly. But how that is possible under materialism?

thought addict wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:38 pm Yes, it is like that. What puzzles me is that how we could experience experience.

When you say "experience experience", are you talking about experiencing any kind of experience like experiencing the color red for example? Or are you talking about experiencing what it feels like to be able to have experiences?

Both.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:12 pm Both.

Then I think you're looking for an answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:12 pm Exactly. But how that is possible under materialism?

I believe materialism is false because I cannot see how first person experience is possible under materialism.

Jimi has left the building

-Imp

thought addict wrote:
I believe materialism is false because I cannot see how first person experience is possible under materialism

It is possible since all that is required are a mind which is the function of a brain and a physical body to have experiences
But all of human experience is first person anyway because it occurs from a frame of reference unique to every individual

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 am It is possible since all that is required are a mind which is the function of a brain and a physical body to have experiences

No, first person consciousness is apparently more than the function of a brain because all brain functions can be explained just fine from a third person perspective. Brain functions are things like behavior and information processing. They work just fine without there being any conscious mind at all.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 am But all of human experience is first person anyway because it occurs from a frame of reference unique to every individual

But materialism does not recognize that first person frame of reference. Personal identity also, which of those frames of reference is yours rather than mine is ignored also.

thought addict wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:36 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 am It is possible since all that is required are a mind which is the function of a brain and a physical body to have experiences

No, first person consciousness is apparently more than the function of a brain because all brain functions can be explained just fine from a third person perspective. Brain functions are things like behavior and information processing. They work just fine without there being any conscious mind at all.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 am But all of human experience is first person anyway because it occurs from a frame of reference unique to every individual

But materialism does not recognize that first person frame of reference. Personal identity also, which of those frames of reference is yours rather than mine is ignored also.

It gets interesting when we get to the question of whether 1st person reports of consciousness can be explained just fine (by a 2nd person using scientific methods) without implying actual consciousness. Then you're moving toward a black hole of solipsism. Other people have potentially well-explained behaviors but give no evidence of consciousness per se, and hence there is nothing to explain or believe in regarding other minds.

OuterLimits wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:08 pm

thought addict wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:36 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 am It is possible since all that is required are a mind which is the function of a brain and a physical body to have experiences

No, first person consciousness is apparently more than the function of a brain because all brain functions can be explained just fine from a third person perspective. Brain functions are things like behavior and information processing. They work just fine without there being any conscious mind at all.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 am But all of human experience is first person anyway because it occurs from a frame of reference unique to every individual

But materialism does not recognize that first person frame of reference. Personal identity also, which of those frames of reference is yours rather than mine is ignored also.

It gets interesting when we get to the question of whether 1st person reports of consciousness can be explained just fine (by a 2nd person using scientific methods) without implying actual consciousness. Then you're moving toward a black hole of solipsism. Other people have potentially well-explained behaviors but give no evidence of consciousness per se, and hence there is nothing to explain or believe in regarding other minds.

Yes it's very interesting. The best we can do is notice that some other people seem to say the same sort of things when thinking about their claimed consciousness as we do ourselves and therefore hypothesize that they may also possess a similar kind of private evidence of first person experience to ours. It's an assumption based on the fact that they seem to have lots of other similarities to us that are observable.

It's very counter-intuitive and strange when you consider the fact that all of the "evidence" for our phenomenal first person consciousness that we can speak or write down does nothing towards proving its existence. Our private experience itself is the only real proof. For example, a video camera could be considered as something that possesses a simple kind of first person perspective. It has a unique point of view of the world, captures an image at one location in time and space, just as our eyes and brains do. Does it experience the images it captures? Who knows. If you linked it up to some AI software that could reflect on its own state, maybe it could develop some level of consciousness. Again, there's no way to prove it. Only the individual can know.