Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:Cuz, I'm not doing it... it's doing me.

Well said.

"I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:" If you are merely the experiencer, then you did no such thing. Technically Correct. But in the above usage of the word, “I” is referring to the physical body (particularly the fingers) of RG1. As the experiencer, you only e...

henry quirk wrote:Who or what wrote this...

There is only an 'experiencing entity' (aka "Experiencer") that experiences the sensory experiences that comprise the thought/notion of “Self”.

...this inquiring self wants to know.

The physical body, known as RG1, wrote this.

Dontaskme, you ask very good questions! Here is my take on this topic -- WHERE DESCARTES WENT WRONG: Descartes's goal was to arrive at one item of truth that could serve as the starting-point and foundation for all knowledge. His starting point was his famous statement " I think, therefore I am ". A...

The Self is an idea. Bingo. And I’ve no idea what an idea is. It is a notion; a thought. It is nothing more than a group of sensations (sensory experiences). There is NO Self. There is only an 'experiencing entity' (aka "Experiencer") that experiences the sensory experiences that comprise the thoug...

This is just a claim: Experience needs an experiencer. No. This is not just a claim, it is also a logical certainty . ‘A’ cannot be ‘not-A’. An event consists of something, otherwise it is nothing. It is not possible for something to exist without some- thing existing. We know that there have been ...

There is always a lot of confusion between Awareness and Consciousness since we use both Awareness and Consciousness interchangeably. I would like to explain both Awareness and Consciousness with specific instances so that we may be able to differentiate Awareness and Consciousness. Look at the fol...

I don't think that we need a experiencer to experience. Experience just can happen. Logically this is NOT possible. -- Again, something can’t happen if no-THING is happening ! An action requires an actor . Experiencing requires an Experiencer . One cannot be without the other. -- E.g. running requi...

That's just an image; reflection, and not the eyeball itself.

We know that we don't have any sense that we could experience self directly. Agreed, and furthermore, it is not logically possible for one to possess a sense that could sense it-self. Those that claim to be “self-aware” (aware of self) are only just fooling themselves. "Self-awareness" is impossibl...

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think we are done here, hey?

Okay by me. And thanks for the intellectual conversation. (...I'm being sincere here).

I don't think anybody's disputing this and It seems unequivocal that there's no such thing as an objective "object". Well, dependent, of course, upon your meaning of “objective object”, I have to disagree. As I have previously shown, it is possible to ‘know’ an object exists, even though we cannot ...

Experience is subjective. Isn’t it more accurate to say that -- ‘that’ which we experience (i.e. the ‘content’ of the experience) is the ‘subjective’ part, not the ‘experience’ itself, right? Experience is experienced by an experiencer. The 'object' of your experience is not the same as the 'experi...

Isn’t ‘experiencing’ itself a ‘real’ event? …one that can be known ‘objectively’; and with 'absolute certainty'? No. Obviously not. Experience is subjective. Isn’t it more accurate to say that -- ‘that’ which we experience (i.e. the ‘content’ of the experience) is the ‘subjective’ part, not the ‘ex...

Obvious Leo wrote:Be careful not to fall into an argument with each other when you're actually saying the same thing, which is very much the way it looks to me.

Leo, yes, after re-reading this, there appears to be a slim possibility that you could be right.