"Being" as Unconditional

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by promethean75 »

We should be careful when we make such claims as (not verbatim... I'm not quoting the colonel I don't think) 'you can never know another's experience', because we might imply the meaning that 'experience' is a kind of quality or thing that is out in the world that can be 'known' or not.

To speak of being able to 'know' experience is an odd thing to say, because you can't possibly doubt you are having (and knowing, as it were) experience. And like homeboy who played Wittgenstein in that movie said "if we can't speak of doubt then we can't speak of knowledge, either. It makes no sense to speak of knowing something in a context where we could not possibly doubt it...."

Therefore to say 'i know I am having an experience' is entirely senseless?

Here's what happened in philosophy. Thanks to headbangers like Chalmers and their p-zombies, philosophers of mind got all nervous and pleaded that reducibility (to AI like circuitry) deprives the person of their private 'self', the likeness of their particular point of view. That individual 'qualia' of experience that only Joe can have, etc. What it's like to be a Joe. Or a bat. Or even a Bat Joe.

Basically all schools to the right of materialism have tried to re-cartesianize the philosophy of mind after Hobbes and Hume dropped the mic.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:44 pm Therefore to say 'i know I am having an experience' is entirely senseless?
Then don't say it. If you don't know your are conscious, then you don't, but you are mistaken if you just assume everyone else is exactly like you. Just because you don't know when you have a conscious experience, to other's don't is just projecting your own limitations to others.
promethean75 wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:44 pm Here's what happened in philosophy.
Nothing happened to philosophy, It's always been bunk, most of it turned into ideological nonsense, now promoted by every academic and pseudo-intellectual who has discovered the gullibility of mankind.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Walker »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:51 pm
Walker,

Could you expand upon what you are saying, or clarify, as is I am not understanding.
“I think, therefore I am,” means that “awareness of awareness,” otherwise known as thought, is required in order to be.

However, before identity, and before awareness of awareness, there is awareness without identity, i.e., existence with awareness, but without the I thought.

Everyone has their own example of this, from their own earliest memories. These earliest memories are snapshots formed before identity, before awareness of awareness, before the capacity for self-definition and rational thinking developed. The earliest memories are snapshots. They exist, isolate. They lack the glue of continuity that connects them to a sequence of memories which maintain identity, because there was no identity when the memories were formed. No I thought. No beingness, dependent upon thought. No requirement of thinking in order to be, in order to declare "I am." There was only being.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by popeye1945 »

[“I think, therefore I am,” means that “awareness of awareness,” otherwise known as thought, is required in order to be.
However, before identity, and before awareness of awareness, there is awareness without identity, i.e., existence with awareness, but without the I thought.

Everyone has their own example of this, from their own earliest memories. These earliest memories are snapshots formed before identity, before awareness of awareness, before the capacity for self-definition and rational thinking developed. The earliest memories are snapshots. They exist, isolate. They lack the glue of continuity that connects them to a sequence of memories which maintain identity, because there was no identity when the memories were formed. No I thought. No beingness, dependent upon thought. No requirement of thinking in order to be, in order to declare "I am." There was only being.
[/quote]

Walker,

Excellent, a most interesting post. Yes, continuity is necessary in the formation of identity, memories disjointed or not in relation to a forming whole do seem like snapshots. I have had the experience of being without memory without a past and of course, one is still in being but, all one is really aware of is being alive and it feels great. Being unaware of being aware is a pretty common experience for the average citizen it is an unstated reality, it is what it is to be. I find myself in complete agreement with the above, so, we are pretty much of the same page. Even in my state of having no memories, like you said, still there is the inclination to state the I.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by promethean75 »

"Then don't say it. If you don't know your are conscious, then you don't, but you are mistaken if you just assume everyone else is exactly like you."

Well yes, just considering what a phrase like 'no one can know your experience' would mean in a non-technical philosophically unspecialized language, sure. But when philosophers ask it, it gets all Cartesian with this notion of qualia unique to each private Cartesian theater that is inaccessible to third parties.

But yeah all this is over-technical anyway. Alls I'm sayin is, there is nothing about your 'experience' that isn't objective and accessible to all who share your language (because the way you talk about it forms your understanding and use of the word). Rather it's that the effects of your life can only be experienced by you... while they remain objective effects of states and processes in nature that happened in the world, nonetheless. It's the experiencer that can't be known, not the 'experience', which, as qualia, is only a description of a set of objective facts about the particular perception of the world that person has. Unless you want to argue that mental states are not reducible to physical states.

As a third party, I can know exactly what your experience is, but I can't know what you experienced without you explaining it to me. The phenomena of experience is not subjective, then. If it were, I'd not be able to understand what was meant by someone when they said 'you can't know my experience'.

If your brain was in physical state(s) x when 'mental' state(s) y occured, that physical state or set of states would be an objective fact(s) about the world... not some private, isolated Cartesian interaction between an immaterial soul and a material world.

There's a subtle difference between saying 'you didn't experience p, so you can't know what experience of p is like' and 'you can't know what my experience is.'

Like the beetle in the box analogy; we could be perfectly wrong about what we thought was in the box, and still we could talk meaningfully about it. Replace the beetle with the concept of 'qualia', and you have it.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Dontaskme »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:54 am All being summated as context makes the context unconditional as it only relates to itself therefore only itself exists; context is absolute. Conditions are "being" and "being" is absolute as only "being" exists. Being conditioned on being is just Being; conditions are thus unconditional as only conditions exist.

Context results in further context; conditions, as context, results in further conditions. Conditions as context and contexts as conditions are being expressing itself through being. This self-reflection of the one being is absolute as being is only conditional to itself which makes it conditioned on nothing given only being exists.

Being as condition on nothing, as only being exists, makes being absolute.

To be relative to oneself is to be relative to nothing thus no relativity.
This OP is pointing to the oneness that is one without a second.

And that is that you cannot know yourself like one thing knowing another because you are not two.

The I cannot arise without you being there first. You are infinite unconditional being.

Hatred or misery, empathy,compassion or caring, are all perfect expressions of oneness, aka unconditional being.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:30 am Let us IMAGINE that what you are saying here "eodnhoj" was true, now SO WHAT?



Also, to you, is absolutely EVERY thing relative to the observer?
1. Since when did truth not result in a "so what?" Pragmatism never allows one to escape personal desire or whim thus is unpragmatic.

2. The observer observing the observer is the observer relative to itself thus no distinction occurs and the observer becomes formless; relativity self-negates under self-referentiality thus leaving "no-thingness" or the "absence of distinction" as absolute.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:30 am Let us IMAGINE that what you are saying here "eodnhoj" was true, now SO WHAT?



Also, to you, is absolutely EVERY thing relative to the observer?
1. Since when did truth not result in a "so what?" Pragmatism never allows one to escape personal desire or whim thus is unpragmatic.
WHY NOT just answer the ACTUAL question posed to you instead?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm 2. The observer observing the observer is the observer relative to itself thus no distinction occurs and the observer becomes formless; relativity self-negates under self-referentiality thus leaving "no-thingness" or the "absence of distinction" as absolute.
Okay, but, AGAIN, so what?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by RCSaunders »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:17 am "Then don't say it. If you don't know your are conscious, then you don't, but you are mistaken if you just assume everyone else is exactly like you."

Well yes, just considering what a phrase like 'no one can know your experience' would mean in a non-technical philosophically unspecialized language, sure. But when philosophers ask it, it gets all Cartesian with this notion of qualia unique to each private Cartesian theater that is inaccessible to third parties.

But yeah all this is over-technical anyway. Alls I'm sayin is, there is nothing about your 'experience' that isn't objective and accessible to all who share your language (because the way you talk about it forms your understanding and use of the word). Rather it's that the effects of your life can only be experienced by you... while they remain objective effects of states and processes in nature that happened in the world, nonetheless. It's the experiencer that can't be known, not the 'experience', which, as qualia, is only a description of a set of objective facts about the particular perception of the world that person has. Unless you want to argue that mental states are not reducible to physical states.

As a third party, I can know exactly what your experience is, but I can't know what you experienced without you explaining it to me. The phenomena of experience is not subjective, then. If it were, I'd not be able to understand what was meant by someone when they said 'you can't know my experience'.

If your brain was in physical state(s) x when 'mental' state(s) y occured, that physical state or set of states would be an objective fact(s) about the world... not some private, isolated Cartesian interaction between an immaterial soul and a material world.

There's a subtle difference between saying 'you didn't experience p, so you can't know what experience of p is like' and 'you can't know what my experience is.'

Like the beetle in the box analogy; we could be perfectly wrong about what we thought was in the box, and still we could talk meaningfully about it. Replace the beetle with the concept of 'qualia', and you have it.
At least there are beetles. The concept of, "qualia," is just made up to describe philosophers' (like Locke) total misunderstanding of consciousness--an explanation of what requires no explanation, and most people have been taken in by it.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:30 am Let us IMAGINE that what you are saying here "eodnhoj" was true, now SO WHAT?



Also, to you, is absolutely EVERY thing relative to the observer?
1. Since when did truth not result in a "so what?" Pragmatism never allows one to escape personal desire or whim thus is unpragmatic.
WHY NOT just answer the ACTUAL question posed to you instead?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm 2. The observer observing the observer is the observer relative to itself thus no distinction occurs and the observer becomes formless; relativity self-negates under self-referentiality thus leaving "no-thingness" or the "absence of distinction" as absolute.
Okay, but, AGAIN, so what?
Eodnhoj7 is just pointing to an actual clarity. Which deserves to be honored and respected by respectful philosophers, to be fair and frank, in my humble opinion.

To then just shit on someone's elses clarity, like you often do, by saying ''so what'' is disrespectful and arrogant, as if someone elses truth is not important enough for you to give a damn.

And that is why most philosophers on this forum are absolutely tired and sick of you.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:33 am
Age wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm

1. Since when did truth not result in a "so what?" Pragmatism never allows one to escape personal desire or whim thus is unpragmatic.
WHY NOT just answer the ACTUAL question posed to you instead?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm 2. The observer observing the observer is the observer relative to itself thus no distinction occurs and the observer becomes formless; relativity self-negates under self-referentiality thus leaving "no-thingness" or the "absence of distinction" as absolute.
Okay, but, AGAIN, so what?
Eodnhoj7 is just pointing to an actual clarity.
Just so 'we' ALL also become AWARE, what is the the 'actual clarity' being 'pointed to' here, EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:33 am Which deserves to be honored and respected by respectful philosophers, to be fair and frank, in my humble opinion.
How do 'you' define the word 'philosopher', and then how do differentiate between a so-called "respectful philosopher" from a "non respectful philosopher"?

Would it have ANY 'thing' to do with what 'you', personally, AGREE or DISAGREE with, "dontaskme"?
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:33 am To then just shit on someone's elses clarity, like you often do, by saying ''so what'' is disrespectful and arrogant, as if someone elses truth is not important enough for you to give a damn.
I am JUST asking a CLARIFYING QUESTION, from a Truly OPEN PERSPECTIVE.

WHERE is this Wrong ASSUMPTION and CLAIM of "shit on" coming from, EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:33 am And that is why most philosophers on this forum are absolutely tired and sick of you.
AGAIN, how do 'you' define the word 'philosopher'?
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by CHNOPS »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:54 am All being summated as context makes the context unconditional as it only relates to itself therefore only itself exists; context is absolute. Conditions are "being" and "being" is absolute as only "being" exists. Being conditioned on being is just Being; conditions are thus unconditional as only conditions exist.

Context results in further context; conditions, as context, results in further conditions. Conditions as context and contexts as conditions are being expressing itself through being. This self-reflection of the one being is absolute as being is only conditional to itself which makes it conditioned on nothing given only being exists.

Being as condition on nothing, as only being exists, makes being absolute.

To be relative to oneself is to be relative to nothing thus no relativity.
This OP is pointing to the oneness that is one without a second.

And that is that you cannot know yourself like one thing knowing another because you are not two.

The I cannot arise without you being there first. You are infinite unconditional being.

Hatred or misery, empathy,compassion or caring, are all perfect expressions of oneness, aka unconditional being.
When you say "infinite", the mind make the concept of "you" to be "too complex", and it is otherwise.

"infinite" means "too large, more than the galaxys on the universe, bla bla bla". And that is NOT what you are.

You are not "finite", but neither "infinite".

Just to clarify.

Bye.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:30 am Let us IMAGINE that what you are saying here "eodnhoj" was true, now SO WHAT?



Also, to you, is absolutely EVERY thing relative to the observer?
1. Since when did truth not result in a "so what?" Pragmatism never allows one to escape personal desire or whim thus is unpragmatic.
WHY NOT just answer the ACTUAL question posed to you instead?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm 2. The observer observing the observer is the observer relative to itself thus no distinction occurs and the observer becomes formless; relativity self-negates under self-referentiality thus leaving "no-thingness" or the "absence of distinction" as absolute.
Okay, but, AGAIN, so what?
1. I just did.

2. Because it shows you are chasing after nothing when asking the question "so what?"
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:37 am
Age wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm

1. Since when did truth not result in a "so what?" Pragmatism never allows one to escape personal desire or whim thus is unpragmatic.
WHY NOT just answer the ACTUAL question posed to you instead?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:11 pm 2. The observer observing the observer is the observer relative to itself thus no distinction occurs and the observer becomes formless; relativity self-negates under self-referentiality thus leaving "no-thingness" or the "absence of distinction" as absolute.
Okay, but, AGAIN, so what?
1. I just did.
You just, supposedly, did 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:37 am 2. Because it shows you are chasing after nothing when asking the question "so what?"
But I am NOT chasing after nothing. That is just a Truly ABSURD Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

What I am seeking, from YOU, is SOME 'thing'.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: "Being" as Unconditional

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:37 am
Age wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:55 am

WHY NOT just answer the ACTUAL question posed to you instead?


Okay, but, AGAIN, so what?
1. I just did.
You just, supposedly, did 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:37 am 2. Because it shows you are chasing after nothing when asking the question "so what?"
But I am NOT chasing after nothing. That is just a Truly ABSURD Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

What I am seeking, from YOU, is SOME 'thing'.
1. What I just did.

2. The totality of being is indefinite as there is no contrast, thingness is relative and as relative is transient; you are chasing after the transient and in doing so are chasing your tail thus going nowhere. In going no-where you seek nothing.
Post Reply