Either

[bahman]

Experience is related to matter activity. Matter either creates experience or it creates qualia which this can be experienced by an experiencer. Which one do you think is the correct one? And why?

[Troll]

One never comes to regard the monstrous branches of an old oak, holding up its bunched leaves wildly, almost in a berserker fashion, without seeing something that could be cut down for wood chips. The so-called quality of the tree is the support for getting at the thing that can be actively used. It is the flowing of what is as what it is. One can always hold back what is, and split it into the symbol of the active parts, the curvature, extension, colours, abstract shapes and so on. The raw form of the shapes, in the same way, is the flow of the being that allows us to guard over what we are to actively make use of, or, say, climb, in the case of the noble oak.

[Impenitent]

the thing in itself is unknowable

-Imp

[Philosophy Explorer]

the thing in itself is unknowable

-Imp

Yup

PhilX

[bahman]

One never comes to regard the monstrous branches of an old oak, holding up its bunched leaves wildly, almost in a berserker fashion, without seeing something that could be cut down for wood chips. The so-called quality of the tree is the support for getting at the thing that can be actively used. It is the flowing of what is as what it is. One can always hold back what is, and split it into the symbol of the active parts, the curvature, extension, colours, abstract shapes and so on. The raw form of the shapes, in the same way, is the flow of the being that allows us to guard over what we are to actively make use of, or, say, climb, in the case of the noble oak.

I don't understand how what you said is related to OP.

[bahman]

the thing in itself is unknowable

-Imp

Well, perhaps one day one finds an argument for this.

[Impenitent]

the thing in itself is unknowable

-Imp

Well, perhaps one day one finds an argument for this.

perhaps one day Kant would suggest it

-Imp

[bahman]

the thing in itself is unknowable

-Imp

Well, perhaps one day one finds an argument for this.

perhaps one day Kant would suggest it

-Imp

"the thing in itself is unknowable" refutes itself.

[Impenitent]

Well, perhaps one day one finds an argument for this.

perhaps one day Kant would suggest it

-Imp

"the thing in itself is unknowable" refutes itself.

actually, it doesn't

you have perceptions, nothing besides

are your perceptions of an external thing? prove it

-Imp

[bahman]

perhaps one day Kant would suggest it

-Imp

"the thing in itself is unknowable" refutes itself.

actually, it doesn't

you have perceptions, nothing besides

are your perceptions of an external thing? prove it

-Imp

Nothing cannot affect you. Therefore there is something.

[Impenitent]

"the thing in itself is unknowable" refutes itself.

actually, it doesn't

you have perceptions, nothing besides

are your perceptions of an external thing? prove it

-Imp

Nothing cannot affect you. Therefore there is something.

all you have is the impression, that does not prove externality...

-Imp

[bahman]

actually, it doesn't

you have perceptions, nothing besides

are your perceptions of an external thing? prove it

-Imp

Nothing cannot affect you. Therefore there is something.

all you have is the impression, that does not prove externality...

-Imp

Do you believe that nothing can affect you?

[Impenitent]

Nothing cannot affect you. Therefore there is something.

all you have is the impression, that does not prove externality...

-Imp

Do you believe that nothing can affect you?

"something" could be a hallucination...

-Imp

[jayjacobus]

Experience is related to matter activity. Matter either creates experience or it creates qualia which this can be experienced by an experiencer. Which one do you think is the correct one? And why?

Qualia is the consciousness' reaction to a sense but a sense is a frame of reference for reality. This is why we have senses. We need references to understand reality. Neither does matter create experience. But it is the referrent(s) for the senses.

[jayjacobus]

Experience is related to matter activity. Matter either creates experience or it creates qualia which this can be experienced by an experiencer. Which one do you think is the correct one? And why?

Qualia is the consciousness' reaction to a sense but a sense is a frame of reference for reality. This is why we have senses. We need references to understand reality. Neither does matter create experience. But it is the referrent(s) for the senses.

I didn't say that quite right. Let me restate the last two sentences. Events through the senses create experiences. Without events there won't be anything to experience and without senses there won't be any experiences to experience.