Dontaskme wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am
You have to retract your claim 'the fictional story of I [empirical]'
The normal basis of the empirical "I" is based on empirical facts that can be proven.
If I [empirical] say, 'I am eating an apple' that can be easily proven.
The empirical "I" is based on knowledge, a fiction arising now here... Nowhere by no one or thing.
You are nowhere and no thing arising herenow...as and through the mind body experience...the action figure... a puppet with no strings attached.
I Am is everything and nothing...eating an apple is a fictional story within that which in reality is everything and nothing.
You are still shifty, looks like shiftiness is already your inherent nature.
Note I have already defined what is 'fiction'
Fiction is any story or setting that is derived from imagination—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.
If E-you [i.e. empirical you] are eating an apple in front of 10,000 people and telecasted live to the whole world, E-you would state 'I am eating an apple'.
That is a provable fact.
How can that be a fiction or fictional story?
As such the empirical "I" or the 'you' that is eating the apple is a real and a fact.
The empirical "I" is not based on merely knowledge alone.
If you have a toothache, you will tell the dentist 'I have pain from this molar.'
Thus you have direct experience of the empirical "I".
Therefore E-you cannot claim the empirical "I" do not exists.
Can you confirm this is true?
The various issues with the "I" are the following;
-the empirical "I"
can think, cognize and hallucinate with its empirical brain.
1. A problem arises when the empirical "I" idealized there is a permanent "I" that can survives after physical death with eternal life or reincarnate/reborn some other forms.
This is also a type of hallucination [say 60%]
This you agree there is no such independent I re Descartes' dualism.
2. Another problem is when the empirical "I" thinks and perceives itself as independent and separate from the objects that it is observing, i.e. another form of dualism.
This is another type of hallucination [say 40%]
This is the philosophical contention between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical anti-Realism. I am with Philosophical anti-realism because the empirical "I" is part & parcel, and interdependent with reality.
You do agree with this dualism in way but your explanation is way off when you insists the empirical "I" and the things it perceives are merely fictional story.
Your problem is you don't have depth and width in your thinking, thus ending up being shifty and conflating most of the time on this issue.
3. The major problem emerging from the real empirical "I" is when the empirical-I hallucinates
an Absolute Reality [aka God] beyond 1 and 2 above and insists that is the ultimate reality. This is hallucination of the highest order, i.e. 99%.
I have proven God is moot, a non-starter and an impossibility to be real.
The reason why the empirical-I hallucinates such an Absolute Reality aka God is due to the terrible existential psychological states within that empirical-I.
This is proven from psychiatric evidences of people experiencing God or they are God.
From the above, I have shown the empirical-I exists and its facts are be easily verifiable.
The idea of an Absolute Reality aka God and whatever the label, is the mother of all illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the highest order. Thus it is unreal and a fake.
Whilst such is a transcendental illusion, unreal and a fake, such an idealization aka hallucination is very critical to the majority to deal with a terrible existential psychological problem but it has its other side of enabling and compelling some believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.
Thus my point is,
the empirical "I" exists empirically and is central i.e. the most real [not absolutely real].
I don't think it effective to proceed to further arguments until we have resolve the above issues.
You are engaging in a mother of illusion while you are "falsely" accusing others of creating fictional stories.