This one line response seems generally repetitive to your others. It isn’t obvious to me that you are making an effort to address my challenge to your claim that ‘experience itself is certain to exist’. If you would like to address that please do, otherwise it seems that we are done.
David_Allen
Karma: 304
I believe that the answer depends on the perspective I adopt. This is the answer that makes sense from my current perspective.
If I model what I understand of your perspective within myself I would say that of course all my learning proceeds from some form of sensory experience, other claims are nonsensical.
With another model: The brain structures related to learning depend on more than just sensory experience, they also depend on the action of our DNA, gene networks, the limits of energy availability along with many other factors.
But why does the answer have to sensical from your perspective?
With another model: There is a process called MUP which is imparts knowledge in any form to the human mind. This is a process that by definition is any possible process not included by ‘sensory experience’ as defined by shiftedShapes. In other words MUP is any possible process, or perspective on a process that leads to learning beyond your claims about ‘sensory experience’. Not being about to think of any examples of MUP does not disprove that MUP exists.
With another model: Blue hat.
I also believe that there are many things that we would agree on; my arguments are just an indication that I currently find certain aspects of this topic interesting to argue about—mind expanding. :)
I want to make the case, though, that experience itself is neither “certain to exist”, nor “uncertain to exist”. I think that “experience itself” is fundamental to Dasein, and that therefore cannot be subject to either certainty nor uncertainty.
I am happy to hold my arguments against certainty for shiftedShapes—however I will now make similar arguments against your claim that ‘”experience itself” is fundamental to dasein’.
The identification of a fundamental nature of Dasein requires a perspective and so is contingent on that perspective, and presumably on the limited access that perspective has to the thing it identifies as Dasein.
I will offer a competing view. Dasein is only fundamentally ‘blue hat’. It feels obviously ‘blue hat’ to me; without ‘blue hat’ it would not be Dasein; nothing else about it is essential.
Presumably neither of our claims change the actual nature of what we are attempting to refer to when we say Dasein. Dasein and our conceptions of it are concepts generated by and within… well, by and within our Dasein in some limited sense.
The problem with both of our claims is then sense in which we are attempting to establish a description as a matter-of-fact. We are implying a universal perspective from which our claims can be understood to be true. Such a perspective seems inaccessible to me, so I will treat this kind of attribution as an error, perhaps as a ‘not even wrong’.
So I agree that experience itself is neither “certain to exist”, nor “uncertain to exist”, but in the same mode I would add that “experience itself” (or “blue hat”) is neither “fundamental to Dasein” nor “non-fundamental to Dasein”. At least I would make this assessment when there appears to be an implied universal perspective involved.
If “experience itself” really is a fundamental element of dasein, then, we can think of it as an axiom of the human condition. Since we can only observe from within the human condition, this places the question of the existence of experience beyond proof or disproof, beyond contingency, and therefore beyond certainty or uncertainty.
If you were to say that there is a perspective from within the human condition, from which “experience itself” appears to be a fundamental element of Dasein. I would not argue, it is an ontology we can work with as long as it seems useful. If you were say that this perspective was primary, complete, unquestionable, fundamental, or certain then I am currently tempted to question the basis of your claim, the perspective from which your claim is made, or from which it holds.
Without full access to all possible perspectives of my implementation, how would I know for certain?
I can certainly adopt a perspective that describes how all learning proceeds through my sensory experience. But the identification of this pattern from my adopted limited perspective does not actually exclude other possible perspectives.
I’m not arguing that your model of sensory experience is wrong; I actually believe it has great descriptive value. I’m arguing that it is limited by and dependent on the context from which it appears to emerge.
I am arguing against your claims of certainty, in their various forms.
The map is not the territory. The ‘self-evident’ nature that you identify is a map; it is an artifact of a process. That process, even though it is you in some sense, has only a perspective limited access to what it is to be you.
Within the walls identified by this process you feel justifiably confident in the existence of your experience, in its ‘self-evident’ nature. But yet there is no escape from the territory, which includes the as yet unexamined foundational substrates of your perspective.
Only one perspective is possible: one’s own perspective.
But even one’s own perspective is a dynamic, living and changing perspective; and quite probably it is non-unitary in some ways. We are not locked into the mind we are born with, and the experience that you identify is only a limited and conditional aspect of what goes into the making and modification of the experience of ‘what you think you are’.
Thanks for your excellent response to this Argency. I am using one philosophical perspective to challenge another—which can be a bit tricky—so I hope that you will put up with any misinterpretation on my part.
This sounds to me like Kripkenstein’s Error. You might just as well despair that you also need a method to verify and confirm each of those methods, and a method-confirmation confirmation method… etc, etc. … Surely this infinite regress constitutes a reductio ad absurdum.
I’m challenging the claim that ‘experience itself is certain to exist’ by pointing out that than an identification of existence requires a basis of identification, which at some level of evaluation comes with inherent uncertainty. I’m making an argument against the claimed certainty, and for accepting uncertainty; I’m not making an argument for ‘reductio ad absurdum’.
You’re arguing as though experience is outside and separate to the self...
I don’t intend to give that impression so I will provide another description. When I consider my own experience I am performing an identification; I am interpreting my own condition from a particular basis. Very roughly speaking, this basis is substantially the same as the basis engaged in the ‘experience’ I’m identifying. The identification of ‘self’ and ‘experience’ from the perspective of this basis only captures some limited aspects of what is actually going on. The rest is left unexamined and provides a source of uncertainty to any claim that I might make. There is no avoiding dependence on perspective, even within our own minds.
It is not evident to me that this entanglement of contexts creates the necessary conditions to support a claim such as ‘experience is the only thing that is certain to exist’. If anything, I would generally argue that the lack of independence between the perspectives reduces certainty—which perhaps is related to the value of the outside view.
When we say that we can’t doubt our own sensations, we’re tautologising. It isn’t the case that we might have been able to doubt them, but on balance they seem doubtless—rather, we cannot talk of doubt or being applied to our experiences, since doubt and certainty are themselves experiences.
Even tautologies require a perspective to provide them meaning. It sounds to me that you follow a particular path of evaluation which is something like this (although you might choose different words):
I’m thinking, therefore I’m existing.
I’m thinking about (I’m thinking, therefore I’m existing.) therefore I’m existing.
I’m thinking about (I’m thinking about (I’m thinking, therefore I’m existing.) therefore I’m existing.) therefore I’m existing.′
...
You recognize the pattern and reduce this to the claim, ‘I can be certain that I’m existing’. The problem is that other chains of evaluation would provide different results, even ‘I can’t be certain that I’m existing.’ This is not a good conclusion, but it is probably a fine axiom.
I have no problems with axioms. If you wish to claim as an axiom something like ‘experience itself is certain to exist’, then I will accept your axiom and evaluate your arguments relative to it. But if instead you claim that ‘experience itself is certain to exist’ is a conclusion, then I will argue as I have been, that your claim depends upon the unexamined aspects of the perspective that generated it rendering your claim of ‘certainty’ inherently uncertain.
… So when we say, “every rod has a length” or “I am certain of my experiences”, we’re not offering our conversational partner some contingent fact, rather we are defining our terms for them.
These definitions are actually contingent upon your perspective. It is generally fair for your conversational partner to ask you to describe the basis of your definitions so he can better model your understanding of them.
Nothing can be learned or tested except through sensory experience.
This claim also requires a perspective from which it is identified. The implementation of this perspective is a source of uncertainty if left unexamined.
Thus outside verification is impossible.
There is no need to talk about outside verification. All verification is done from a perspective—it does not limit my argument to assume a ‘sensory experience’ interface for that perspective.
I don’t see how your response supports your claim that ‘experience itself is certain to exist’, which is the claim that I am challenging. Would you try to clarify this for me?
If a means of transmission is only reliable to a certain limited extent then the media transmitted could approach the limits of that channel’s reliability, but never surpass it.
Actually, error free communication can be established over any channel as long as there is some level of signal (plus some other minor requirements).
But perhaps I’m misunderstanding the point you are making?
but the experience itself is certain to exist.
From what perspective is it certain to exist? When you identify ‘the experience’, this identification is an explanation from a particular perspective. By your argument it is subject to uncertainty.
I only see the certainty you refer to when I adopt a perspective that assumes there is no uncertainty in its own basis. For example if you establish as an axiom that ‘primary sensory experience can be confirmed to exist by the experience itself’.
Otherwise I need a method to identify ‘primary sensory experience’, a method to identify ‘the experience’ related to it, and a method to verify that the former can be confirmed to exist by the latter. These methods have their own basis of implementation; which introduce uncertainty if left unexamined.
Thanks for poking at the formicary of philosophy—the concepts of reality, existence, justification, truth, and belief.
My primary tool for dissolving questions is to ask “From what perspective?”. From what perspective do the claims hold? From what perspective are the claims made?
The descriptions of both direct and indirect realism identify the concepts of an external reality and its interpretation by human senses and mind. Manfred in his comment provides some models from this perspective.
When I ask the question “From what perspective?”, I see that these descriptions are from a third person perspective, a human perspective, and so these descriptions are from substantially the same context that that our first person experience of reality comes from. My answer to this question also came from a human perspective, and so is also from substantially the same context… and so forth in a seemingly pointless regression of justification.
From this it seems reasonable to claim that we have an anthropocentric perspective of reality, and every evaluation of our perspective on reality is also substantially anthropocentric.
(But you might say “We can build tools of math and science that provide perspectives that are independent of the human mind.” To which I would respond that these tools were designed by humans, relate to reality as described from a human perspective, and produce results that are translated into the terms of human experience and understanding so that we can comprehend them.)
From this perspective neither direct nor indirect realism describe a universally objective situation, they are actually subjective anthropocentric descriptions. As such we should be able to identify contexts where these descriptions of realism are valid, are invalid, or are even meaningless.
What remains is a question of pragmatics, not of truth; is one of these perspectives on realism more useful than competing perspectives, for the context of current concern?
Gentlemen! Welcome to Rationality Club. The first rule of Rationality Club is: you do not talk about basilisks. The second rule of Rationality Club is: you DO NOT even allude to basilisks!
Existence is reserved for things we have access to. Possible existence implies possible access. Actual existence implies actual access. Non-existence implies no possible access.
It is certainly possible to describe things outside of all possible access. For example as mentioned above we can talk about “non-actual or nonexistent things” and “possible worlds” that we can’t access because they are counterfactual or because they are a separate reality. But when we talk about things beyond all possible access, we are just making up stories, and we can say anything. For example: All non-existent things are blue, and they are also simultaneously non-blue.
This reshapes the question to “Can something exist even if we don’t have access to it.”.
Although I am tempted to say that it certainly seems possible, I believe that the best approach is not to make any claims about anything beyond our access.
I’m exploring some elements of the philosophy of existence (ontology) and while reading about ontological arguments I was reminded again about the description of God as the “unmoved mover”.
It occurred to me that although we can’t say anything meaningful about the ultimate origin of motion, we can describe the mover that is not changed by the motion from a mathematical perspective, it is called relativity—a static description of dynamic systems.
Everything that exists does so in some definite quantity. Existence is that property of conceptual referents such that they necessarily exist in some definite quantity.
I’m confused by this mix of referring to things that exist and referring to existence as a property of conceptual referents. Are you saying that conceptual referents are the things that exist in finite and definite quantity? Or are you saying something else?
definite quantity
I see that you are claiming that existing things are bounded in some quantifiable way, but you do not seem to account for the inherent uncertainty of determining quantities.
The identification of a definite quantity requires a quantifier. Some uncertainty comes from the implementation of this quantifier; if it is incorrect then the identified quantity would be wrong. You could handle this by verifying the implementation of the quantifier, but that only pushes the uncertainty into the context of verification. To use the quantifier you must choose to halt the regression of verification and accept the remaining uncertainty.
Additional uncertainty comes from the choice of the quantifier. The quantifier used is one choice from a large and possibly infinite set of possible quantifiers. Not all of these quantifiers would provide the same answer—or even provide a “reasonable” answer, for example by replying with “hat” instead of a number like “2”.
For example: I scoop up a handful of gravel from a beach. I want to count the stones in my hand. But my hand contains all kinds of stuff; rocks and dirt from the size of dust to a couple inches across, bits of wood, shell, and other organic debris. Out of this mess which bits of the stuff are stones? It depends on how I quantify stones; is it by volume, apparent area, mass, composition, color, texture… there are many possible measurements, and combination of measurements. I choose one way of counting stones and get a quantity of 5, but it could have been 1 or 1000 or “blue hat” if I had made other choices.
Given this uncertainty, how can I know that only a “definite quantity” of stones exist in my hand?
It would be great to see you here. Your profile has you in Berkeley, are you visiting Portland?
Meetup : Portland Oregon
The more recent meta-analysis appears to support their initial conclusion.
If you need a place to stay in Boise I might also be able to help with that.
Let’s say that ontology is the study of that which exists, epistemology the study of knowledge, phenomenology the study of appearances, and methodology the study of technique.
Thanks for the description. That would place the core of my claims as an ontology, with implications for how to approach epistemology, and phenomenology.
I wouldn’t call that meaning, unless you’re going to explicitly say that there are meaning-qualia in your antenna-photon system. Otherwise it’s just cause and effect. True meaning is an aspect of consciousness. Functionalist “meaning” is based on an analogy with meaning-driven behavior in a conscious being.
I recognize that my use of meaning is not normative. I won’t defend this use because my model for it is still sloppy, but I will attempt to explain it.
The antenna-photon interaction that you refer to as cause and effect I would refer to as a change in the dynamics of the system, as described from a particular perspective.
To refer to this interaction as cause and effect requires that some aspect of the system be considered the baseline; the effect then is how the state of the system is modified by the influencing entity. Such a perspective can be adopted and might even be useful. But the perspective that I am holding is that the antenna and the photon are interacting. This is a process that modifies both systems. The “meaning” that is formed is unique to the system; it depends on the particulars of the systems and their interactions. Within the system that “meaning” exists in terms of the dynamics allowed by the nature of the system. When we describe that “meaning” we do so in the terms generated from an external perspective, but that description will only capture certain aspects of the “meaning” actually generated within the system.
How does this description compare with your concept of “meaning-qualia”?
Does your philosophy have a name? Like “functionalist perspectivism”?
I think that both functionalism and perspectivism are poor labels for what I’m attempting to describe; because both philosophies pay too much attention to human consciousness and neither are set to explain the nature of existence generally.
For now I’m calling my philosophy the interpretive context hypothesis (ICH), at least until I discover a better name or a better model.
If you have a point then lay it out. Set a context, make your claims and challenge mine. Expose your beliefs and accept the risks.
I lay out my claims to you because I want you to challenge them from your perspective. I will not follow your leading questions to your chosen point of philosophical ambush.