How do we know what existence is?

[Les Sleeth]

Another split between the logical and the empirical to make knowledge impossible.

The "key premises," I believe in are axiomatic. Not the Euclidean axiom. I mean that it is self-evident and irrefutable--and yes, experience helps to confirm that; the fact that we experience things is what makes the axioms self-evident.

Consciousness is such an axiom--it is obvious when you are conscious; and if you wish to deny that you are conscious, you will need to use your consciousness in your refutation.

Existence is such an axiom. It is obvious that existence is all around us. Denial of it requires its use.

Which is dependant upon which? Consciousness requires something to be conscious of: Existence. Consciousness depends on existence. The corollary axiom of both is identity (as in the Law of Identity.)

This means that if anything is to exist it must be a thing. It must be definite. Essentially: Reality conforms to identity in every aspect.

Logic is the noncontradictory recoginition of identity. Logic recognizes reality...yes, through experience, but experience has limits and can only be used up to a point. Without logical reasoning we wouldn't be able to fathom the distance from the Earth to the moon. We made the first trip to the moon without previous experience--it required from serious inductive logic to complete. And it worked out just fine.

These axioms are neither distinctly experiential nor distinctly "logical." Experience means nothing without logic--and I'm not saying that logic can EVER be isolated from experience, and I'm not saying that it is more important than experience.

God would have to live within this existence. God's capabilities would have serious limits thanks to what we know is logically true. (Remember the corollary axiom of identity.)

What we know to be logically true about reality means that we know reality's identity. We may not have seen every star in the universe, but we can still know reality's identity.

The products of logic will always be the extension of empirical observations. ALWAYS. Thus, a proof that God doesn't exist, in my way of doing things, will always mean a logical proof than can extend what we've observed here on Earth to every inch of the universe.

Going back to what God is. I chose the Christian God for a reason. God, according to them, has capabilities far past those of any human--my proof doesn't just deny that that God doesn't exist, it proves which capabilities in the world of the contingent are possible.

Humans can reach all these possible capabilities--because we are rational beings (we can recognize and conceptualize reality because reality has identity and we have the tools to recognize such identity.)

This is quite a significant understanding of reality. It means that if "God" really does exist, "God" would match humans in capability. And, really, that is the same as wondering if there are aliens on other planets...so what?

And when you've seen an idea work along with your experience, do you stop testing it? Or do you go on forever? Are you to be uncertain forever? The question is: When do you stop?

I have already said I believe we can predict from facts with logic to tell us certain things. It is a great tool. But I will never agree that we know anything about reality from logic alone until, that is, we've confirmed what logic has indicated with experience. And I certainly don't agree "experience means nothing without logic." After meditating for thirty years and learning to enjoy a still, purely experiential mind sometimes, I can say unequivocally that experience means a great deal without logic; further, if I had to sacrifice one of them, I would keep experience without hesitation!

Regarding ". . . when you've seen an idea work along with your experience, do you stop testing it? Or do you go on forever? Are you to be uncertain forever? The question is: When do you stop?" . . .I don't think you have been listening to me. My answer is I never stop because new experience may adjust what I believe is true. Every single thing I believe I "know" is still, and always will be, open for correction by new experience. So in contrast to what you've said about the finality of knowing, I don't think that is how knowing is at all. It is a degree of certainty experience has established within consciousness, and it can never be more than that.

Mr. Rainer. It has been interesting, but I am bowing out of this debate. I don't agree with a single important thing you said, and when two people are so far apart in their view of reality I don't think we are going to make points with each other. If you keep posting in threads I'm sure we'll have opportunities to toss about these issues in other contexts.

 

[Rainer]

Mr. Rainer. It has been interesting, but I am bowing out of this debate. I don't agree with a single important thing you said, and when two people are so far apart in their view of reality I don't think we are going to make points with each other.

I've been making the points only out of response to yours...necessarily I would have to understand what you are saying. I don't think you listened to me at all.

You never showed how experience is different from logic and all you've shown is that experience will NEVER reach certainty.


I'm sure we'll meet again. But my point stands, the logic and experience dichotomy does not exist.

Also, I doubt that you've ever been up against the ideas I've raised--so don't act like you really know what is going on. It is evident that you don't know because you haven't asked me the questions that matter--you've tagged me as a plain "rationalist," and left me at that even though nothing I've said has anything to do with "rationalism."

**** Rationalism...there.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You never showed how experience is different from logic and all you've shown is that experience will NEVER reach certainty.

I'm posting again because I don't want you to go away upset.

Regarding your points. Actually I did talk about how experience is different from logic. In fact, I offered you "Les'" version of what I believe it is a couple of posts ago. One of the reasons I am dropping out of this debate is because you seem to be either ignoring what I am saying or you don't get it. I can't tell because when you answer me you don't address my points in ways I can see if you understood what I said, or if are giving an answer that is meant to refute it. For example:

I'm sure we'll meet again. But my point stands, the logic and experience dichotomy does not exist.

I have never liked talking about the main problem of epistomology as a dicotomy. The question for me is about priority, i.e., what to prioritize first. My life experiences have convinced me that experience "works" better as the first priority when it comes to knowing. If I were given a math test, or asked to solve problems with my brain alone, then for that time period I would elevate logic to top status. But once I was done, I'd reestablish my experiential nature as top dog.

Also, I doubt that you've ever been up against the ideas I've raised--so don't act like you really know what is going on. It is evident that you don't know because you haven't asked me the questions that matter--you've tagged me as a plain "rationalist," and left me at that even though nothing I've said has anything to do with "rationalism." **** Rationalism...there.

It seems you are feeling insulted; if I have been too intolerant I hope you will forgive me. As far as "ever having been up against" the ideas you raised, don't fool yourself. I wasn't prepared to talk about Kant because I haven't thought about his ideas since I dismissed them decades ago. But nothing you said was new to me, I've heard it and debated against it many times.

Keep in mind that my use of the term "rationalism" only applies to how a person comes to "know" something . . . I use it purely in the context of epistomology.

With that in mind, in our debate I caught you red-handed giving your view of reason as above all else (i.e., for arriving at what's known), and if you understand anything then you have to know that is about as rationalistic as it gets. I will admit that I am a bit loose with the term. I use it to apply to any epistomology which is not concerned enough about experiencing what one is philosophizing about. In our talks, you plug in major concepts that are very much in dispute like they are self-evident. I am sorry, but there is no way I am going to follow a lengthy reasoning process based on premises that haven't been proven true.

So I decided that since we seem at an impasse here, the best thing to do would be to let it drop and see if in other contexts we do better.

 

[Rainer]

I'm posting again because I don't want you to go away upset.

I just want you to understand that I am upset that you are going to leave at what I consider to be an immature juncture--as I think additional meaningful things have yet to be said. But it is your choice.

Regarding your points. Actually I did talk about how experience is different from logic. In fact, I offered you "Les'" version of what I believe it is a couple of posts ago. One of the reasons I am dropping out of this debate is because you seem to be either ignoring what I am saying or you don't get it. I can't tell because when you answer me you don't address my points in ways I can see if you understood what I said, or if are giving an answer that is meant to refute it.

Then let us be clear. I understood what you were talking about. I have a certain way of debating--I remove the things I consider to be unimportant. I'll illustrate that point later on.

I have never liked talking about the main problem of epistomology as a dicotomy. The question for me is about priority, i.e., what to prioritize first. My life experiences have convinced me that experience "works" better as the first priority when it comes to knowing. If I were given a math test, or asked to solve problems with my brain alone, then for that time period I would elevate logic to top status. But once I was done, I'd reestablish my experiential nature as top dog.

Some people called this empirical vs. logical to be a light distinction, but as it is employed it becomes a dichotomy.

A dichotomy in the sense that you will take that distinction to the extreme anytime a person wishes to reach for certian knowledge. I submit that you have a common psychological-epistemological hatred of certainty and of knowledge.

The "light distinction" or "problem of epistemology" or whatever you wish to call it, becomes, when taken to the extreme (which you have been liable to do) a dichotomy. Its purpose is to eliminate the possibility of certainty.

It seems you are feeling insulted; if I have been too intolerant I hope you will forgive me. As far as "ever having been up against" the ideas you raised, don't fool yourself. I wasn't prepared to talk about Kant because I haven't thought about his ideas since I dismissed them decades ago. But nothing you said was new to me, I've heard it and debated against it many times.

And I have a peculiar feeling now that some think I'm for Kant's ideas.

I've named Kant as being the root cause of the modern hatred of knowledge. Nothing more.

I'm glad to hear that you dismissed Kant, but unhappy to hear your other ideas that are similar and neo-Kantian in nature.

Keep in mind that my use of the term "rationalism" only applies to how a person comes to "know" something . . . I use it purely in the context of epistomology.

If I had said continental rationalism I can see how you might object. I said "rationalism," in the sense you mean it. I understand what you mean. And no, I don't really think the world can be seen as either rational or empirical--in a general, broad sense.

With that in mind, in our debate I caught you red-handed giving your view of reason as above all else (i.e., for arriving at what's known), and if you understand anything then you have to know that is about as rationalistic as it gets.

Yes, reason must be used above all else because reality conforms to identity. Our observations of it exist for lower-level concepts, however, we can use inductive logic to arrive at higher level concepts that do indeed conform to reality.

This involves rather complex processes which we might some day come to discuss.

In our talks, you plug in major concepts that are very much in dispute like they are self-evident. I am sorry, but there is no way I am going to follow a lengthy reasoning process based on premises that haven't been proven true.

"Major," concepts indeed. But we can use them broadly. Existence is under major investigation by everyone, as is consciousness.

There may be one hundred angles to take on consciousness--as it holds a lot of depth. There might be hundreds of acceptable definitions of consciousness. However, there is a common element between definitions and between angles and layers and systems and all that...the common element is what I use in order to encampass all of consciousness--both known and unknown.

Same goes for existence.

Concepts can get increasingly complex and exact, however, its foundation (i.e., definition) will never change; that is, the definition allows further study, and regardless of what that future study reveals, the foundation will NEVER change. This foundation is all we need to know to engage in philosophy and reach truths about consciousness, existence and their relations.

They are self-evident. And I don't mean "self-evident," in a rationalist or empiricist fashion.

Now, I have read some things on the subject of consciousness, on what it is, how it is differentiated, how function it serves. Most of the studies lack proper philosophical guidance, and many issues raised can be dissolved, rendering any corresponding solution worthless.

Ultimately, those definitions and studies come to serve the same end: To obfuscate and to cause certainty to be impossible.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I just want you to understand that I am upset that you are going to leave at what I consider to be an immature juncture--as I think additional meaningful things have yet to be said.

I don’t think you realize how far apart we are. For me we are at such odds that we’ve not even been able to keep our discussion on track. I suspect the divergence starts when you speak in the context of past philosophical thought, and then also try to place the ideas I put forth somewhere that’s similarly established. When I tell you I stepped out on my own some time ago and now am reasoning fully from my own accumulated experiences, you nonetheless come back with more such characterizations of my position.

For example, you say “Some people called this empirical vs. logical to be a light distinction, but as it is employed it becomes a dichotomy.” Okay, some people may say that, and may employ it as you say. You go on to suggest, “A dichotomy in the sense that you will take that distinction to the extreme anytime a person wishes to reach for certain knowledge. I submit that you have a common psychological-epistemological hatred of certainty and of knowledge.” Grrrrrrrrrr.

I submit you haven’t understood a thing I’ve said because you think you already “know” things which you don’t really know. Due to that your mind is set hard in certain ways that I can’t get around.

I doubt if you are familiar with the “experientialism” I have been trying to describe to you. For one thing, a big part of it derives from my thirty years of practicing meditation where a major aspect of the effort is to free oneself from the incessant chatter of the mind. If the mind is still, what do you think happens? Does one lose the ability to understand? Does one still know what one knows? Does one become an imbecile?

Well, what happens (and it takes a lot of practice to get good at this) is all that one “knows” and “understands” sort of blends into one conscious experience. At that time one can contemplate reality with that unified experience and “see” things in a new light. Now, if I look back to when my mentality was racing along, always thinking, always judging, always conceptualizing . . . then I can see I was living in a mental world, “in my mind” as I like to say, that I had always assumed represented reality as it was. But with it stilled, I could see in the direct experience of reality, that I didn’t “know” half the stuff I thought I did, nor understand nearly as well as I’d believed.

I now very much prefer such an experientialist approach, when contemplating reality, to the conceptual or “rationalistic” approach. In terms of quality of thinking, I have found that I think even better when my mind is still (i.e., when I start thinking), and when it can go back to being still (i.e., when I am done thinking). In a way, I am suggesting what the practical value is to “be here now”; of letting experience be the teacher, not the mind; of giving the mind the subordinate job of translating experience into ideas for communication purposes, though not mainly for the intent of propagating more conceptualization (since everyone is already doing that), but primarily for the function of furthering the appeal and value of experiential understanding and knowledge.

So are you right to say of my epistemology that, “Its purpose is to eliminate the possibility of certainty. . .”? And is your opinion correct that existential truths “. . . are self-evident”?

Well, I say that the purpose of my epistemology is to eliminate being deluded by my own mentality brainwashing me with the “perfect” reasons for believing something like, for example, that existential truths are intellectually self-evident. If existence is self-evident, it isn’t “intellectually” so. Yep, you guessed it. I’d say one has to stop or at least slow mentality for awhile so one can get a genuine glimpse and feel of existence experientially.

If you are firmly committed to your way of knowing, then mine might seem strange or even way out in left field. So far we’ve not been able to get on the same page about what constitutes knowing. That is why I suggested we give it a rest for now and trade ideas in other contexts and over time.

 

[Rainer]

I am familiar with what you describe. And it reinforces my argument that it you hate knowledge.

Now, different contexts and different times won't help. I've been into these kinds of clashes, it doesn't help.

I have to ask you what knowledge is. What is knowledge?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am familiar with what you describe. And it reinforces my argument that it you hate knowledge.

You are "familiar" with it are you? From personal experience or theoretically?

I love knowledge, and that is why I stay experiential as much as possible. It takes a billion per cent more guts to leave the door open for new info, and to stay open for what reality can teach one, than it does to "decide" everything and then go on one's way merrily ignorant but claiming "I KNOW."

If you want to know what I "hate," it is claims of knowledge that are nothing more than another inexperienced intellect who thinks it knows because it has "figured out the truth." If I could avoid a class of attitude in this life, it would be all the people who think they "know." They are the most arrogant, the most opinionated, the most preachy, the least tolerant, the most tight-assed, the least open, and the absolute WORST thinkers about reality no matter how many facts and what kind of expertise they've managed to get credentialed in. I have met children (quite a few actually) who think better than all the geniuses around. Why? For no other reason I've observed than because the children haven't decided they "know," but instead are just open-mindedly reflecting on what is going on around them.

I have to ask you what knowledge is. What is knowledge?

Do you really want to understand my perspective on what knowledge is? I have already answered that question, but I'll try once more.

If you want to understand how I came to my current, fluid, ongoing, never-ending, forever non-final attitude about knowing, it has been from trying out what works, and also from observing what works for others. That’s it, there’s nothing more to it. If you were advocating to me something that I’d never tried, and that made sense, then I would give it an honest shot. But mental, intellectual “brilliance” has every time proven itself to be nothing but mumbo jumbo whose acceptance by me made me a shadow man. Consequently, I came to opt for realness, for living, for being over imagining, and yes, for experiencing over rationalizing.

Because it “works” is why I cited science to you as an example. How can scientists produce such consistent results if they haven't understood something about the way reality is? Magicians in the past claimed they could make reality produce, but did they? They claimed they "knew" but when it came time to produce using that knowledge, it was all hocus pocus. Being obliged to produce, or at least give an observable demonstration, forces a person to think carefully about what he proposes. But if you never have to demonstrate something is true, then sure, why not advance theories about everything? One idea might be as good as another, right?

Think about it, when did humanity begin to actually produce what they predicted they could produce using stated principles? It was when they put experience into the equation. This cannot possibly be dispute because it is a fact supported by vast amounts of evidence that is all around us in the form of technology. I am not saying that evidence means science methods are the end-all in knowing, I am only pointing to what happened when experience was elevated in importance within the reasoning process.

My views about knowing have been shaped by the successes I and others have had when experience entered the picture and/or was treated as more important to some endeavor. My views about what you have been saying have come from studying the history of philosophy and seeing just how little it produced for over 2000 years compared to what it led to producing in the last 150 years after empiricism was put on the dance card.

So what is knowing? I repeat, it is the degree of certainty established by the extent experience has allowed us to witness something is true. Since knowing is so dependent on experience, and since we cannot predict what new experiences might be waiting around the corner, it means that we can never say “I know” about reality absolutely and forever. What we can say is, “I know how it has been.” I have made peace with that. Your conclusion I hate knowing is merely the perspective of someone who thinks knowing is something absolute and final. Well, good luck with theory. I’ll be interested in hearing how you’ve done with it a few decades from now.

 

[Rainer]

I remember all the points you've made, you never addressed the nature of knoweldge point blank. That is all I wanted from you. I've understood you all along.

You can never escape absolutism and certainty. Never.

You have absolute certainty that this system of experientialism works. Yet the system denies that same sort of certainty.

Experientialism is a self-contradiction.

In addition, your case for its validity rests on the same standards for validity as contained within the system itself--meaning that it is a circular argument. You need external standards to validate the system with certainty--which you don't have.

And besides contradicting itself, experientialism is most blatantly wrong when juxtaposed with more accurate and scientific epistemology.

 

[Les Sleeth]

IYou can never escape absolutism and certainty. Never.

You have absolute certainty that this system of experientialism works. Yet the system denies that same sort of certainty.

Experientialism is a self-contradiction.

Untrue! I have never expressed "absolute certainty" about experientialism. It like all else I "know" is open to adjustment. It is simply what I have found to have worked best in the course of living my life. It seems to me you are turning sophist to win this debate. I'd hoped you would see I'm not trying to win anything. I am just trying to explain why I like the experientialist way of knowing, and why in my own life I've rejected the "reason first" approach you still believe in.

In addition, your case for its validity rests on the same standards for validity as contained within the system itself--meaning that it is a circular argument. You need external standards to validate the system with certainty--which you don't have.

You aren't making sense. You've forgotten that my test for validity is what "works." How is that circular? It is, in fact, exactly that external standard you say is needed. The exception is with certain inner development which has no "external" standards that can validate it.

And besides contradicting itself, experientialism is most blatantly wrong when juxtaposed with more accurate and scientific epistemology.

Science IS experientialist, or at least more experientialist than pure intellectualism. I'd grant that it isn't as radically experientialist as I like things. But then, I don't know very many people who'd be willing to put in thirty years of mind-stilling work in order to practice what I'm recommending either.

Look, keep on trying out what you believe. It is your life, run it as you see fit. I am approaching reality as I do because of having tried many things, and finding some work better than others. What you hear from me is simply what I've had the best successes with.

 

[Rainer]

Rest assured, I'm not playing the Sophist card to win.

I have an integrated view of things, and it clashes with experientialism and "rationalism." I say integrated because I want you to know that I haven't switched sides, I've merely taken another angle and added depth.

You write that experientialism itself is open to rearrangement--according to experientialism, that rearrangement can occur at some yet any degree.

I'm sure you've heard that analogy of the chicken that based its belief that the farmer (which had fed it every morning that had preceded this morning) would come out to feed it again, when instead the farmer sloughtered the chicken. This experience contradicted the chicken's conclusion based on past experience to the highest possible degree--the contradicting experience was the diametric opposite of what the chicken had in mind.

Your certainty in experientialism is based on past experience--which is flawed, as you can see.

Next, in order to understand the certainty you have in your hypothesis, you must factor in the degree of uncertainty in your hypothesis based on the highest possible degree of contradicting experience. Since the chance of your hypothesis being completely contradicted by experience always exists, you must factor it in. (BTW, this is how you've presented your views.) And when you extend it to experientialism as a whole, you will see that after you factor in the possibility of it being completely wrong, you've negated the entire system.

You aren't making sense. You've forgotten that my test for validity is what "works." How is that circular? It is, in fact, exactly that external standard you say is needed. The exception is with certain inner development which has no "external" standards that can validate it.

The pragmatic standard of what "works" is based on the practicality of the system--or, only validated by the practice of the system--or, only validated by how it is field tested. That is, you need to place experience as supreme in order to assume that "what works" is a proper standard. You are trying to validate experientialism with its self-contained standards--this is just blatantly wrong.

You need something metaphysical. Here is my validation for MY KIND of reasoning:

Validation of logic and reason = Identity as part of reality.

And besides contradicting itself, experientialism is most blatantly wrong when juxtaposed with more accurate and scientific epistemology.

Science IS experientialist, or at least more experientialist than pure intellectualism.

Did I even suggest that "intellectualism" is primary to "experientialism"? Moreover, did I even suggest that that is a valid distinction??

I am a champion for neither. Remember that.

Science is systematic and rational. Not continental rationalism. A different kind of rational. Reality conforms to identity--reason is our way of interpreting reality.


A pencil in water appears to bend. Do this several times in different kinds of water. Experience will tell you that logic is false--that is, reality does not conform to identity. A pencil's identity is that of a rigid wooden structure that fractures when bent...but it bends and does not break in water, as it appears. If you place experience primary to reason, you will conclude that identity is nonexistent in reality--that the pencil magically bends and contradicts identity (and reason). If you place reason above experience, you will say that the pencil does NOT bend at all--and that something else is happening. The scientific approach is to understand what is occurring, to resolve the apparent contradiction with the reality of a pencil.

And we did that.

In the process, we discovered that our perception of the pencil bending was EXACTLY what one ought to see. After reason resolved the issue, we know that no contradiction with reality occurred and that experience did not contradict reason.




You've had experience validate experientialism...which took 30 years apparently. I know you won't EVER leave it behind. Nothing will make you change it at this point.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm sure you've heard that analogy of the chicken that based its belief that the farmer (which had fed it every morning that had preceded this morning) would come out to feed it again, when instead the farmer sloughtered the chicken. This experience contradicted the chicken's conclusion based on past experience to the highest possible degree--the contradicting experience was the diametric opposite of what the chicken had in mind.

Your certainty in experientialism is based on past experience--which is flawed, as you can see.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the flaw. In fact, you’ve made my case for me. That chicken may have thought he knew breakfast was coming the next morning, but he didn’t know did he? It was his mistake to assume that the past automatically determines the future, because no one can see the future. The chicken thought he knew, but he didn’t really know anything except what had gone on in the past.

Surely you understand that it is humanity’s past experience with reality that has given us our understandings today. Do you think we understand what we have absolutely no experience with? So-called universal laws are only considered that because things have consistently behaved a certain way. We only know light speed is constant in a vacuum, or that people die, or that alcohol impairs driving because that’s how it has proven to be in the past.

I still think the problem you are having is not being able to properly differentiate experience from the interpretation of experience. Nothing about the chicken’s experience lied to him. The problem was his mentality making assumptions about the way reality works. Here is how I would be in that chicken’s place; notice I clearly distinguish between what I know, and how I interpret:

1. Knowing: If asked if I “know” I will be fed in the morning, I would answer, “My experience has been that every morning so far I’ve been fed, but I don’t know if tomorrow morning I will be fed.
2. Interpretation: If you ask me what logic tells me will happen tomorrow then I’d say, “I can only base my logic on the evidence I now have. I haven’t seen a bloody axe, I haven’t heard about any chickens being killed . . . for God’s sake I didn’t even know Farmer Joe eats chickens ! The ONLY think I do know is that he has been great to me, feeding me every morning nice delicious handfuls of seed (which thinking about now is making my beak water, mmmmmm ). So, with the evidence I have, it is logical to say that most likely I will be fed tomorrow morning.”

So knowing is what experience has established, and interpretation is what logic does (hopefully with as many facts as are available).

Next, in order to understand the certainty you have in your hypothesis, you must factor in the degree of uncertainty in your hypothesis based on the highest possible degree of contradicting experience. Since the chance of your hypothesis being completely contradicted by experience always exists, you must factor it in. (BTW, this is how you've presented your views.) And when you extend it to experientialism as a whole, you will see that after you factor in the possibility of it being completely wrong, you've negated the entire system.

Are we talking about working in the lab, or living life. If you think I’ve been talking about the epistemology of science, I haven’t. More stringent rules are needed for verification in science because other researchers may want to rely on what people claim they have discovered, or because possibly a discovery is going to be used by the public, or it’s going be the basis for obtaining grant money, etc.

I have been talking about how a human being decides what he knows in his existence for himself. For that I don’t need all that nonsense about factoring in my degree of certainty, or contradictory experience. I know what I am most sure of, what I least certain of, and everything in between. Of course, somebody living “in their mind” might get all confused trying to figure out what he is and isn’t sure of, but not the person living in the experience of now.

The pragmatic standard of what "works" is based on the practicality of the system--or, only validated by the practice of the system--or, only validated by how it is field tested. That is, you need to place experience as supreme in order to assume that "what works" is a proper standard. You are trying to validate experientialism with its self-contained standards--this is just blatantly wrong.

I pay attention when I hit a ball on my racquet. When I hit it on the periphery of the racquet, I don’t hit as hard as (and break more strings than) when I hit in the middle of the racquet. I can therefore say it “works” best to hit in the center, and I find that out by paying attention (experience) when I hit. This is just being conscious, there’s nothing mysterious or complicated about what I am saying in regard to pragmatism.

A pencil in water appears to bend. Do this several times in different kinds of water. Experience will tell you that logic is false--that is, reality does not conform to identity. A pencil's identity is that of a rigid wooden structure that fractures when bent...but it bends and does not break in water, as it appears. If you place experience primary to reason, you will conclude that identity is nonexistent in reality--that the pencil magically bends and contradicts identity (and reason). If you place reason above experience, you will say that the pencil does NOT bend at all--and that something else is happening. The scientific approach is to understand what is occurring, to resolve the apparent contradiction with the reality of a pencil.
In the process, we discovered that our perception of the pencil bending was EXACTLY what one ought to see. After reason resolved the issue, we know that no contradiction with reality occurred and that experience did not contradict reason.

You are majorly confused about experience and reason. You say, “If you place experience primary to reason, you will conclude that identity is nonexistent in reality--that the pencil magically bends and contradicts identity (and reason).”

What part of you “concluded” something? It certainly wasn’t perception. How do you find out what your reason “concluded” about your perception is incorrect? You take the pencil out of the water to see the pencil is still straight. With enough information, your logic can then give the correct answer. Without no more information than that one experience of seeing the pencil appear bent, reason is left starving for what it needs to explain the observation. Experience is linked to information because it has been proven over and over that the most reliable info is that which someone has personally experienced (seen, touched, tasted, smelled, felt, etc.).

Now, that doesn’t mean in trying to find out if something is true, one won’t have theories and hypotheses. And of course, good induction is part of the theoretical process. But as Ayer said, the entire purpose of a hypothesis is the anticipation of experience (i.e., that will confirm the hypothesis). So even if one does theorize, nothing is “known” until theoreticals are observed actually occurring.

I honestly don’t know why you are fighting me so strongly. Nothing I am saying is all that radical. Even to say I am going to devote more of my consciousness to experiencing reality than to thinking about it is not all that strange. I claim that by prioritizing my consciousness that way, it helps me think more clearly when I do want to think.

I have practiced both thinking more than experiencing, and experiencing more than thinking. The fact that I now choose the latter approch is because, I say, I have found out it “works” better than the former approach. How can you dispute that?

 

[RingoKid]

accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

I think therefore i feel therefore i know therefore i believe I AM right until proven wrong

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

seek and want for nothing

accept nothing as fact

I concluded all this by experience and observation without knowing anything of kant, quine, chalmers or whoever and without formally studying in any western oriented cultural institution.

call me wrong but it doesn't matter. It works for me and that's all that matters cos unlitmately it's all about ME...My Evolution

Ive still got a ways to go but I'm getting there.

For the record. I don't really know what you guys are arguing about or the relevence of my post in the context of the thread discussion so could you please summarise the main points of contention in 50 words or less and disregard my adages if irrelevant ?

thanx

 

[Les Sleeth]

For the record. I don't really know what you guys are arguing about or the relevence of my post in the context of the thread discussion so could you please summarise the main points of contention in 50 words or less and disregard my adages if irrelevant ?

Fifty words or less, that's a tall order. It started in the thread "what is logic" when I challenged Rainer's claim he could prove God does not exist, but since then we've meandered around quite a bit (and then Hypnagogue broke off the debate to this thread). First the subject was what logic can and cannot do, but at the end we've been debating what "knowing" is. I think if you read where we started in the other thread until now, you will be able to see what we are talking about.

 

[Rainer]

I concluded all this by experience and observation without knowing anything of kant, quine, chalmers or whoever and without formally studying in any western oriented cultural institution.

call me wrong but it doesn't matter. It works for me and that's all that matters cos unlitmately it's all about ME...My Evolution

Hey, Les Sleeth, this is sort of what I'm talking about. This epistemology is extremely similar to yours--and he gained his from life experience as well.

However, having an epistemology based on experience that relies on experience is not a valid epistemology.

For the record. I don't really know what you guys are arguing about or the relevence of my post in the context of the thread discussion so could you please summarise the main points of contention in 50 words or less and disregard my adages if irrelevant ?

Les Sleeth got most of it. Right now I'm trying to show that the validation for the experience-first approach doesn't work.

Do you think we understand what we have absolutely no experience with?

No.

So-called universal laws are only considered that because things have consistently behaved a certain way.

No; a fact of reality doesn't change within a certain context. Knowledge is contextual. It allows us to be correct.

Death is a fact of reality. We've seen it happen to everyone, we know it will happen to everyone--and on a metaphysical level it the law of identity at work. We have to die if we want to exist in the first place.

This will never change, unless the context changes. Reality itself would have to change--not our understanding of it--for us to be wrong.

And if reality does change, then our context immediately changes--which would then reset the nature of a concept; but this does not mean that the last concept was wrong or inaccurate, it means that this newly created concept works within a different (but not better) context.

We will observe or feel the effects of a change in reality, but that does not mean that the prediction we understood previously is wrong, it means that we must understand what change occured, and then create a context to sorround it.

In this way, our concept of death, within this context of knowledge, is the end of life. We know it to happen to everyone--within this context of knowledge. This fact will never change and we can hold certainty in it.

If some human goes and walks around and never dies, then a revision of context is not in order, but we must establish a separate context to understand what has caused this other human to continue to live.

I'm sure that that is more than you want to know. But there it is.

I still think the problem you are having is not being able to properly differentiate experience from the interpretation of experience. Nothing about the chicken’s experience lied to him. The problem was his mentality making assumptions about the way reality works.

Yes, that is part of the process. But what I was attempting to show was an inherent instability in experientialism.

Experientialism has worked in your past, it might work for you this very instant, but there is nothing to suggest that it will work in the next.

Are we talking about working in the lab, or living life.

Sorry, I threw "hypothesis" around. I mean that for both life and the practice of science.

I know what I am most sure of, what I least certain of, and everything in between. Of course, somebody living “in their mind” might get all confused trying to figure out what he is and isn’t sure of, but not the person living in the experience of now.

Humans do live in their minds, and humans only survive by molding reality into the conceptual shape he or she finds most agreeable.

We dream of airplanes--and then we force them into being.

Anyways. As for living life, I think that philosophy has to be treated as a science, even daily life philosophy has to be scientifically conducted. To tie it all together: Our ideas on epistemology come to shape how effective we are when dealing with reality. The better the epistemology, the better we live our lives.

I think you need a lot more than set of probabilities to conduct life. I think that anything, whether epistemology or physics, must be able to possesses a contextual certainty (not an omniscient certainty.) That means the elimination of probabilities.

I pay attention when I hit a ball on my racquet. When I hit it on the periphery of the racquet, I don’t hit as hard as (and break more strings than) when I hit in the middle of the racquet. I can therefore say it “works” best to hit in the center, and I find that out by paying attention (experience) when I hit. This is just being conscious, there’s nothing mysterious or complicated about what I am saying in regard to pragmatism.

All I said was that that approach IS experientialist. You cannot use experientialism to prove experientialism.

I just said those two sentences in an amplified and exact version so that you wouldn't have room to fight it.

What part of you “concluded” something?

Your mind when experience is placed as supreme.

How do you find out what your reason “concluded” about your perception is incorrect? You take the pencil out of the water to see the pencil is still straight.

You missed the point.

But as Ayer said, the entire purpose of a hypothesis is the anticipation of experience (i.e., that will confirm the hypothesis).

Instrumentialism. A theory is meant to explain a physical phenomenon--not predict something about it.

So even if one does theorize, nothing is “known” until theoreticals are observed actually occurring.

Sure, to verify predictions. But not all generalizations are predictions. Very few are.

Even to say I am going to devote more of my consciousness to experiencing reality than to thinking about it is not all that strange.

No, that stance is pretty standard.

I'm just saying that experience is not the standard of validation for knowledge or theories.

I have practiced both thinking more than experiencing, and experiencing more than thinking. The fact that I now choose the latter approch is because, I say, I have found out it “works” better than the former approach. How can you dispute that?

I have never experienced more than thought, and I've never thought more than experienced--in the realm of epistemology.

Like I've said, both approaches are mistaken.

I can dispute the "what works" argument pretty easily. You cannot use pragmatism to prove pragmatism (experience being interchangable here.)



This was a massive post. Next time I'll do more trimming.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey, Les Sleeth, this is sort of what I'm talking about. This epistemology is extremely similar to yours--and he gained his from life experience as well.

That's an unbelievably shallow interpretation of what I've been saying.

However, having an epistemology based on experience that relies on experience is not a valid epistemology.

And that statement proves beyond all doubt you either haven't understood me or prefer not to correctly represent my views.

This was a massive post. Next time I'll do more trimming.

No "next time" for me . . . I'm done here for real this time. Maybe we'll do better in other threads.

 

[Rainer]

Very well.

I've understood you completely--and wrote on that knowledge.