This thread isn't about the immediacy of experience as such. What I'm trying to get at in this thread is the reality of the idea - I'm arguing for objective idealism, and trying to relate it to Platonist philosophy, which is a very different point to your argument about how 'immediate experience can only be communicated by allegory', valid point though that might be. — Wayfarer
Immanent and transcendent are mutually-defined, i.e. like ‘high’ and ‘low’ or ‘left’ and ‘right’. Been meaning to write an OP about that. — Wayfarer
It must be hard for you to talk about differences in pressure or temperature when you don’t even believe in macrostate descriptions. Oh the tainted sameness of summing over microstates that make no significant difference. — apokrisis
Just because the word "red" refers to the thing which causes the concept redness in the mind, it does not follow that the word "red" is necessary for the existence of the thing, and by extension, the existence of the concept. — Samuel Lacrampe
But according to google, a plane is a flat surface, and so we are really saying the same thing, and in which case our concepts of triangle-ness does coincide. — Samuel Lacrampe
But why would 'exact same' implies that accidentals have been included? — Samuel Lacrampe
As a side note, I thought your position from an earlier post was that universal forms (2) existed, in addition to particular forms (3). — Samuel Lacrampe
The dialectic must start from experience as such; where else? — Janus
So the question becomes whether immanence~transcendence is being understood as just a simple pair of cancelling opposites - adding a bit of up to a bit of down erases any difference. — apokrisis
Therefore allowing such a tainted sameness allows that we are victimized by sophistry. — Metaphysician Undercover
Deity is both transcendent and immanent - at once beyond the world, but also within it. — Wayfarer
I guess that’s one of the hazards of posting on public forums. — Wayfarer
without any statement as to the principle by which we can call this "the same"information — Metaphysician Undercover
Deity is both transcendent and immanent - at once beyond the world, but also within it.
— Wayfarer
Surely the debate is normally over which it is, not that it is both? — apokrisis
That's what I'm saying. — apokrisis
Red just "is" because we haven't got something we can compare it to as what might be "other", given the same observable "psychological machinery". — apokrisis
So yes. Ultimately our models of cognition run out of counterfactuals to sustain the explanatory assault on "experience" — apokrisis
Hope you not talking about me. I give very good reasons for deflating the inflated notions of "consciousness" and "meaning" that folk routinely trot out. :) — apokrisis
...due to the ‘flattening’ of ontology since the victory of nominalism at the end of medieval times... — Wayfarer
But I'm between your position and Janus's. I think Janus was just trying to point at the that-it-exists of experience. — 0rff
But I agree with Janus's general point about what is excluded by the scientific method. We have a tendency to privilege the publicly quantifiable as the 'really' real. — 0rff
The historical process was not so much about atomism, although that plays a role. The key development was the ascension of nominalism, which means that ‘types’ or ‘Forms’ are no longer considered real; they’re simply names we give to objects that have something in common. — Wayfarer
In the older view, because things have a final cause - a ‘telos’ - then the world is naturally intelligible, it is suffused with purpose. — Wayfarer
So for example here, I would counter that experience can't simply exist. It requires someone that it exists for. — apokrisis
So as an epistemic basic, I agree with the idealists that we can't transcend the conditions of experience. We don't get to peek at the Kantian thing-in-itself in any direct perceptual fashion. — apokrisis
When I see the red of the post box or smell the perfume of a rose, these are just habitual signs that anchor my interpretations of the world. They form my "umwelt". — apokrisis
The theory predicts that I will discover my instruments will show certain numbers if I take a look.
All the bogus stuff about "seeing the thing-in-itself" is completely abandoned. There is no pretence, like there still is with talking about seeing red or tasting sweetness. Science deals directly in full-on signage. It says this is how nature works. And that's true because these are the numbers you will read when you make a measurement. — apokrisis
Yes, it is highly abstract. And folk still want to have their intuitive mental pictures. They want to imagine atoms bouncing about or forces pulling or whatever. They want a biological level of feeling - or sign.
But still, science reduces reality to a pattern of numerical signs. And we know that really works. Functionally, it has been immensely productive.
Again the protest will come, but what about experience, what about feeling, what about actually awareness of the world as it really is? However there is good reason to privilege the mathematical representation of existence. — apokrisis
Hence this OP. There must be a reason why physics has turned information theoretic. Counting is actually physically meaningful. We might as well admit that reality is a pattern of bits, a set of numbers, as far as we can tell. That is certainly a more accurate ontology than thinking of it in terms of a realm of "medium-sized dry goods", as is the usual "realist" case. — apokrisis
It may be represented, or it may not be. — Wayfarer
If you do not allow that the potential for the existence of an object precedes the actual existence of that object, how do you explain becoming? If the potential for a particular hylomorphic substance doesn't precede the actual existence of that substance, how does such a substance come into being from not being? Do all hylomorphic substances have eternal existence? — Metaphysician Undercover
All of those text strings mean the same thing; it’s not ‘sophistry’ but a simple statement of fact. — Wayfarer
So I say pay attention to how you go about constructing some third person point of view about the very thing of "forming points of view". — apokrisis
If it is not represented then it is not information. — charleton
They don't mean the same thing to me, and that's a fact. — Metaphysician Undercover
The experience I speak about.... — Janus
Appealing to experience as the basis of philosophy, is simply empiricism - — Wayfarer
in order for experience to mean anything, there must already be the categories of the understanding, — Wayfarer
The experience that is prior to any speaking. — Janus
According to this no non-human animal's experiences can mean anything, and I think to say this is obviously absurd. — Janus
The experience that is prior to any speaking. — Janus
Your thinking is culturally framed at base. — apokrisis
Phenomenology is not empiricism — Janus
But the discussion is about the ability to understand and interpret abstract ideas. It is not absurd to say that animals are not able to do that. And animals don't reflect on 'the meaning of experience'. — Wayfarer
I practice Zen, which is what this sounds like, but this thread is about Platonic realism. — Wayfarer
And animals don't reflect on 'the meaning of experience'. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.