having this experience qua this experience cannot be reasonably refuted, even if what my experience is of cannot be known absolutely known (that is, even though I can be certain I am having an experience, it's possible that the content of my experience is false — numberjohnny5
Sure. At the present moment, (I know that) I'm sitting at my PC writing this sentence. — numberjohnny5
I am doubting the claim "I am sitting at my pc" due to it's unreality. It is a belief rather than real, I contend (although, in reality, there is merely the experience of a "contend" thought).My position is that you "don't know that you're sitting at the PC writing," i.e., that proposition is a foundational belief. What I mean by foundational is that the belief doesn't fall within any epistemological construct, i.e., it doesn't make sense that it would need justification, and it doesn't make sense that it can or could be doubted (at least generally). — Sam26
Are the quality of an experience and its content related? — Srap Tasmaner
I am doubting the claim "I am sitting at my pc" due to it's unreality. It is a belief rather than real, I contend (although, in reality, there is merely the experience of a "contend" thought).
The reality is that there is an experience of "sitting at my pc". — raza
With regards to your "position", I'd rather say that "I don't know that my experience of sitting at my PC writing is not an illusion, but I know that I am currently having an experience of some kind." That's a foundational belief for me. — numberjohnny5
My point is that to doubt something means that one has good reasons to doubt, or has good evidence to doubt. In my epistemology one doesn't just need a justification for knowledge, but one needs a good justification for doubt, the two go hand-in-hand. So I'm not sure what it would mean to doubt that you're sitting at your pc. I'm sure that you might be able to construct a scenario in which it would make sense to doubt it, but what would it mean to doubt it in normal everyday circumstances. Do we normally doubt such things? — Sam26
I have good evidence that during the experience conveniently described as “I am sitting at my pc” this is not in fact what is occurring.
What is occurring is the experience of sitting at “my” pc.
I (me) can only logically and fundamentally be the entire experience (the room, the chair, sounds, sensations of all kinds). “I am sitting at my pc” is merely a description for sake of convenient transmission during an experience of a conversation about the previous “pc” event. — raza
When you talk about it, you're merely describing the event, or describing the experience. We use the words to convey the experience to others — Sam26
In the most shorthand form we find. The issue is we tend to think our shorthand, our therefore merely convenient form of description, is itself what reality is. — raza
"I am sitting at my pc" is not what is occurring. It describes a picture that even we ourselves do not see in the moment of that particular experience.
So what is it, then, that is ACTUALLY occurring in that moment?
You do not see a you at the pc, correct? — raza
Where should be the fundamental difference between pain as the content of consciousness and your pc? — Heiko
I understand that our language is just a description of reality, and thus how we talk about reality. It doesn't follow from that that our description is reality. — Sam26
You seem to want to talk about simple everyday explanations in a metaphysical way. If we spoke to each other in the way you seem to want too, we would never get anywhere with our talk — Sam26
I don't find some of it plausible — Sam26
The body is what I am. This being involves consciousness but the relation between me an my being is not that the being could be substracted and then one would be left with the real me.The commonly and habitually presumed identity, one's apparent body, say, within a room, is merely an aspect of "you". — raza
It might make for interesting philosophical discussions — Sam26
The latter, ironically. It was often pointed out that the transcendental ego cannot be thought of like something being present at hand that is set in opposition to a world. — Heiko
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.