Over the years I’ve been accused of over-analyzing the bejesus out of stuff, so I’m pretty sure I make my intentions with respect to those terms either explicit or otherwise contextually obvious. If you know of a opposing instance, remind me of it?

Maybe S. is trying to get this thread closed for the same reason? :D — Michael Ossipoff

Until you define all of those words, I have no idea what you're asking. So what you're asking must in fact be meaningless.

If you know of a opposing instance, remind me of it? — Mww

I was just referring to:

there indeed were flaws in most forms of subjective or absolute or immaterial idealism, — Mww

Yes, it's true that you said "most" and not "all", so maybe my comment wasn't necessary.

Michael Ossipoff

10 Su
1824 UTC

So really, I was replying to something that you hadn't said.

It’s all good. I don’t mind being corrected, should the occassion arise.

Whatever you know about your physical surroundings is from your experience. Your experience is primary for your physical world and its "objective" things. — Michael Ossipoff

In order to say that everything that appears is "of my experience," I have to do something theoretical. Phenomenally, many things are not of my experience. They're just doors and computer monitors and sidewalks and so on.

Whatever you know about your physical surroundings is from your experience. Your experience is primary for your physical world and its "objective" things. — Michael Ossipoff

That they're objective just means that they don't depend on being experienced in order to exist. Nothing you've said there explicitly contradicts that. Saying that experience is primary suffers from ambiguity. Primary in what sense? What does that mean in this instance? It could mean a number of things. This is ironic for someone who constantly criticises others in this respect.

That I know a whole bunch of things through experience doesn't mean that I don't know that there are rocks in other distant galaxies that I've never experienced. And that one claim, if justified and true, is sufficient to refute any idealism of a kind which denies this.

What you know about the physical world, you know from your experience.

From your experience, you can infer other things not directly observed by you, but implied by your experience. Ultimately, you know about the physical world from your experience.

You've experienced articles by or about scientists who reported their discoveries of such things as electrons, quarks, radiation evidently from the Big-Bang, etc.

If you say that there objectively are the physical world and its things, then I'll ask you what you mean by "There objectively is...".

As I said, there are, in their own context, systems of inter-referring abstract implications about propositions about hypothetical things.

I only said "...in their own context". I make no claim about their objective existence or reality.

No one denies that this physical world exists in its own context.

There's one such system of inter-referring abstract implications whose logical structural relations are those of your experience.

If you want to claim that this physical world has a kind of existence that the setting of such a hypothetical experience-story doesn't have, then you'd need to be more specific about that.

If you say that the difference is that this physical world is objectively real and existent, then you should be able to define those terms.

Michael Ossipoff

10 Su
2140 UTC


.

What you know about the physical world, you know from your experience. — Michael Ossipoff

The point is that to say this, I have to be doing something theoretical.

That they're objective just means that they don't depend on being experienced in order to exist.

.
…in order to what? :D
.
Ok, they’re objectively existent if they exist observer-independently (objectively). You won’t get much argument on that.
.
We get what “objective” means, but you didn’t define objective “existence”. (…except in terms of itself).
.

Nothing you've said there explicitly contradicts that.

.
That’s right, I didn’t contradict that irrelevant truism.
.

Saying that experience is primary suffers from ambiguity. Primary in what sense?

.
As the basis for all that you know about the physical world. And no, that doesn’t prove that the physical world isn’t objectively existent, whatever that would mean.
.
I’ve repeatedly admitted that I can’t prove that Materialism isn’t true, as brute-fact, an unfalisifiable unverifiable metaphysical theory,
.
But there’s more to say than that: Your unfalsifiable proposition uses a term that you can’t define , and so it isn’t even validly-expressed.
.
So, if you knew what you meant, and could say it, then I can’t, at this time, prove that (whatever it is) it wouldn’t be true.
.
(Look, in your closed thread, we agreed to disagree about that, when I acknowledged that you believe that you know what you mean, and agreed to leaves it at that. I hope that you aren’t going to keep this up again until this thread gets closed too, for the same reason.)
.

What does that mean in this instance? It could mean a number of things.

.
See above.
.

That I know a whole bunch of things through experience doesn't mean that I don't know that there are rocks in other distant galaxies that I've never experienced.

.
The scientific reports that you’ve experienced imply that there are likely (in the context of your direct and indirect experience) to be rocks in other distant galaxies.
.
I’ve already said that your direct observational experience (of scientific reports, in this case) is the basis for your indirect experience of more than you’ve directly observationally experienced.
.
Are you going to go into another endless loop?
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
10 Su
2208 UTC

The point is that to say this, I have to be doing something theoretical — Terrapin Station

Reports of the work of theoretical physicists are part of your direct observational experience too.

Are you yourself doing something theoretical? Of course. You're theorizing about a metaphysics that you can't define.

Michael Ossipoff
10 Su
2217 UTC

Reports of the work of theoretical physicists are part of your direct observational experience too.

Are you yourself doing something theoretical? Of course. You're theorizing about a metaphysics that you can't define. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not sure I understand either of those comments in context.

Reports of the work of theoretical physicists are part of your direct observational experience too.

Are you yourself doing something theoretical? Of course. You're theorizing about a metaphysics that you can't define. — Michael Ossipoff


I'm not sure I understand either of those comments in context. — Terrapin Station

1. I don't know how else to word this: You've directly observationally experienced (in a magazine, a tv show, a book of descriptive physics or astrsonomy, etc.) reports of the work of theoretical physicists.

2. I was referring to my earlier statement that Materiaiists haven't been able to define certain terms that they use when expressing their Materialist metaphysical belief.

...and another earlier statement that the objectively-existent (whatever that means) "stuff" that Materialists believe in is the stuff of metaphysical theory.

If there's a particular word, phrase, sentence term, etc. that you don't understand, then you should feel to specify it.

Michael Ossipoff

10 Su
2224 UTC

1. I don't know how else to word this: You've directly observationally experienced (in a magazine, a tv show, a book of descriptive physics or astrsonomy, etc.) the work of theoretical physicists. — Michael Ossipoff

Right. But in context, what does that have to do with anything?

Right. But in context, what does that have to do with anything? — Terrapin Station

Either you or S. was saying or implying that what we hear about the world outside of your direct observational experience means that it objectively exists (whatever that would mean).

Specifically, I was replying to this:

Phenomenally, many things are not of my experience. They're just doors and computer monitors and sidewalks and so on. — Terrapin Station

If you didn't mean what I thought you meant, then feel free to clarify what else you did mean.

Michael Ossipoff

10 Su
2231 UTC

I'll have to resume this discussion tomorrow, because there are household tasks to be done.

Michael Ossipoff

10 Su
2234 UTC

If you didn't mean what I thought you meant, then feel free to clarify what else you did mean. — Michael Ossipoff

Some appearances are not of experiences per se. In other words, not everything appears as "this is an experience I'm having." Some appearances are simply of "things" like doors and sidewalks and so on.

Properties of the tabletop
1. Is not coloured, but rather reflects light of particular wavelengths
2. Size is fixed
3. Shape is fixed
4. Is discrete not continuous, because made of molecules.
— Herg

Those would be appearances too, within the range of experiences that we use to call imagination. You visualize that object somehow, but you're still involved in the act of visualization. — leo

This is a double confusion. First, you're confusing the imagined properties of an imagined object with the actual properties of an actual external object. Second, you're confusing appearance in the imagination with appearance to the senses.

Physicist Michael Faraday pointed out that what's observed and known about our physical world consists of logical and mathematical structural-relation, and that there' s no reason to believe that it's other than that. ...no reasons to believe in the "stuff" that the relation is about. — Michael Ossipoff

As I said, the reason to believe in the stuff is that it explains why our sensory experience is the way it is. There are other possible explanations (e.g. the Berkelian explanation that God puts these sensory appearances into our minds), but these invariably involve hypothesising the existence of something for which there's no evidence.

We get what “objective” means, but you didn’t define objective “existence”. (…except in terms of itself). — Michael Ossipoff

You're kidding, right? Are you ever going to allow yourself to proceed past this disingenuous and feeble excuse not to address the real issue? Or are you going to forever play this game until people just grow tired and ignore you?

As the basis for all that you know about the physical world. — Michael Ossipoff

But that's not relevant. What makes you think that that's relevant? The topic is not about the basis of our knowledge, but rather where we can take it. You're just missing the point.

...there are likely... to be rocks in other distant galaxies. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, that's more or less what I said, minus all of your pointless qualifications which I edited out of the above quote for sake of clarity.

There are rocks in distant galaxies. (That's not implying absolute certainty, so of course it's a matter of likelihood).

I’ve already said that your direct observational experience (of scientific reports, in this case) is the basis for your indirect experience of more than you’ve directly observationally experienced. — Michael Ossipoff

What a convoluted way of wording things you have. Sheesh.

No, I haven't experienced rocks in different galaxies in any way, shape or form. They're too far away. It would be physically impossible. And I haven't seen a photo of every single rock in every distant galaxy, and even if I had, that would just be an experience of photos, not of rocks. Photos of rocks are obviously not rocks, you'd just be equivocating.

1. I don't know how else to word this: You've directly observationally experienced (in a magazine, a tv show, a book of descriptive physics or astrsonomy, etc.) reports of the work of theoretical physicists. — Michael Ossipoff

So what?

Either you or S. was saying or implying that what we hear about the world outside of your direct observational experience means that it objectively exists (whatever that would mean). — Michael Ossipoff

Not quite "what we hear" - which is a subjective wording - but besides that: yeah, so what? If you can't logically connect the two in the right way, then you don't have an argument.

I'll have to resume this discussion tomorrow, because there are household tasks to be done. — Michael Ossipoff

Define, "There are...".

Some appearances are not of experiences per se. In other words, not everything appears as "this is an experience I'm having." Some appearances are simply of "things" like doors and sidewalks and so on.

.
Just speaking of conscious experience, if you notice something, you experience it. If you don’t notice it, you don’t experience it. If you notice those doors and sidewalks, that’s experience.
.
A car drives by, and I ask you what its license-number was. But you were reading the bumper-sticker, not paying any attention to the license-number. The car was close enough to read the number, and the license-number was in your field-of-view. But you didn’t consciously notice it at all.
.
You didn’t consciously experience the license-number.
----------------------------------
You’re the protagonist and center of your life-experience-story. It’s entirely about your experience. That’s the sense in which I meant that experience is primary with respect to our physical world.
.
Are all systems of inter-referring abstract implications experience-stories? Of course not. In their own contexts, there are infinitely-many systems of inter-referring abstract facts, infinitely-many of which are far too simple to be an experience-story or physical-world-story.
.
Obviously, there are, in their own contexts, Tegmark’s non-subjective MUH Ontic-Structural Realism world-stories too.
.
Then why my emphasis on experience-stories? Simply because, as a truism, that’s obviously what we experience. A selfish life-chauvinist bias, of course.
.
Your experience can’t be inconsistent or contradictory without mutually inconsistent facts, an impossibility.
.
So what you experience must, for one thing, be consistent with your own existence with respect this physical world. For example, because your body is physical, there had to be some physical mechanism for its physical coming-into-being. Not surprisingly, then, you find that have parents, and grandparents. …and a population in which they live and were themselves generated.
.
Your experience of what you hear from scientists about the formation of the Earth, solar-system and galaxies, etc. is consistent with your life. People used to say that the Earth is only 6000 years old, but that turned out to not be physically-consistent with our lives, because it was found that the mechanisms theorized to be able to make life, and then humans, wouldn’t have time to operate. And, consistently, the evidence in the rocks supports an older Earth.
.
You’ll never find incontrovertible proof that you had no grandparents, because experience can’t be genuinely inconsistent.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
11 M
1942 UTC

Just speaking of conscious experience, if you notice something, you experience it. — Michael Ossipoff

Not all appearances are of us experiencing something though. Not all appearances are of us, as subjects, experiencing something. I'm just talking about appearances there, not what's really going on.

What would be an example?

Things like that license plate when it's in someone's field-of-vision but they don't notice it?

Michael Ossipoff

11 Tu
0157 UTC

It's easiest to understand if we add theoretical stuff to it. But it's important to remember that the theoretical stuff is just that. So from that perspective, a popular way of accounting for it is to say that it's things we experience/that we're aware of without experiencing/being aware of it being an experience or without there also being an attendant phenomenon of us being an individual who is aware of something, who is in a relation with something else, something not us.

The point is that for these phenomena, to arrive at "well this is really just an experience I'm having" or "this is me experiencing something that's not me, filtering it through my perspectival apparatus, where what I'm really experiencing is a representation that my mind is creating," or anything like that, we have to be doing theoretical work. For these phenomena, the stuff in quotation marks above are not the phenomena that appear. The phenomena that appear are just the sidewalk, just a computer monitor, or whatever.

It's easiest to understand if we add theoretical stuff to it. But it's important to remember that the theoretical stuff is just that.

.
I didn’t mean to add anything theoretical. In these matters, I do my best to not theorize anything. That’s why I say that my non-metaphysics isn’t a theory. …just some uncontroversial statements.
.
But yes of course there’s a humungous amount of theorizing going on at these forums.
.
I use the word “experience” much more broadly than you do. ...encompassing what you mean by those other terms.
.
When you say, “experience”, you’re referring to what I’d call “overthinking things”.
.
Buddhists and others have pointed out that when people pursue a descriptive or evaluative narrative about an experience, that isn’t the experience—it’s a fabricated substitute that’s about the experience.
.
You say something similar in your message, using different terms, and I agree with what you say.
.
I agree that that way of living isn’t authentic or desirable.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
11 Tu
1803 UTC

They say people have a way of living up to your opinion (perception) of them. What is their perception other than the illusion you present? What is your perception other than a reflection?