You can only think in the same forms that your experiences of the world take, and it is a fact that the only way you could have learned a language is by having some kind of sensory experience and then store those experiences, or qualia as some call them, for recalling later. — Harry Hindu

This is false though, and that's why we have "fiction". The imagination creates forms which haven't been experienced in the world. You may argue that the content of those forms is derived from sensory experience, and fiction is just a matter of establishing unexperienced relationships between experienced content, but then what are the relationships here? The relationships are what the mind is creating in thought. If this is what is being created by thought, then isn't the real content of thought the relationships which the thinking mind is creating? If that is the case, then when we think in terms of relating one relationship to another relationship, there is no need for sensory content.

I came across this on another thread, and thought of you.

What relationship is established with me just closing my eyes and imagining the color green? I can imagine things as simple as the forms my thoughts take (in this case a single color, without any relationships present). I can think of a single sound, not a spoken word or anything that would have a relationship, or association, with something else, but just a meaningless noise. This should make it evident that relationships can't be the fundamental building blocks of thought, but rather simple qualia would be. My mind only creates relationships in order to create meaning, but my mind can create meaningless patterns of words just as I can create meaningless patterns of sounds and colors.

What relationship is established with me just closing my eyes and imagining the color green? — Harry Hindu

Obviously I'm not talking about something like imagining a green colour, that would be obtained from sensory experience. I'm talking about the relationships which logic is founded on, like opposition, being and not being, or negative and positive, plus and minus, and the relationship between parts and unity which numbers use.

Words for things that are not open for comparison fail to have content. — unenlightened

That is simply not true.

There is no reason why someone couldn't attach a word to a private sensation especially when it is very vivid to them. How did people like Einstein come up with new theories? They had to examine their own thoughts and reach new conclusions. I mentioned the transition from referring to some external event and adapting words to use on internal states. It is not all or nothing.

I think you are under some kind of illusion about the power of language to represent reality. Words have limited power to describe phenomena. If I am describing a dream I had I am not telling you everything about it just sketching an outline.

I have no problem in forming images in my mind. For instance I am now imagining a large purple elephant with a banana in its trunk flying through the sky.

But that is not how My thoughts operate. I would find it hard to form a thought like " The German economy has taken a turn for the worse" in images.

All this kind of thing rests of a final theory of language and consciousness that we don't have.

My concern is about bad psychology abusing or neglecting the mentally ill. Especially with this idea that you can be an expert in someone else's mind and thus override what they are telling you (hetero-phenomenology)

If someone says to you "I am depressed" you don't know anything about it. I advocate a very detailed phenomenology. But that is not my experience of psychiatrists. If a psychiatrist fully comprehended what happened to me as a child they would recognise the depth of my problems. But only someone who has either had similar situations or a very sympathetic/empathetic person can fully appreciate the situation. People often minimise or misrepresent other peoples problems because they use weak words and weak analogies.

So if you seriously want to "know" someone else's mind you should be prepared to talk to them for hours in a very open minded but probing way.

When I mentioned social anxiety you said "I'm chronically shy and misanthropic; Have I got it?" That sounded derogatory and poor attempt to imagine social anxiety and this is what people with mental health are up against. IT is a mixture of prejudice and a failure of imagination.

My concern is about bad psychology abusing or neglecting the mentally ill. Especially with this idea that you can be an expert in someone else's mind and thus override what they are telling you (hetero-phenomenology)

If someone says to you "I am depressed" you don't know anything about it. I advocate a very detailed phenomenology. But that is not my experience of psychiatrists. If a psychiatrist fully comprehended what happened to me as a child they would recognise the depth of my problems. But only someone who has either had similar situations or a very sympathetic/empathetic person can fully appreciate the situation. People often minimise or misrepresent other peoples problems because they use weak words and weak analogies.

So if you seriously want to "know" someone else's mind you should be prepared to talk to them for hours in a very open minded but probing way. — Andrew4Handel

I generally agree with you. The state of psychiatry is very close to the state of science in the era of witchcraft - i.e. nowhere. That 'we' normals are in any position to pathologise 'you' rarities as 'ill' is one patent nonsense amongst many. Clearly we are as a species insane, and drive each other more insane on a regular basis.

When I mentioned social anxiety you said "I'm chronically shy and misanthropic; Have I got it?" That sounded derogatory and poor attempt to imagine social anxiety and this is what people with mental health are up against. IT is a mixture of prejudice and a failure of imagination. — Andrew4Handel

I'm sorry. If I hurt your feelings it was unintended. But I am rather against the current fashion for categorising distress into syndromes and then reifying them into things that people have 'got'. But people find some comfort in it, as it allows one to dissociate from the distress, and I should have been more careful about it.

On the question of language, though, having a name, 'social anxiety' allows one to talk about and recognise something in oneself, that is otherwise an amorphous sense of 'being different'. I think Blake Ross described rather well the excitement of discovering the concept of Aphantasia, and how it enabled a new understanding of himself and others. So that was really my question; there are these old-fashioned terms like 'shy', but one says 'I am shy', rather than 'I've got shyness disorder'. And we could say of Blake, that he lacks a visual imagination, instead of that he has this rare mental illness.

So here is a really radical idea for you. The dissociation that language enables is itself the foundation of not only mental illness but of the entire mental world. Even for me to say I am shy is to step out of myself in order to name the condition I am in. And this division, while it seems to promise some relief from that condition, actually perpetuates it. Thus psychiatry itself is an addictive process that seems to offer relief for the distress it subtly creates. So the question arises, is there another way of understanding oneself and the other that does not divide the mind?

I'm sorry. If I hurt your feelings it was unintended. — unenlightened

You didn't hurt my feelings. I illustrated that comment because it shows how people can use a term without knowing what it refers to and hence mischaracterise it based on their own values etc.

Finding the term social anxiety was very helpful to me. Because before then I had an excessive fear of people and going out and would only go out at night. So the term did not perpetuate my condition because I was very dysfunctional before I went to the group then I went to the group and was able to socialise and make friends.

One thing that happens when you have this condition is that you feel like you are the only person like this and that it is a character flaw. In general I didn't know what was happening to me. I didn't know that severe anxiety was a disorder with even a biological substrate related to the hippocampus and amygdala.

So what happens is that you have a sense of dread, you blush when your around people and or shake but you have no idea what's going on. In the end I went on medication for depression and anxiety and that was what decreased my social anxiety initially.

There are reasons why I might be prone to social anxiety such as Asperger's, long term bullying, aggressive father etc so it is not magic to imagine why someone might have a turbulent mental life. Also I went to a small branch of the Plymouth Brethren church that was very isolationist and hell and damnation and judgemental. It would be remarkable if I came out unscathed.

How ever much detail I give you (like Temple Grandin's clever lengthy descriptions) can you really imagine what I experienced? Also I am British and gay and that is a different experience from being straight and American or something else.

We are bringing so much to our immediate experience.

What relationship is established with me just closing my eyes and imagining the color green? — Harry Hindu


Obviously I'm not talking about something like imagining a green colour, that would be obtained from sensory experience. I'm talking about the relationships which logic is founded on, like opposition, being and not being, or negative and positive, plus and minus, and the relationship between parts and unity which numbers use. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know exactly what you are talking about. What's obvious is that you ignored what I said. I already said that I can create illogical, meaningless patterns in my mind. If I can be illogical easier than being logical, as being logical takes more work and energy, then logical relationships cannot be the fundamental aspect of the mind. WHAT would you be logical about? Your logic still takes form. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that you can talk without words or that you can boil nothing on the stove.

I'm not referring to "the fundamental aspect of the mind". I've taken exception to your claim that "you can only think in the same forms that your experiences of the world take". What I've pointed out is that this is not true, we think in other forms, relationships which we have not experienced through our sensory perceptions of the world. Whether or not thinking in these artificial, creative, relationships is the fundamental aspect of thinking is irrelevant. What I am arguing is that they are an aspect of thinking, and cannot be so dismissed, as you claimed.

How ever much detail I give you (like Temple Grandin's clever lengthy descriptions) can you really imagine what I experienced? — Andrew4Handel

Well perhaps I have hyper-imaginative empathic syndrome, and find myself taking on other people's psyche whenever they post about it. Or perhaps not. ;) But it certainly seems to me that I get a better picture - oh that phrase again - of your condition from the story of your life than from the list of symptoms that I find on a social anxiety site.

I was at a boarding school in the days when being called 'queer' was the worst insult possible, and was confirmed as true by a failure to immediately start a fight. In such a world, social anxiety is a necessity for a gay (or a wimp like me) rather than an illness, and when the home environment gives no respite either...

Here's something to consider; that dread is a sane response to a hostile social environment. And when one finds a supportive environment, one's dread is diminished. Have you ever considered the thesis that it's not you, it's them? David Smail wrote about the social nature of personal distress, and is worth a read. In particular, he talks about how the world affects us through things that are 'beyond our event horizon'.He gives an example of someone who is made redundant and falls into a depression and has feelings of inadequacy because he cannot really see that it is the implacable forces of the global economy rather than his own psyche that are operating. So you might have symptoms of social anxiety because in the straight world, homophobia is endemic. But it is hard to see that you are suffering from their 'illness'.

I have always been strongly of the opinion that mental illness can and probably is largely caused by society and parents. But I don't think that makes mental illness less real. For example smoking can cause cancer but that doesn't make the cancer less real because it is caused by something external.

Why shouldn't abuse etc cause mental illness? (also chemical imbalance/dementia's)

I don't think I simply have social anxiety any more because I test highly for Asperger's and am awaiting a diagnosis. Asperger's is more that just social anxiety but it includes heightened sensitivity to stimuli, feeling overwhelmed, fixating on things uncontrollably, not enjoying socialising and so on. So knowing this means you need to put yourself in appropriate environments.

It was interesting and shocking to find out that 90% of a people with Asperger's that were interviewed reported chronic bullying at school and there was a good explanation given for this phenomena. So they say "Neurotypicals" are responsible for a lot of the problems people on the Autism spectrum face. Society now tries to accommodate disabled people with ramps and wide spaces in buildings and braille on medication boxes. So there its the argument for society exacerbating or creating disabilities and dysfunction. The problem is not being exposed to, or listening to, other peoples testimonies especially in order to preserve norms and support generalisations.

One area which is a puzzle to me is sexuality. I cannot imagine what it is like to be heterosexual. I appreciate women and can tell when a woman is attractive but I don't have sexual desire towards women and I assume heterosexual men experience strong lust to towards the female form.

And because life is heteronormative and based around the predominant sexuality I have felt alienated. Society has been puzzled by homosexuality so there has been far more research into it than heterosexual desire (which is taken for granted often).

I have always thought that homosexuality is easier to explain than heterosexuality. Because as a homosexual you are attracted to a body similar to yours with similar erogenous zones but as a straight man you will never know what exactly what it is like for a female to experience orgasm etc (they fake orgasm didn't you hear!) And evolutionarily it is convoluted because you have to create two sexes that have very different sex organs that are in separate bodies and need to remain compatible. and then you have to get the one gender attracted to then other gender in a different looking body.

I find it strange that people assume I should be attracted to women simply because I am conscious of being in a mans body yet if I woke up as a woman that sexuality would be considered aberrant. Why should the body you are in decide whom you are attracted to? It didn't for me. (God condemns people for simply desiring the wrong gender)

So I do not think me imagining a man and woman having vigorous sex is anywhere near the same as experiencing heterosexual lust.

I'm not referring to "the fundamental aspect of the mind". I've taken exception to your claim that "you can only think in the same forms that your experiences of the world take". What I've pointed out is that this is not true, we think in other forms, relationships which we have not experienced through our sensory perceptions of the world. Whether or not thinking in these artificial, creative, relationships is the fundamental aspect of thinking is irrelevant. What I am arguing is that they are an aspect of thinking, and cannot be so dismissed, as you claimed. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you had read all of my post from where you got that quote from, then you'd have understood that I said that the mind must have already had the capability to create associations in order to learn a language, and also creates new patterns, most are meaningless (Colourless green ideas sleep furiously), others are copies of experienced patterns (causation, language, etc.), and some new patterns that actually provide some new shared insight into ourselves and our place in reality (Theory of Natural Selection).

I'm not disagreeing that our mind can create new patterns, or relationships as you call them. My point is that even the new relationships are composed of sensory data. You can still only think in colored shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings - but mostly colored shapes as we seem to think that the world is more how we see it because our sight provides us the most information about the world compared to our other senses.

Andrew4Handel: "Imagining what it's like to be" heterosexual is different from having heterosexual feelings. I think you can probably do the first even if you happen not to do the second. We can recall sexual feelings and we can *imagine* having these feelings towards anything at all, even if we don't actually have the feelings. Indeed, if we did in fact have the feelings, then imagining would be redundant. I would argue that it would be impossible. It's impossible for me to (merely) imagine what it would be like to sit at a computer typing this post because I really am sitting here composing the post: so (mere) imagining is out of the question. I'm saying that, far from being unable to imagine what it's like to be heterosexual, you can *only and merely imagine* what it's like. I doubt whether you are unable to imagine it. But I accept that you don't have the feelings.

I can imagine the act of heterosexual sex but not the lust and intense desire motivating it. I don't think imagining someone having sex or feeling lust is the same as the vivid mental states one is in with lust and desire.

In the case of a minority sexuality it is not a big problem but when it is the main desire motivating society it does feel a bit alienating.

It might be like hating football and sitting through a football match surrounded by screaming fans.

The issue though is of whether we can have a theory of these mental states that we share or that are very unique and tied up with other complex mental states?

There is always the possibility of characterising these states wrongly and over generalising. I don't foresee a situation when we can apply one model for the mind that accounts for everyone and is lawful. I find a lot of the literature problematic when it is trying to do this.

I'm not disagreeing that our mind can create new patterns, or relationships as you call them. My point is that even the new relationships are composed of sensory data. You can still only think in colored shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings - but mostly colored shapes as we seem to think that the world is more how we see it because our sight provides us the most information about the world compared to our other senses. — Harry Hindu

This is what I disagree with. My claim is that you can think in relationships themselves, that is what logic is, thinking in relationships without the use of sensory data. In any complex logic, like mathematics, sensory symbols are used as a memory aid, but in fundamental, basic logic, no such symbols are necessary.

For example, I think in the relationship of opposition, is and is not. There is no sensory data of this, yet I think this relationship. Although I must utilize symbols to express this fact to you, I know that X excludes not-X, without reference to any symbols or sense data, There is no sense data within my mind which expresses this relationship, I think it without referring to "X excludes not-X". I just know it, and use it in my thinking. I just know that deciding to proceed excludes not proceeding, for example, without referring to those symbols. But if I am to communicate the relationships which I have thought, to you, I must come up with the symbols to express them. It is evident that thinking exists prior to the symbols which express the thought. Therefore we are capable of thinking in logical relations without reference to sensed symbols.

You're simply revamping my own position. To have this idea, of "is and is not", is to already experience distinctions, of different things at once or over a certain period of time. What form do these distinctions take?

We aren't going to disagree that the process of thinking includes making distinctions. Thinking wouldn't even be happening, or necessary, if some system that thinks didn't have change to process - change, the degree of which the local environment provides. If all you experienced was blackness since you came into existence, could you say that you would be able to think? If so, what would you think of?

You're simply revamping my own position. To have this idea, of "is and is not", is to already experience distinctions, of different things at once or over a certain period of time. What form do these distinctions take? — Harry Hindu

No there is no experience of such a distinction, that's the point. What kind of experience is an experience of is not? There's no such experience. The idea of "is not" is not derived from experience, it comes from something else.

Thinking wouldn't even be happening, or necessary, if some system that thinks didn't have change to process - change, the degree of which the local environment provides. — Harry Hindu

The local environment doesn't provide you with an experience of is not, that's the point. Whatever is not within the local environment you do not experience, so you cannot get this idea of "is not" from experiencing the local environment.

If all you experienced was blackness since you came into existence, could you say that you would be able to think? If so, what would you think of? — Harry Hindu

This experience of nothing, which you refer to, might be some sort of experience of "is not". But we do not ever experience this experience of nothing, so you cannot claim that we get this idea of nothing from experience. Nor can you claim that we get the idea of "is not" from experience, because "is not" refers to what is not capable of being experienced.

No there is no experience of such a distinction, that's the point. What kind of experience is an experience of is not? There's no such experience. The idea of "is not" is not derived from experience, it comes from something else. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course there is. As I was saying, when you have an experience, it isn't of just one color across your visual field and nothing else. You have an experience of a plethora of colors, and each color is different, or not the other colors. The colors are also not the feelings and sounds that you also experience, which are different. This is what I mean by differentiation being brute and automatic. This is why I asked the question at the end of my post.

The local environment doesn't provide you with an experience of is not, that's the point. Whatever is not within the local environment you do not experience, so you cannot get this idea of "is not" from experiencing the local environment. — Metaphysician Undercover

And you can experience things, like a friend, and then not experience them. What you are saying only holds true if you have the same monotonous experience of the same thing that never disappears. Again, this is why I asked the question.

If all you experienced was blackness since you came into existence, could you say that you would be able to think? If so, what would you think of? — Harry Hindu

This experience of nothing, which you refer to, might be some sort of experience of "is not". But we do not ever experience this experience of nothing, so you cannot claim that we get this idea of nothing from experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, if you want to call this an experience of nothing, (I'm calling it an experience of something - the color black, as blind people don't even experience the color black. They experience nothing at all visually, kind of like what it's like seeing behind you.), then the question still stands: What would you think of?. Your reply is that they would think of nothing. While my answer is basically the same thing,as the only thing in the mind would be a field of black.

Nor can you claim that we get the idea of "is not" from experience, because "is not" refers to what is not capable of being experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to agree with what I said about the friend. You experience them and then you don't. That in itself is an experience of "is and is not". You seem to be agreeing with me, but just can't bring yourself to accept it.

As I was saying, when you have an experience, it isn't of just one color across your visual field and nothing else. You have an experience of a plethora of colors, and each color is different, or not the other colors. The colors are also not the feelings and sounds that you also experience, which are different. — Harry Hindu

I really don't see how a sensory experience of seeing the colour green can be construed as a sensory experience of seeing not-red. This conclusion must be produced by deduction. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that this is seeing not-red, it is not a sensory experience of not-red, whatever that might mean. Otherwise we could conclude that the sensation of seeing green is a sensory experience of seeing not-cold, or seeing not-big, or seeing not-solid, or any other random conclusion. But these random conclusions are just that, logical conclusions, they are not sensory experiences.

Or is this what your trying to argue, that the experience of seeing colours can be described as the experience of not-hearing sound? That's actually nonsense, because to determine that something is not-sound requires that one have knowledge of what sound is, and this is not prerequisite for seeing colour. So it's obvious that one can experience colour without this colour being not-sound if there were no such thing as sound.

And you can experience things, like a friend, and then not experience them. — Harry Hindu

We are talking about the difference between what is and what is not. To experience a friend's presence, then to experience that person's lack of presence, is not an experience of "the friend is not".

This seems to agree with what I said about the friend. You experience them and then you don't. That in itself is an experience of "is and is not". You seem to be agreeing with me, but just can't bring yourself to accept it. — Harry Hindu

No, I don't agree with you, because I disagree that this is a sensory experience of is and is not. You experience the presence of your friend, and you may conclude, "the friend is". Then, later this experience is replaced by other experiences and these other experiences are not experiences of "the friend is not", they are other experiences. It requires that one compare one experience to the other, to conclude logically that one experience is not the same as the other, and therefore conclude that one is not the other. This is not itself a sensory experience, it is a comparison of sensory experiences, producing a logical conclusion.

The comparison of sensory experiences, which is what some mental activity consists of, is not itself a sensory experience. What you do not seem to be grasping is that mental activity consists of such comparisons, and there is no need that the things being compared are sensory experiences. So mental activity can proceed by comparing things which are not sensory experiences. This is the case when we compare is and is not, these things are logical principles, they are not sensory experiences.

I really don't see how a sensory experience of seeing the colour green can be construed as a sensory experience of seeing not-red. This conclusion must be produced by deduction. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that this is seeing not-red, it is not a sensory experience of not-red, whatever that might mean. Otherwise we could conclude that the sensation of seeing green is a sensory experience of seeing not-cold, or seeing not-big, or seeing not-solid, or any other random conclusion. But these random conclusions are just that, logical conclusions, they are not sensory experiences.

Or is this what your trying to argue, that the experience of seeing colours can be described as the experience of not-hearing sound? That's actually nonsense, because to determine that something is not-sound requires that one have knowledge of what sound is, and this is not prerequisite for seeing colour. So it's obvious that one can experience colour without this colour being not-sound if there were no such thing as sound. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how this is so difficult for you to grasp. I think you're blowing through my posts without taking the time to actually read it - every word.

Actually, it is you that has been arguing that you can experience opposition without any experiences. This is starting to get to the point of where I get bored of having to repeat myself and repeat your own position that you seem to not understand yourself.

I did say that we experience a plethora of colors, right? I did say that we experience colors with sounds much of the time. When we have experiences of multiple things, that is where we get the idea of opposition - that the sound I experience isn't the same thing as the colors I experience, and even the colors are different. This is why I kept posing the question (and you refuse to answer, while I have addressed every point and question you have made) of what we would think about if all we had was an experience of just one thing - just one color - that's it. By saying that it is nonsense to determine that something is not something else because you haven't had any experience with it is what I have been saying, not you.

We are talking about the difference between what is and what is not. To experience a friend's presence, then to experience that person's lack of presence, is not an experience of "the friend is not". — Metaphysician Undercover

We are talking about the difference between what is and what is not. To experience a friend's presence, then to experience that person's lack of presence, is not an experience of "the friend is not". — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? Then what would be an experience of "the friend is not" if you experienced the friend just a moment ago and now you don't after they walked through the door?

No, I don't agree with you, because I disagree that this is a sensory experience of is and is not. You experience the presence of your friend, and you may conclude, "the friend is". Then, later this experience is replaced by other experiences and these other experiences are not experiences of "the friend is not", they are other experiences. It requires that one compare one experience to the other, to conclude logically that one experience is not the same as the other, and therefore conclude that one is not the other. This is not itself a sensory experience, it is a comparison of sensory experiences, producing a logical conclusion.

The comparison of sensory experiences, which is what some mental activity consists of, is not itself a sensory experience. What you do not seem to be grasping is that mental activity consists of such comparisons, and there is no need that the things being compared are sensory experiences. So mental activity can proceed by comparing things which are not sensory experiences. This is the case when we compare is and is not, these things are logical principles, they are not sensory experiences. — Metaphysician Undercover

When I used the term, "experience", I'm talking about the whole deal - the entirety of all of your colors, shapes, sounds, etc. What you do with those colors (comparing them, etc.) is also part of the experience you are having. I don't recall calling the mental act of comparing a sensory experience. It is simply an experience composed of sensory impressions. What I have said, and I'll say one last time, is that your whole experience, whether it be comparing, imagining, or whatever, is composed of sensory data. To say that you can compare things that aren't within your experience is to say what you just said previously - that it's nonsense.

I don't see how this is so difficult for you to grasp. I think you're blowing through my posts without taking the time to actually read it - every word.

Actually, it is you that has been arguing that you can experience opposition without any experiences. This is starting to get to the point of where I get bored of having to repeat myself and repeat your own position that you seem to not understand yourself. — Harry Hindu

No, I read your posts, but we're both on completely different wavelengths. You use the word "experience" in a way which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think that opposition is something which can be experienced. You assume that opposition is experienced, and use your words in a way which demonstrates this belief, but this makes your words nonsensical to me.

So in order to make your words make sense to me, you need to explain to me how you experience opposition. Just insisting that opposition is part of your experience doesn't help me, I need you to describe the experience of opposition. And describing differences does not describe opposition.

When we have experiences of multiple things, that is where we get the idea of opposition - that the sound I experience isn't the same thing as the colors I experience, and even the colors are different. — Harry Hindu

No, that's not true. That one thing is not the same as another does not produce the idea of opposition. Two things which are opposite, like negative and positive, or, is and is not, are exactly the same in every way, except in the way of opposition. They differ in only one particular way, and that is that they are opposite, in every other way, they are exactly the same. So a colour and a sound are different, but they are not at all opposite to one another.

This is why I kept posing the question (and you refuse to answer, while I have addressed every point and question you have made) of what we would think about if all we had was an experience of just one thing - just one color - that's it. — Harry Hindu

I don't see the relevance of such a hypothetical question. How am I supposed to describe to you an experience which I've never had? Your question is nonsense, it doesn't get us any closer to understanding what opposition is, nor does it make your point, that you can experience opposition. It's just a distraction.

Really? Then what would be an experience of "the friend is not" if you experienced the friend just a moment ago and now you don't after they walked through the door? — Harry Hindu

That's exactly my point, you don't experience "the friend is not", because you don't experience opposition. You have this odd assumption that you experience opposition, and you try to explain it in the strangest ways.

When I used the term, "experience", I'm talking about the whole deal - the entirety of all of your colors, shapes, sounds, etc. What you do with those colors (comparing them, etc.) is also part of the experience you are having. I don't recall calling the mental act of comparing a sensory experience. It is simply an experience composed of sensory impressions. What I have said, and I'll say one last time, is that your whole experience, whether it be comparing, imagining, or whatever, is composed of sensory data. To say that you can compare things that aren't within your experience is to say what you just said previously - that it's nonsense. — Harry Hindu

Clearly, opposition is not part of one's experience, yet we compare is and is not, positive and negative. How do you account for this? If you do not allow that some things being compared in mental activity, are actually outside of one's experience, you'll always have an unintelligible representation of mental activity. Why do you insist that it's nonsense to compare things which are not within your experience? This appears to be an assumption which is totally unwarranted, and unjustified, yet you'll defend it to your wits end, for no apparent reason.

"Why do you insist that it's nonsense to compare things which are not within your experience? This appears to be an assumption which is totally unwarranted, and unjustified, yet you'll defend it to your wits end, for no apparent reason."

Well, it's not without all reason and many people have gone down the road of thinking that every concept is based in experience. If there are concepts that are independent of experience, where the heck do they come from? Possibly we are born with ideas and knowledge that we acquired in a previous life - see Plato. Or maybe there are concepts which we must invent in order for even our sense experiences to mean something to us - see Kant. Or perhaps the concepts that seem to be independent of experience are actually based in experience in the end - empiricism. On the empiricist view even the immutable laws of logic are a function of our experience, although they seem to be quite independent of particular experiences. It may well be a mistake. But it's not mere folly.

No, I read your posts, but we're both on completely different wavelengths. You use the word "experience" in a way which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think that opposition is something which can be experienced. You assume that opposition is experienced, and use your words in a way which demonstrates this belief, but this makes your words nonsensical to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's a definition of experience from Merriam-Webster:
Experience: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
If you never experienced opposition, how do you even know you are getting it right without having ever experienced it? How is it that you know that you understand opposition?

So in order to make your words make sense to me, you need to explain to me how you experience opposition. Just insisting that opposition is part of your experience doesn't help me, I need you to describe the experience of opposition. And describing differences does not describe opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it does. Opposition is a kind of difference.

No, that's not true. That one thing is not the same as another does not produce the idea of opposition. Two things which are opposite, like negative and positive, or, is and is not, are exactly the same in every way, except in the way of opposition. They differ in only one particular way, and that is that they are opposite, in every other way, they are exactly the same. So a colour and a sound are different, but they are not at all opposite to one another. — Metaphysician Undercover

Black and white aren't opposites?

I don't see the relevance of such a hypothetical question. How am I supposed to describe to you an experience which I've never had? Your question is nonsense, it doesn't get us any closer to understanding what opposition is, nor does it make your point, that you can experience opposition. It's just a distraction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Give me a break, dude. Now you're telling me that you have never attempted to imagine what it's like having other experiences that you never had in a sorry attempt to evade a pertinent question.

Clearly, opposition is not part of one's experience, yet we compare is and is not, positive and negative. How do you account for this? If you do not allow that some things being compared in mental activity, are actually outside of one's experience, you'll always have an unintelligible representation of mental activity. Why do you insist that it's nonsense to compare things which are not within your experience? This appears to be an assumption which is totally unwarranted, and unjustified, yet you'll defend it to your wits end, for no apparent reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now you aren't making any sense, whatsoever. [/i]What[/i] is it that is in opposition? How does it make any sense to think of opposition without including what it is that is in opposition? Notice how you can't adequately describe opposition without using examples of your experiences - like with numbers and is and is not? How do you know what opposition is without experiencing it? How did you acquire that knowledge, and how do you confirm that knowledge?

Here's a definition of experience from Merriam-Webster:
Experience: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
If you never experienced opposition, how do you even know you are getting it right without having ever experienced it? How is it that you know that you understand opposition? — Harry Hindu

This question doesn't make sense. How is it that you know anything? To experience something is not sufficient for knowing something, the experience must be remembered. So if you are asking me how I know I am getting opposition right, I might as well ask you how do you know you are getting anything right?

Of course it does. Opposition is a kind of difference. — Harry Hindu

No, that's wrong. If opposition is a certain type of difference, then describing difference does not tell one what opposition is. Does describing colour tell you what red is?

Now you aren't making any sense, whatsoever. [/i]What[/i] is it that is in opposition? How does it make any sense to think of opposition without including what it is that is in opposition? Notice how you can't adequately describe opposition without using examples of your experiences - like with numbers and is and is not? How do you know what opposition is without experiencing it? How did you acquire that knowledge, and how do you confirm that knowledge? — Harry Hindu

You really don't understand opposition do you? It is purely conceptual. It is not the case that this thing is opposite to that thing, that's just a complete misrepresentation of opposition.

This question doesn't make sense. How is it that you know anything? To experience something is not sufficient for knowing something, the experience must be remembered. So if you are asking me how I know I am getting opposition right, I might as well ask you how do you know you are getting anything right? — Metaphysician Undercover

So you need to remember my post before you know what it says? How does that make any sense to you? You can know how to do things without remembering how you learned it - like walking. You know that you are walking because you have the experience of walking at the moment - without remembering how you learned it.

Experience = knowledge, and experience can be a momentary thing, or something that takes time. We can have the knowledge that something is happening right now, like I'm walking or reading a post, or something that happens over a long period of time, like I'm aging.


Of course it does. Opposition is a kind of difference. — Harry Hindu

No, that's wrong. If opposition is a certain type of difference, then describing difference does not tell one what opposition is. Does describing colour tell you what red is? — Metaphysician Undercover

You aren't reading my posts again. Look again, I said, "Opposition is a kind of difference." You're confusing types with kinds. Describing what opposition is tells you about a kind of difference.

You really don't understand opposition do you? It is purely conceptual. It is not the case that this thing is opposite to that thing, that's just a complete misrepresentation of opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

.
Exactly. Opposition is conceptual. It is an idea, and ideas can only come about as the result of experiences.

.

Two things which are opposite, like negative and positive, or, is and is not, are exactly the same in every way, except in the way of opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here, in describing "opposition", you even say that these things are the same in every way except in the way of opposition? Aren't you then saying that they are different in some way? What is the opposite of "the same"?