Ideas are both rooted in and grow from the soil of experience, as does language. The idea of equality is both the experiences of inequality that suggest it to the moral mind, and the expressions of tolerance, respect, etc., which it engenders. — Pantagruel

Experience can be a vague concept too. What is your definition of experience? Can you experience experience?

Experience can be a vague concept too. What is your definition of experience? Can you experience experience? — Corvus

Are you talking about things like whether it rises to the level of conscious awareness, and whether it includes things reflection, etc.?

Are you talking about things like whether it rises to the level of conscious awareness, and whether it includes things reflection, etc.? — Pantagruel

Not sure, but it was my question to you from your earlier post.

Ideas are both rooted in and grow from the soil of experience, as does language. The idea of equality is both the experiences of inequality that suggest it to the moral mind, and the expressions of tolerance, respect, etc., which it engenders. — Pantagruel

Remember your earlier post?

I do, and remember asking you a question to clarify what part of experience troubles you specifically? I thought it was a pretty traditional perspective, that ideas are the products of experiences.

I never said anything troubled me. I was just asking about your definition of the concept of experience you were using.

Well, since our conceptual framework (which is composed of ideas) acts as a kind of filter that strongly influences the nature of the things of which we are aware, I see experience and ideas (which are a kind of basic knowledge insofar as it is in their nature to align with reality) as evolving together.

I still don't see your definition for experience. Are you claiming that experience and idea are the same concept?

I would say that "thinking an object under a concept" correlates with the description of experience I provided. That's Kant. The synthetic unity of perceptions also fits. That's also Kant.

What exactly is your take on experience?

The concept of experience and idea can be broad, because almost every philosophers in history had their own views on them. Hence it would be a good idea trying to narrow down the definition of the concepts before delving deeper.

What exactly is your take on experience? — Pantagruel

You have been using the word experience in your posts a lot, so I thought you would provide the definition, which I could investigate on.

Presumably, experience designates in the broadest possible sense that "contact with reality" which is universally...experienced. So if we can't all agree what experience means, we have to at least all agree that we share the experience of experience.

Prima facie it seems to imply an exclusive conception of the subject and object. In fact, this is an evolved inter-relationship, whose form reflects the performative-functional history of the experiencer and the experienced, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. This is why facts are conceptually laden.

You have been using the word experience in your posts a lot, so I thought you would provide the definition, which I could investigate on. — Corvus

I reviewed my posts, and, in fact, I only mentioned it one time prior to your initial question. So the conceptual burden on the term (concept) of experience didn't come from me, it came from you. For example.

Presumably, experience designates in the broadest possible sense that "contact with reality" which is universally...experienced. — Pantagruel

Could we agree experience as same meaning as "perception", which supervened into knowledge or skills?

I reviewed my posts, and, in fact, I only mentioned it one time prior to your initial question. So the conceptual burden on the term (concept) of experience didn't come from me, it came from you. For example. — Pantagruel

"a lot" can also mean significantly and notably, rather than "many". I presumed you must have a good definition of experience, when you were using the word in your sentence.

Could we agree experience as same meaning as "perception", which supervened into knowledge or skills? — Corvus

I think the only problem is if there is implicit assumption that perception is passive. Perception is an activity.

I think the only problem is if there is implicit assumption that perception is passive. Perception is an activity. — Pantagruel

Really? Isn't perception passive or active, or both in some cases? You wake up in the morning, open your eyes, and you see all the things around you whether you wanted or not. Isn't that
a passive perception?

And if you were watching a live concert, and seeing and listening to the band's performance on the stage, and suddenly and unexpectedly you get to see the lighting simulation of rainbow in the back stage in the middle of the performance. Isn't that a perception both active and passive?

Really I just wanted to emphasize that perception is not "purely" passive. There is always an active element; which is embedded in the mechanics of the perceptual (cogitive) mechanism itself. Even our most passive perceptions are pre-structured in some sense, in order to facilitate the information-processing tasks that our brains have to accomplish.

Really I just wanted to emphasize that perception is not "purely" passive. There is always an active element; which is embedded in the mechanics of the perceptual (cogitive) mechanism itself. Even our most passive perceptions are pre-structured in some sense, in order to facilitate the information-processing tasks that our brains have to accomplish. — Pantagruel

Well if you allow the images you see in your dreams as type of perception (which we must, I would imagine), then you would find yourself deep in the well of contradiction. Can you actively control what you see in your dreams during your sleep?

But even if you are not dreaming, there must be things that you see, which you didn't expect or want see, when you are living in the real world, as a real person.

Well if you allow the images you see in your dreams as type of perception (which we must, I would imagine), then you would find yourself deep in the well of contradiction. Can you actively control what you see in your dreams during your sleep?

But even if you are not dreaming, there must be things that you see, which you didn't expect or want see, when you are living in the real world, as a real person. — Corvus

We are the efficient causes of many organic functions over which we do not exercise voluntary control. However they are still in essence controlled by us, since that control is a key feature of organic incarnation (evolution). Just so with perception. We are pre-wired to perceive certain things in preference to others. Of course, there could be "radically new" stimuli, at least theoretically. In practical terms, such stimuli are probably only encountered under conditions of "culture shock," where the core values of an adopted culture are radically different.

Just how far we are willing to go to maintain our presuppositions about reality is illustrated by cognitive biases. The most well-known of these - confirmation bias - is exemplary. But there are loads of others that accomplish basically the same thing - prejudice enforcement.

We are the efficient causes of many organic functions over which we do not exercise voluntary control. However they are still in essence controlled by us, since that control is a key feature of organic incarnation (evolution). — Pantagruel

I was not denying that perception is active, and it is an activity.   I was suggesting that it is active, but also passive at times, and sometimes it can be both active and passive.  

Anyhow, I was looking into my English dictionaries(Collins English Dictionary, Merriam Webster Dictionary) last night, and in there, experience is defined as skills or knowledge acquired via direct participation or observation.  It seems to emphasise the skill factor.
Therefore I am wondering if experience has much to do with the epistemological element in its concept.

Just how far we are willing to go to maintain our presuppositions about reality is illustrated by cognitive biases. The most well-known of these - confirmation bias - is exemplary. But there are loads of others that accomplish basically the same thing - prejudice enforcement. — Pantagruel

But think again. You keep insisting perception is active activity meaning that you can control perceiving the world and objects with your own will or desire.

If I pinched your cheek or pulled out your ear hard, then could you control the pain, into not feeling it at all or to some other feeling than the pain? What active part of perception of feeling the pain do you see in that case?

But think again. You keep insisting perception is active activity meaning that you can control perceiving the world and objects with your own will or desire. — Corvus

But think again. If I learn to anticipate that there will be cheek and ear pulling I can modify my activity patterns to avoid those circumstances. Perception is an amalgam of external inputs selectively rejected or embraced. Being poisoned is much more painful and deadly a perception than being pinched. But some animals develop an immunity to the poison of their chosen prey. Our existence as a receptive organism is predicated on our capacities as an active organism.

I was not denying that perception is active, and it is an activity.   I was suggesting that it is active, but also passive at times, and sometimes it can be both active and passive. — Corvus

Right. And I said I just wanted to emphasize that perception is not purely passive. Upon which it seems we can agree.

If I learn to anticipate that there will be cheek and ear pulling I can modify my activity patterns to avoid those circumstances. — Pantagruel

We were talking about the case where you have not been able to avoid getting pinched or pulled out the ears :D

Being poisoned is much more painful and deadly a perception than being pinched. But some animals develop an immunity to the poison of their chosen prey. — Pantagruel

This must be some unique and rare case in the Evolution. Can't see happening in human life. Evolutionary theory has little ground for their claims anyway.

Our existence as a receptive organism is predicated on our capacities as an active organism. — Pantagruel

There are passive features too.

Right. And I said I just wanted to emphasize that perception is not purely passive. Upon which it seems we can agree. — Pantagruel

It sounded like you were saying that perception is purely active. It rang a bell, it can't be true.

It sounded like you were saying that perception is purely active. It rang a bell, it can't be true. — Corvus

And yet I explicitly offered that comment quite early that it was not "purely passive." Just goes to show you how perceptions can get pre-filtered.... :)

And yet I explicitly offered that comment quite early that it was not "purely passive." — Pantagruel

That is a pure nonsense. I never said perception is purely passive. It just proves that perception can be passive at times. :)

Just goes to show you how perceptions can get pre-filtered.... :) — Pantagruel

Another wrong use of the word here - filtered can only be used for the physical entities such as a liquid, gas, light, or sound ...etc. It is not for abstract nouns such as perceptions. :D

My friend, you are very reactionary in your comments. All I have done is been accommodating to your perspective and all you have done is quibble. I never said that you said it was purely passive, I acknowledged that my own position was designed to highlight that it was not purely passive.

As far as filtration being an incorrect usage, you literally couldn't be more wrong. The concept of "perceptual filters" has been around for ages. Here is the APA dictionary of Psychology link.

I have attempted to bridge the nominalist-realist problem (of ideas) by suggesting a way in which a concept (idea) evolves in the course of the practical inter-evolution of an organism and its environment, linking language, idea, and action in the context of praxis-perception. I don't know what it is that you are suggesting.

Philosophy itself is a detailed subject which adopts the conceptual and logical clarifications for its methodology. If and when one uses wrong or unclear concepts, and starts making shady claims, then the whole picture might get severe distortions miles away from the truth or what it is ensuing the naive people jumping and diving into the pointless discussions, hence we must all guard against the possibilities. You can witness yourself the similar situation from the other topic on Physicalism.

The whole problem with the OP seemed to have stemmed from the fact that the concept of idea is broad and abstract, and we are here trying to clarify.

All I have done is been accommodating to your perspective and all you have done is quibble. — Pantagruel

And another thing my friend. To a quibbler, everything looks like quibbles. To a philosopher, what matters most is truth. Good day :)

Good day :) — Corvus

Well concluded. Happy New year. :)

Well concluded. Happy New year. :) — Pantagruel

Thank you sir. I wish you and yours a very Happy New Year too. :grin: :pray:
... although time is an illusion. :nerd:

I think experience can be abstracted as ideas, but experience itself is not ideas. Ideas are the mental entities which has been abstracted in thoughts.

Right, so thoughts are the product of mental activity. While experiences don’t necessarily involve mental activity for them to be experiences.
Is there a cross over, a grey area here, or a clear distinction between the two?

“Cats appear to think”
I bring up cats because they are doing things which we do, but without much abstract thought, if any.
So they are having experiences, learning from them and modifying their behaviour in response to them absent thought. Or with minimal thought.
Secondly we have much more in common with cats and therefore all mammals, than one might at first think. Indeed the only difference might be a layer, or level of intellectual thought.
Therefore if human thought includes mental activity other than intellectual thought, by definition cats and indeed all mammals are thinking too.
We can also conclude that they are doing something akin to intellectual thought without being self consciously aware that they are intellectualising. Because we can observe strategic, social and territorial behaviour.
In essence I’m saying that instinctive behaviour is very much thought, thinking.

How would these people who are explaining away thinking describe what a cat, or for that matter, a spider spinning a web is doing?

In essence I’m saying that instinctive behaviour is very much thought, thinking. — Punshhh

Yes, I agree with all of your points.

How would these people who are explaining away thinking describe what a cat, or for that matter, a spider spinning a web is doing? — Punshhh

In the case of cats and dogs, and monkeys, they seem to show the intelligent activities in their daily lives.  They definitely have the clear evidence of possessing some level of intelligence, and their reasonings are mostly based on their sense perceptions and memories.  They also seem to understand human words when spoken to them although they cannot make linguistic expressions uttering words and sentences.

And even in the case of the spiders putting up their webs to trap their preys for their survival, it looks in most cases it has been done under the well thought out plans.  They tend to put up the webs in the good locations where it is dark, dingy and corner of the attics or ceilings where it is likely to attract their prey more than the implausible places such as in the middle of the roads, on the dining tables in the kitchens, or in front of the shower heads etc.  

But then we wonder, there are many more insects, mammals, fishes, planktons and even the plants and trees ... etc all seem to be selecting their habitable locations reasonably.  Trees tend to grow more in mass in the forests with the warmth of more sunlights and rainfalls combined with the rich soil bases.

The ants, bees and squids, octopuses, grasses, weeds, roses, they all seem to be selecting the places better for their survivals, and seem to be doing the right things looking for their food and making their shelters under the ground, soils and seabeds as necessary for their best survival chances.  Does that mean they must be all thinking and reasoning, abstracting and having ideas for their plans, and reflecting their pasts?  What do you think?

My train of thought leads to the realisation that living beings “think” and to reduce these thoughts to chemical (and electrical) reactions in a physical body, is to ignore sentience and self consciousness and reduce living beings to zombies.

This reduction also makes a separation between human thought and animal thought, which I don’t think exists, although there is clearly a distinction in the level of self awareness in the thinking process between humans and animals. To assume that because animals are not intellectualising like humans that they are not self conscious and consciously thinking is to deny their level of sentience and understanding of their life, world and existence.

My contention is that animals experience life in very similar ways to humans, but without that additional layer of intellectualisation. So their life and experience will be just like ours minus the intellectual thought.