Space is not empty.

Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature. — Frank Apisa

And here is your latest definition.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." — Frank Apisa

Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY? — Frank Apisa

Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it -

humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way? — Frank Apisa

That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.

Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component.

Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does.

Before I respond I need to understand. Are you a religious person and are these your religious beliefs?

I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. — Hippyhead

That is pretty much the opposite of my position. Obviously I have not communicated. It is the sentence/question itself that is incoherent.

I'll elaborate - maybe this will help - or maybe it will muddy the waters further :smile:

In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

We all recognize that under the standard definitions of the words these are nonsense sentences - they do not express a coherent thought.

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says - and using a Star Trek reference - "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions/usages of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence? I say no. The question is a nonsense sentence.

The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically. — Frank Apisa

Sorry Frank - you've got this wrong.

The God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam resides in a spiritual realm. He can intervene in the physical world. After all, it's his creation - he can do any damn thing he pleases with it. But he existed (whatever that means) in his spiritual realm before he created the physical world - and our eternal souls go to this spiritual realm after we die. And after the final judgement the physical world will cease to exist (at least according to many interpretations).

The "existence" of a non-physical world/realm is the key distinguishing factor that makes a belief system a religion. I'm not talking about your interpretation of the word "god" here - I'm taking about what the billions of religious people believe.

Again - don't take my word for it - check with a religious person - or go to any of the religious web sites. They will confirm this.

Anyway - we've looped around this point enough. Last word is yours if you want it.

Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." — Frank Apisa

Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

And you have explicitly rejected this notion.

Very jaded view there — Frank Apisa

Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble.

Words have meaning & usages.

You - Frank Apisa - have your own unique definition/usage of the word "god(s)". Under your definition, "god(s)" refers a hypothetical entity or entities that is/are part of the material universe. However - much as an ant has no conception of what is happening when you step on it's nest - we human beings cannot perceive them. However, given that your "god(s)" are part of the material universe, then at least potentially they can be investigated, measured, etc.

Under this definition, your little "guessing" formula works, and I have the same opinion you have - no reason to guess one way or the other.

But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence.

It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth. — Frank Apisa

Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).

We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.

Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile:

As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm. — Hippyhead

The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).

Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.

I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.

But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism

- - - - - - - - - -

BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East.

You haven't succeeded in that project, though — Hippyhead

Aside from simply asserting it, you have given no explanation for for the lack of success.

Perhaps I have not explained myself well.

When the topic of religious persecution comes up and non-believers (such as myself) point out that no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism or agnosticism, religious folks will try to counter and say "Oh yeah? What about Stalin & Mao?"

I simply wanted to nip that line of "reasoning" in the bud. The depredations of Stalin & Mao had nothing to do with religion.

Getting back to religious persecution, of course things are much more complex than that. No one is ever murdered merely in the name of religion. Religious persecution is always tied in with politics, prejudice, and the desire to rule over and manipulate people. You might even want to make the claim that religion has merely provided a convenient fig leaf to conceal other motives. I won't argue that - but merely point out that it is a very powerful fig leaf capable of motivating entire nations to go to war and commit mass murder.

1) If one is a believer, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to believe, and....

2) If one is a disbeliever, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to disbelieve, and...

3) One sees and faces one's incurable ignorance on subjects of such enormous scale, and...

4) Still is interested in god topics... — Hippyhead

I'm not following the logic here. If you accept 1 thru 3 - and have thus accepted the fact that the sentence "God Exists" has no coherent meaning - then why are you still interested in "god topics'?

If you acknowledge that you are incurably ignorant about a topic, then move on and find some new interests.

Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in? — Hippyhead

I wish I had an answer to this question. And it's not merely religion. How do you talk to people who believe in these bizarre conspiracy theories, or deny global warming, etc, etc? It's very discouraging.

Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief?

And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer.

What I'm looking for are situations where a group of atheists / agnostics / ignostics murdered large numbers of religious people in the name of atheism / agnosticism / ignosticism.

Indeed. I have tried to make basically the same point on more than one occasion.

Humankind has existed in it's present form for, say, roughly 40K years. It's only in the last 400 years that we have started to understand how the universe/existence "works (I put works in quotes - I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing this.)

We discover the Big Bang less than 100 years ago. Likely we understand this stuff as much as an ant crossing a football field understands a false start (that's American football). To assume we are capable of any intelligent/discussion is at best futile.

What's worse is that throughout history wars have been fought to decide the outcomes of these discussions.

@Frank Apisa@tim wood

Here's a little song you guys can sing along with. Sing it to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off"

Tim says ‘A reason’
And Frank says ‘Not a reason’
Frank says ‘It’s logic”
And Tim says ‘No logic’
A reason!
A raison!
Horizon!
No reason!
LET”S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!!

When talking to Frank - keep in mind that he appears to have a completely different definition of the word "god" than pretty much every other person on the planet (and likely most folks on this forum) - in particular his "god(s)" is not supernatural.

Frank Apisa Definition(s) of the word "God"

I would prefer that everyone just eliminate the use of descriptors in this area...and merely present his/her position without reference to theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, or the like. — Frank Apisa

Like you said - it ain't gonna happen. But regardless - sometimes the specific reference is useful. E.g., you might want to say something like:

"I consider myself to be a [whatever]. For more information [some philosopher] expresses things quite well: <some URL>"

Also - it takes up space & time to repeat yourself. I personally find it much simpler to say I'm an ignostic (possibly with a link to wikipedia) - then to have to spout out a paragraph or two every time it comes up in conversation. If a persons ask what that means then you can explain.

Probably ain't gonna happen. — Frank Apisa

No probability here. It ain't.

(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none.. — Frank Apisa

We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.

That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?

Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.

BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . .

We seem to have dueling definitions here.

I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. Per Frank's definition, atheism is an active denial/rejection of g/G-beliefs - which is distinct from simply having no opinion/belief one way or the other.

I.e., denial is a form of belief.

Of course the word belief is very slippery. . . :chin:

By the way, EricH...what do you say "atheist" means...and why do you say it? — Frank Apisa

I'm pretty sure that I am using something very close to your definition - someone who denies the existence of a god or gods.

I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time.

The point I am trying to make is that you - Frank Apisa - have committed the most mortal philosophical sin there is - namely you have contradicted yourself. Cue music from Psycho

Back here you criticized @DingoJones and others for re-defining the word "atheist" far beyond it's commonly accepted usage. You stated that you were absolutely not an atheist and - IMHO - correctly insisted that we stick with common usage.

However - in this conversation you are redefining the word "god" far beyond it's standard usage. Now perhaps you have changed your mind - and now think that it's OK in a philosophical discussion to redefine words for beyond their common usage.

But if that is the case, then you will have no grounds to object the next time someone says that you are some sort of atheist. I.e. - you will have no grounds to object based upon the fact that they have re-defined words. - you will have to come up with a new line of reasoning.

In your reply I expect (and hope) that you will address this inconsistency.

If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that. — Frank Apisa

For clarity's sake I am going to sort of repeat myself - but I will use a different approach.

Here's the OP: What are your positions on the arguments for God?

And my answer:

1) Using Frank Apisa's definition?
I am agnostic.
2) Using Pantheist definition(s)?
I neither understand nor identify with Pantheism - at least based on my limited understanding. If there is sufficient overlap with some Pantheistic definition & Frank Apisa's definition then I would take a look.
3) Using the definition of the remaining ~7.5 billion people on this planet
I am ignostic.

About 6 months ago you started this discussion: About This Word Atheist

In this discussion you objected to folks who were attempting to re-define the word atheist to include agnostics - i.e. that agnosticism is a type of atheism.

I agreed with you - when words have clearly defined meanings that have been in use for hundreds of years, it is pointlessly confusing to re-define them to fit into some sort of analytical framework. Just come up with a new word.

Now perhaps I am not following you, but it seems like you are doing the same thing. You are re-defining the word god(s) and removing the supernatural aspect - but by doing this you are eliminating they single most defining aspect of the word god - namely that god(s) is/are supernatural in nature.

So I respectfully suggest that you come up with a new word to avoid this confusion. Here is my feeble attempt - I'm sure there are better:

UETPE: An acronym for Unknown Entities That Physically Exist. An UETPE is a hypothetical entity that physically exists and thus is potentially knowable/discoverable by some as of yet undiscovered tool/device/method. It is also possible that UETPE(s) are somehow involved in the creation of the universe as it currently exists.

Now we can re-formulate your algorithm:

I do not know if UETPEs exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect UETPEs CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of UETPEs is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that UETPEs MUST EXIST...that UETPEs are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I would agree with this. I am agnostic on the existence of UETPEs.

But when it comes to the “existence of god(s)” I am ignostic. The word god is incoherent and any attempts to analyze/discuss the “existence” of an incoherent word are pointless.

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural. — Frank Apisa

I could be missing something here, but your definition of the word "god" does not correspond with the definition used by pretty much every other human being on this planet.

Maybe some of the pantheists out here would agree with you - but not being a pantheist I can't speak for them.

I used to call myself agnostic, but it never felt quite right. When I stumbled across ignosticism it was like the proverbial light bulb going on. If someone asks me my religion I will say ignostic and take the time to explain it.

In some ways ignosticism is even more threatening to theists than atheism - it negates all the counter arguments that you cannot prove that God does not exist.

At this point i'm an ignostic. — substantivalism

As a fellow ignostic I appreciate that you're trying to engage with @3017amen, but I doubt you'll achieve much. These folks are locked into their positions, and by asking them to give clear definitions to the words "God" and "existence" you are basically asking them to abandon everything they believe.

human beings as highly cooperative, reciprocal and intuitively moral creatures — Banno

I wish I could agree with this. But then I look at today's headlines (or any history book for that matter) and find overwhelming evidence that this is not so.

It might have gotten lost in the shuffle, so I'll repeat my suggestions

First, get a hold of Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. Besides giving (in my opinion) one of the best explanations of Godel, it's a very entertaining read in of itself with all sorts of very cool insights.

Next, you might want to check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbtNQ7yzo9Y&feature=youtu.be

This explains the technique behind Godel in totally non-mathematical terms.

It is not easy to wrap your head around this. I sort of understand it, but still struggle with it.

I can recommend two sources which might help you.

First, get a hold of Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. it's a great read in of itself with all sorts of very cool insights.

Next, you might want to check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbtNQ7yzo9Y&feature=youtu.be

The example here is analogous to Godel - well sort of.

what would empirical evidence for a transcendent being comprise? — Wayfarer

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

If a giant voice would emerge from nowhere saying:

"Hey humanity, it's God here! I know that some of you have doubted my existence, so just to make certain that everyone knows I'm real - for the next 24 hours I'm going to reverse the rotation of the earth".

And sure enough the next morning the sun rises in the west.

That - or something equivalent - would be sufficient empirical evidence. Of course it would be most helpful if the giant voice would also tell us the proper religion:

"Oh, and by the way? The Methodists have the correct religion. OK, either the Methodists or the Sunni Muslims. Either one is fine with me" :razz:

panpsychism has to move fast and come up with more well-defined theories, theorems, experiments, and some proofs. I personally see panpsychism being in its infancy and very different from what it will be in 30 years from now. — Eugen

I think it highly unlikely, but if the panpsychists can come up with some experiments & proof? That would be very cool.

But once you have theorems, experiments, and reproducible proof - then you are following the scientific method.

Thank you for the thoughtful & polite response. I looked up Philip Goff & I think I have a bit of a handle now on what you're saying. So first I will respond to your comments - and then I will attempt to give my own somewhat incoherent thoughts on the topic.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Panpsychism in all of it's variants seems like a religion to me. Compared to most religions it seems relatively harmless - I can't see anyone going to war over it and/or threatening to kill people if they do not convert. And I can see how it might be an appealing option. But unless there is a way to test/verify these hypotheses it remains a religion of sorts. But if there were any way to verify these hypotheses - then at that point it would cease being a religion and would become - for want of a better term - scientific.

I can anticipate that your objection to this is that science is locked into a materialistic paradigm and thus is incapable of performing any such inquiries. If this is the case, then it is up to you and your fellow panpsychists to lead them in a new direction. How should we proceed to investigate these hypotheses? How should one attempt to verify that a rock has some form of consciousness?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
So what do I think about all this?

To the best of our current knowledge, the universe is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles, forces, etc, etc. And yet somehow, atoms can organize in such a way as to become self aware.

Hey! Look at me! I'm made of atoms!

This is truly an extraordinary thing and the more you think about it the more mind boggling it gets. How can one account for this?

My short answer? Beats the heck outta me. . . :smile:

My longer answer . . .

Humankind has been around in it's current form for, say, 40 thousand years or so. It is only in the last 400 years that we have started to understand how the universe behaves. Our knowledge base is expanding every year - we are finding new facts about reality and our abilities to explore/measure are also increasing. We likely know as much about existence as an ant crossing a football field understands about the rules of the game. Maybe a bit more. If history is any guide, it is likely that much of what we know about the universe will prove to be only partly correct under certain conditions.

If we (mankind that is) can succeed in not destroying civilization, then perhaps 100s or 1000s or millions of years from now we will get to the bottom of things (that's a metaphor of course).

As such, we must be humble and acknowledge our limitations. We are all frail fallible human beings out here.

One possibility is that the existence of conscious beings is a manifestation of some underlying principal in nature - I believe the most common way of expressing this is "emergent property". Perhaps consciousness is somehow related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? It strikes me a fascinating that no computer program can detect an infinite loop in another computer program yet human beings can spot them.

Alternatively, Noam Chomsky has stated that - while there is a materialistic explanation for consciousness - we human beings will never uncover it because we cannot introspect ourselves.

Perhaps in the future science will come up with a machine that can truly transfer thoughts/feelings from one person to another. I can't rule it out.

Vulcan mind meld anyone? :chin:

Anyone else got any explanation that makes sense given the facts? — tim wood

Hanlon's Razor applies here.

they do not know WTF they're doing — tim wood

That is most likely the correct explanation

I'll try again. I get that you folks feel that materialism does not - and will never - offer an explanation of consciousness. But beyond that I'm not getting what your positions actually are - and please don't say it's obvious - or toss out words like "feeling" and "experience".

I am not rejecting your ideas out of hand. I am not criticizing you personally or attacking you for not being able to express your ideas clearly. These are difficult topics. What I am asking for is some reference. Is there some philosopher and/or some philosophical school of thought out there who you agree with?

Just for example, here is someone who talks about how Idealism explains consciousness. In this discussion he makes it clear that he does not agree with the Idealists but he gives a clear explanation of their thinking.

https://thepsychedelicscientist.com/2017/02/13/solving-the-hard-problem-with-idealism/

Please read this - it's a quick read - and get back. Does the author give a good explanation of your thoughts? if not, can you supply a link that gives a reasonably accurate summary of your position?

I'm pretty sure any professional philosopher would instantly know what Eugen meant. — bert1

I'm not a professional philosopher. :smile: In fact I'm not even an amateur philosopher - I'm just stumbling around in the dark trying to figure out what's going on.

I think I have sort of a vague sense of what @Eugen is saying, but I'm trying to get some clarity.

Ah - you're not a native speaker. That's OK. It is likely that we are not going to agree, but I would first like to have some understanding of your position.

To proove what? That a feeling is not the same thing as an atom? — Eugen

Perhaps I was not clear. Here is what I said:

At this point in time the burden of proof is on you. If you can provide me with some links, perhaps I can at least understand what you're getting at. — EricH

Given that you are not a native speaker - and that these concepts are very difficult to express even for someone who is fluent - I am asking you to provide me with some references that I can read that will help me understand what it is you are saying. As I responded to @bert1 - this is a philosophy forum so it would help me if you could proved some references that would position your ideas within some philosophical framework. E.g., some type of Idealism?

I would like to ask you something, but please be 100% sincere. Do you really believe that your feelings are exactly the same thing and nothing more than a certain movement of atoms yes/no? — Eugen

I would like to give you an sincere response - but I need to understand what you mean by "feelings" - it is a very vague word which has many different definitions.

If I'm following correctly, you seem to be saying that feelings are not mental processes - so I'm trying to figure out the word "feelings" (or experiences) means to you.

So to repeat myself - I hope you can provide me with some references - and I'm not looking for a dictionary definition of feelings.

I hope I'm being clear - and reasonable - in my requests.

Of course the expression is used, but this is a philosophy forum - so I am asking for some discussion of this concept within a philosophical framework. As you can see by your link, the only reference is in a reddit forum. There's no mention of this phrase in any of the standard sources for basic information about philosophy. Perhaps it is more commonly known under a different term?

I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I've been polite to you. I may or may not agree with your position - likely not, but you never know- I keep an open mind. But if you cannot explain yourself clearly to a reasonably intelligent person, then you're never going to convince anyone that your position is correct.

My "google-fu" is pretty good. I did a good faith effort to research the phrase "first person experience" and came up empty handed. That phrase does not appear as a topic on either Wikipedia or Britannica. At this point in time the burden of proof is on you. If you can provide me with some links, perhaps I can at least understand what you're getting at.

You haven't made this clear to me.

mental processes (moving of atoms inside your brain) i — Eugen

So a "mental process" is the moving of atoms inside your brain.

A punch in the face creates some atoms moving in certain way — Eugen

I assume here that the atoms referred to in this sentence are the same atoms you were talking about in the previous sentence. I.e., we're not talking about the atoms in your nose, or in the nerve paths leading to your brain.

Pain is an experience, which is produced by a movement of atoms, — Eugen

So is this the same movement of atoms that you were referring to in the previous 2 sentences or is it a different set of moving atoms? Either way, what do you mean by the word "experience"?

I did about a 5 minute search on the phrase "first person experience". Nothing in wikipedia, Britannica, Stanford, etc.