One thing you quickly realize, especially if you are verbalizing you’re notes, is that the state you are in has changed by the time you apply the label. What you are saying is not what you are experiencing, even if it was when you started to say it 2/10
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
You can try to speed up if you want to, but you will find is that every attempt to label or even to orient is always a step behind what you are actually experiencing. And the reason for that is that experience is impermanent and constantly in flux 3/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
Why is that relevant? When we say things like “everyone knows what it’s like to see red”, we ignore the continuous unfolding dynamics of experience. Visual experiences feel like they are wicked stable, because our visual system is constantly sampling and refreshing 4/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
But unless you have done a lot of training, my guess is that you aren’t able to hold on to a single experience long enough to pull apart the complex interactions that are unfolding between distinct sensory events, which will shape the way the experience of “red” in a 5/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
specific context feels. I am not claiming that there’s nothing there, but I am claiming that the decision to lump a bunch of experiences together & call them the “red” experiences is a simplifying and clustering decision. It’s useful for languaging creatures, and useful for 6/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
things like remembering and imagining. But it’s not giving you insight into what you are experiencing at any particular moment. Last claim, I tend to think that when you get to the basic constituents of sensory experience, they end up being far less mysterious 7/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
changes in temprature and pressure, the urge to drink or consume sodium, flows of air across the hair in your nose, all feel like exactly what they are in the body. Visual processing is likely to be harder, as you need to understand how colors, shadows, blur, etc are 8/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
being produced through interactions with distal objects, and there will be some aspects of smell and taste that are just as complicated. But my guess is that careful tracking of experience only leaves us with so-called “easy problems” 9/10
Prikaži ovu nit -
But even when experiences are separated and analyzed conceptually, I don’t think it’s their intrinsic nature to be seperate. And the categorization scheme we choose will always determine what we find. Hence my quasi-illusionism 10/10
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Just curious (genuinely): how would you be able to label a private, ostensive definition for a given state outside of public criteria? .. or perhaps more specifically, how could you check that an imputed definition was accurate?
-
I don’t think you can. And I think that you are always trying to situate experience writhin the categories you’ve learned. That’s one of the reasons why I am firmly committed to the 10th tweet in this thread!
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
: I’m doing a lot of noting practices right now, where you try to precisely label the state that you are currently in (for example, which sensory event is currently most salient, for these purposes treating thought as a sixth sense). 1/10