You claim that you experience what you don’t experience?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Nope. Obviously, we cant know *for sure* that anything outside the mind exists. Theres no way to prove that. But I think it's a bit naive to think that the only things in existance are the things you can directly experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @skyyygazer
The exact meaning of your words is very important when you try to think using language
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I agree.. but I'm not sure I understand your point here. Did I use a word incorrectly?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @skyyygazer
The mind is the name for the substrate in which experience is possible. To be experienced, things have to be constructed in the mind, and integrated in a way that makes it possible to remember experiencing them.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @skyyygazer
Experience is the name for a particular kind of observable: that it is like something to observe. It is not clear if we should ascribe existence to observation (it depends on how we define "exist"), but it does not make sense to propose that unobservable observables exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I see your point, but I dont think it's fair to define experience as strictly observable You can experience emotions, you can experience hardships, etc. Regardless, all this seems to agree with the original quote, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @skyyygazer @Plinz
The brain is a sense making organ. We will always be confined to the inputs it receives. Our reality is the result of its processing.. So I call the brain a filter. Whether or not anything outside the mind exists is a matter of belief
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @skyyygazer
You seem to think that the validity of a belief is somehow independent of its justification?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
What? All I'm trying to do is figure out where we disagree lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
When you say that something "is a matter of belief" does that imply that in the absence of evidence, you can pick an arbitrary belief, or are you forced believe that you don't know? And if you can show that you cannot know something, how can you justify a belief about it?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Gotcha.. I used "belief" because we have no way of knowing if anything outside of the mind exists. So we're left with a bunch of options to choose from (aka believe in) but ultimately we just dont know. Once we have proof, it's no longer a matter of belief.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @skyyygazer
Everything outside of our mind can only be known by inference, it seems. That implies that we have to understand the nature of languages, models, systems capable of inference, conditions that can give rise to such systems, etc., no?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.