Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

You do need assumptions for that. You need an assumption that you can experience an experience.

No, because assuming the opposite leads to a contradiction. Let's say I assume I cannot experience anything. The "I cannot experience anything" instantly leads to a contradiction because I will experience one of my five senses, or failing that, experience my own thoughts. Hell, experiencing the thought of "I cannot experience anything" contradicts itself by it's mere existence.

Since the alternative leads to a straight contradiction, then it's not an assumption to believe that experience is possible. It has been proven, hence it's an theorem.

[Sergarr]

But how do you know that experience can be experienced, without any assumptions?

Because I am experiencing. No assumption is required.

You can say it, but without secondary assumptions it won't mean anything at all.

You do need assumptions for that. You need an assumption that you can experience an experience.

No, because assuming the opposite leads to a contradiction. Let's say I assume I cannot experience anything. The "I cannot experience anything" instantly leads to a contradiction because I will experience one of my five senses, or failing that, experience my own thoughts. Hell, experiencing the thought of "I cannot experience anything" contradicts itself by it's mere existence.

Since the alternative leads to a straight contradiction, then it's not an assumption to believe that experience is possible. It has been proven, hence it's an theorem.

I don't think you understand how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Without assumptions, you can't say that you experience five senses, thoughts, or really, anything, because you need an assumption that this is possible before you can say that this is indeed possible.

[LordBucket]

No, because assuming the opposite leads to a contradiction. Let's say I assume I cannot experience anything. The "I cannot experience anything" instantly leads to a contradiction because I will experience one of my five senses, or failing that, experience my own thoughts. Hell, experiencing the thought of "I cannot experience anything" contradicts itself by it's mere existence.

Since the alternative leads to a straight contradiction, then it's not an assumption to believe that experience is possible. It has been proven, hence it's an theorem.

I don't think that logical process is necessary when the empirical process is available, in this case. The moment you experience one of those senses, or the thought...you're experiencing. You're not "proving" that you're capable of observation by virtue of the process of reasoning it out. You're simply observing that you're observing...so yes, you're observing.

Again, no logic is required.

"Are you observing?" -- Y/N

The answer stands on its own. There's no need to say "yes, I'm observing...therefore I deduce that I am observing."

You can say it, but without secondary assumptions it won't mean anything at all.

What assumptions?

[SirQuiamus]

Since the alternative leads to a straight contradiction, then it's not an assumption to believe that experience is possible. It has been proven, hence it's an theorem.

That statement is only valid within the context of a binary logic with laws against contradiction.

...but seriously, it may be beyond all reasonable doubt, but it still isn't necessary. 

[Sergarr]

No, because assuming the opposite leads to a contradiction. Let's say I assume I cannot experience anything. The "I cannot experience anything" instantly leads to a contradiction because I will experience one of my five senses, or failing that, experience my own thoughts. Hell, experiencing the thought of "I cannot experience anything" contradicts itself by it's mere existence.

Since the alternative leads to a straight contradiction, then it's not an assumption to believe that experience is possible. It has been proven, hence it's an theorem.

I don't think that logical process is necessary when the empirical process is available, in this case. The moment you experience one of those senses, or the thought...you're experiencing. You're not "proving" that you're capable of observation by virtue of the process of reasoning it out. You're simply observing that you're observing...so yes, you're observing.

Again, no logic is required.

"Are you observing?" -- Y/N

The answer stands on its own. There's no need to say "yes, I'm observing...therefore I deduce that I am observing."

You can say it, but without secondary assumptions it won't mean anything at all.

What assumptions?

You're still assuming that you're experiencing the experiences when you think that you're experiencing the experiences. That's a very obvious assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. That's the second one of the secondary assumption that I've meant.

The first one is assuming that it is possible to experience an experience.

The zeroth one is probably defining what "experience" and "experiencing an experience" are.


You can't build any theory without assumptions. It's the same as building a story without limitations - it's completely and utterly impossible, because such a story cannot be told - it is, after all, without limitations, and every word said about such a story is a limitation placed on it.

[LordBucket]

You're still assuming that you're experiencing the experiences when you think that you're experiencing the experiences.

...I'm not assuming I'm experiencing an experience. I'm experiencing an experience.

I might be thinking that I'm experiencing an experience, but the fact that I am able to observe that thought makes it self evident that I am observing.

This is kind of a "by definition" thing.

The first one is assuming that it is possible to experience an experience.

It's not necessary to assume that it's possible when I'm directly experiencing it.

"Are you having an observer experience?" Y/N

For example, punch yourself in the face hard enough that it hurts. Now, prove to yourself that you're capable of experiencing pain.

Well, if you experienced the pain...then proof of the ability to have the experience is not really necessary, right?

[Sergarr]

Definitions require assumptions to make, too, if you haven't already noticed. I'd like to see how you would define "experience" and "experiencing an experience" without any assumptions about things.

[LordBucket]

Definitions require assumptions to make, too, if you haven't already noticed. I'd like to see how you would define
"experience" and "experiencing an experience" without any assumptions about things.

I think you're being pedantic at this point.

If you're an observer entity, the observer experience is an empirical thing. By definition. If you're not, then you're a zombie, and no amount of deductive reasoning will convey the concept.