• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Can Existence be separate from Experience?

As your question doesn't place the prefix of 'self-' before existence, and assuming you equate experience to perception, I'll assume your question is equal to the perennial question of "If a tree falls in the woods, with no one about to perceive it, does it make a noise (alternatively, does it exist)?

The variety of answers to this question illuminates great swathes of epistemology, Metaphysics/ontology and philosophy of mind.

When you say there is no objective reality whatsoever does this extend to other humans? Do you believe that other minds exist beyond your subjective perception of them?
 
I try not to fall into solipsism but I am very convinced of the primacy of consciousness.

To better grasp my point in a nut shell i quote Pythagoras: “man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, of those that are not that they are not."

So as for other human minds, I believe they exist, yet the matter as shape and form with substance and weight, I think is just a creation of human cognition.

Or maybe I am everyone else, and I am just waiting my turn to experience the infinite of human lives one by one. With "me" being the inner awareness of what is called by some: Atman.
 
The Noumenon has the same problem in its definition as does god. How can one define that which eludes boundaries. The thing in of itself is not a thing. Things don't exist outside of the mind. With that said:

"but can never directly know the noumena, the "things-in-themselves", the actual objects and dynamics of the natural world"

There are no objects or dynamics to the world outside of perception.
Man is the measure of all THINGS.
 
Don't you find that such a position puts you back in the solipsism 'box'. If you argue that nothing exists outside of perception what causes the phenomena in your mind, absent a noumenal reality that is objectively real?
 
Quantum Perception said:
The Noumenon has the same problem in its definition as does god.
Click to expand...
The thing-in-itself concept is not defined negatively. Rather, "the objects have to announce [ob-ject, objectify] themselves in our consciousness, the objects are not produced by mere thinking (creative intuition, divine mode), but they have to announce themselves (derivative intuition, human mode). Hence there has to be an unknown X (thing-in-itself) that presents itself as a phenomenon to consciousness."
 
The X that presents itself is defined by its form, shape, function, etc.
These attributes are dependent on our nervous systems. The environment is not the same for all life forms.
So X on its own cannot be denoted at all.
I mean how can something exist without dynamics of shape or form, or attributes?
 
Quantum Perception said:
The X that presents itself is defined by its form, shape, function, etc.
Click to expand...
the Kantian (transcendental) subject formats the thing according its apriori categories (space/time).

These attributes are dependent on our nervous systems.
Click to expand...
Kant makes the difference between a transcendental and empircal subject.

Not saying I'm a big Kant fan, just trying to contribute to the question. You might want to read up on Kant (it's actually very technical).
 
Pythagoras said:
Don't you find that such a position puts you back in the solipsism 'box'. If you argue that nothing exists outside of perception what causes the phenomena in your mind, absent a noumenal reality that is objectively real?
Click to expand...
From here, solipsism is purely a mental/conceptual 'box' dependent on the formulation of 'separate other minds'.

"Other minds" are one's own mind.

I experiences 'other minds' as my own mind, from moment to moment, as I encounter "their" words and ideas.

Thus, the notion of other minds is unnecessary, from here -- there aren't any (for anyone, if you like).

Moreover, mental phenomena arise timelessly (i.e. from moment to moment) as does "the rest of reality", and it seems here can't be separated from "the rest of reality". Thought and perception co-arise in/as awareness -- they aren't two separate categories, with thought being "in here" and perception being "out there". Causation can't apply to what doesn't occur separately.
 
Last edited:
^^

So you don't agree with the distinction of perception and apperception?

Also I don't think you answered my question:

If you argue that nothing exists outside of perception what causes the phenomena in your mind, absent a noumenal reality that is objectively real?
 
^
Things cant exist outside the mind because they are defined by their attributes. What makes it a thing is its shape and form.
So as things are a property of perception, not "objective reality", we can say that there is no-"thing" outside our minds.

The external phenomenon can just be seen as an extension of the self, not the self going through a space.

Remember space and time are created from animals minds for their own benefit.

Look up Biocentrism, it explains this idea well.
 
Another observation

The 'problem' with this sort of discussion, is that the mind is time and space.

Any conceptualization of "continuity over time" (i.e. existence), distance over space, etc. requires a mind to do the conceptualizing and observing.

Thus, any attempt to divorce the observer (mind) from "time and space" becomes immediately a one-sided absurdity. There's no such thing as time and space without a mind to conceive of time and space.

If one sees this clearly, non-separation is "always already the case" and requires no arguments.

Fwiw, my own answer to "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is this: If no one is there to here it fall, how does anyone know a tree fell in the woods?

It's simple -- the mind's conceiving of an (objective) reality outside itself is false. The mind cannot actually represent an external reality, divorced from the mind.
 
Last edited:
Dedbeet said:
The 'problem' with this sort of discussion, is that the mind is time and space.

Any conceptualization of "continuity over time" (i.e. existence), distance over space, etc. requires a mind to do the conceptualizing and observing.

Thus, any attempt to divorce the observer (mind) from "time and space" becomes immediately a one-sided absurdity. There's no such thing as time and space without a mind to conceive of time and space.

If one sees this clearly, non-separation is "always already the case" and requires no arguments.

Fwiw, my own answer to "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is this: If no one is there to here it fall, how does anyone know a tree fell in the woods?

It's simple -- the mind's conceiving of an (objective) reality outside itself is false. The mind cannot actually represent an external reality, divorced from the mind.
Click to expand...

That doesn't actually disprove the existence of a noumenal reality though, it merely proves that the mind can't conceive of it divorced from itself. Which is obvious and no one here would argue that, I think.

Kant touches on this himself - certain a priori categories of perception will always remain constant because the human mind cannot divorce itself from them while perceiving - it do so would be a contradiction.

As far as I can tell, it is a possibility that noumenal reality exists and it is a possibility that reality perceived is an extension of "itself" - whatever is doing the perceiving - as well. Both are logically coherent, but neither are provable. Largely because we can't divorce our mind from our perception of whatever is being perceived and thus we can't check against the possibility of noumenal reality.

I mean, come on guys, it is clear that noumenal reality can't be disproved and it is also clear that the same applies to idealism (in a warped, monist sort of way.)
 
Any "noumenal reality" conceived of, is the past -- meaning anything conceived of as "out there" is a past memory, and not existing in the way it's conceived of.

Of course, this works as a blueprint for e.g. finding one's way to the store, but taking it as reality is living in the past, living in what isn't actually present/existent.

As far as I'm concerned, this "disproves it" sufficiently -- the fact that anything remembered is the past.

In other words, the 'world out there' has always already ended, and the past self that supposedly inhabits it is no more real than that world.
 
Last edited:
your argument is circular as it relies on the premise that noumenal reality doesn't exist to reach the conclusion that noumenal reality doesn't exist.

IF noumenal reality exists, than anything conceived of as "out there" exists in an objective state independent of our perception of it. the past doesn't "negate" the possibility of a noumenal reality if there is a noumenal reality.

the reason my argument is deductively valid is because it doesn't conclude that noumenal reality exists, only that there is no logical incoherence in the provision that noumenal may exist.

your argument roughly follows the form:

1. IF objective/noumenal reality doesn't exist, than the past negates the existence of an objective/noumenal reality
2. objective/noumenal reality doesn't exist
3. the past negates the existence of an objective/noumenal reality
-------------
co: thus, noumenal reality doesn't exist.

the fact is IF noumenal reality did exist than there would be nothing incoherent about living in the past being equivalent to what is actually present. you have to assume that noumenal reality doesn't exist in the first place to make the claim that something living in the pas negates the possibility of noumenal reality.


sorry that was quite wordy and not very concise, but it's hard to explicate logic in words very well for me.
 
"What is actually present" are thoughts about noumenal reality, ponderings about whether it's existent or nonexistent.

In other words, present thoughts, regardless of 'content'.

Not taking "reality out there" as real, solid, objective -- doesn't make it unreal.

It doesn't change anything except a sense of separation going away, one's own thoughts having been taken as representing an actual/existing separation.
 
hmm... how can I communicate this better?

the very argument that you're using to prove your own point can be used to prove mine. "what is actually present" (as you say, our thoughts - but more generally, i think, we can categorize as immediate phenomena, and not just sensory) is all we can know with any certainty. that in no way implies that something beyond our what is present does not or cannot exist.

we can't prove that anything exists beyond the immediate phenomena we experience (although whether or not we can prove even the existence of immediate phenomena is debatable), but we also can't disprove it. I will repeat that all your argument mandates is that we can't know anything outside of immediate phenomena. we can't know if what is represented by our thoughts is real, but similarly we can't know if what is represented by our thoughts doesn't exist

i repeat, if you want to disprove the existence of noumenal reality logically, you have to assert its nonexistence as a premise, and that is simply not meaningful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top