How can I know that I can trust direct experience?

[Twega]

Leo has mentioned that direct experience is KING. But I want to know why this is so. Now I'm familiar with the typical responses to this question, such as: "It's all you have dummy!"  & I totally agree with that. But I would like to know if there are other things I should look for to validate this notion that direct experience is KING. What sparked my skeptisim was a book  called Incognito by a neuroscientist named David Eagleman. Here is a small excerpt from the book and my own notes attempting to refute his notion. Tell me your thoughts, thanks.

 

"So first a lesson about trusting the senses is: don't. Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it's true, that doesn't mean it is true. The most important maxim for fighter pilots is "Trust your instruments." This is because your senses will tell you the most inglorious lies, and if you trust them-instead of your cockpit dials-you'll crash. So the next time someone says, "Who are you going to belive, me or your lying eyes?", consider the question carefully."

(( he follows by giving examples that illusion not merely trick your brain into believing something, but actually experiencing it.)))

 

My own notes: Eagleman uses his experience of perceptual illusions to generate his skepticism of deriving truth from mere experiential data. This seems to me to be contradictory. Or is it? A strange-loop  again. The only way to distinguish false experience from "true experience" is through experience?

[Red-White-Light]

@Twega He’s referring to human error in technical fields. A spiritual field doesn’t even include the mind, it’s about realising there is no mind. 

[dropthehat]

Having a pre-conceived notion about something can force your experience to fit into that mold, so there's always a possibility that your subconscious is making you disregard data to keep up the notion it has learned elsewhere. 
If you are ignorant of this, which all of us are at some points, direct experience can indeed just serve to feed and keep up an illusion. The way to combat this is improving sensory clarity, equanimity and focus via relevant meditations and yoga.

[Globalcollective]

Can you trust reality? Can you trust trusting ? All games of the mind 

[Nahm]

@Twega

I’d suggest it’s a matter of inspection rather than trust. As an example, have you noticed ‘book’ is a thought, not perception? 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Twega said:

"So first a lesson about trusting the senses is: don't. Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it's true, that doesn't mean it is true. The most important maxim for fighter pilots is "Trust your instruments."

Lol

How can you "trust your instruments" if you don't trust your senses? It's pure absurdity!

He's speaking so confidently about things he has no clue about.

Quote

My own notes: Eagleman uses his experience of perceptual illusions to generate his skepticism of deriving truth from mere experiential data. This seems to me to be contradictory. Or is it?

Of course it is. He's clueless that his own logic and cognitive process IS part of "the senses" and is even less reliable than sensation.

Go ahead and distrust direct experience. See what remains.

But when you distrust experience, you must be unbiased about it. If you distrust the eyes but trust your thoughts, that's a bias.

[James123]

1 hour ago, Twega said:

The only way to distinguish false experience from "true experience" is through experience?

False experience is happens with thoughts or ideas such assuming that you are human and can think. This is not a direct experience because as a human you are experiencing something different than you. However, In direct experience you will have become the experience, there is no assumption there. Direct experience is not doing, it is being. 

[Someone here]

OK throw away all the sense data. Your senses deceive you every single day when you dream at night.. What decieved you once can't be trusted.   But what is left after that? 

Cogito ergo sum.   Can't get around that. 

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Someone here said:

Cogito ergo sum. 

That is all sense data.

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is all sense data.

I'm sure you know Descartes's evil demon.  Even if everything in my direct experience is an illusion made by some evil demon from another dimension who is trying to deceive me.. Still there has to be someone or something that is being deceived. I must have some kind of actual existence even if everything in my direct experience is pure illusion. 

[JayG84]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I'm sure you know Descartes's evil demon.  Even if everything in my direct experience is an illusion made by some evil demon from another dimension who is trying to deceive me.. Still there has to be someone or something that is being deceived. I must have some kind of actual existence even if everything in my direct experience is pure illusion. 

 

[Someone here]

@Twega even the dea or the possibility of direct experience being false is itself direct experience.. You are falling into a very silly contradiction.. Because when refuting direct experience you are using yet another direct experience.. It doesn't take a lot of genius to realize that direct experience is all you have and will ever have. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Someone here

[Carl-Richard]

To not trust your senses would be senseless, but you shouldn't trust your visual senses blindly...

 

 

 

 

 

[Someone here]

53 minutes ago, dflores321 said:

sum ergo cogito

Sum ergo sum? 

[Nak Khid]

Quote

How can I know that I can trust direct experience?

It's easy if you're a solipsist

[Flyboy]

1 hour ago, Johnny5 said:

Sorry for the bad news but your senses are actually secondary to reality.

Without senses reality would still exist. Reality is not in the senses, the senses are in reality.

Ahh but don't you see, that's the point.  You can't know that.  Your paradigm can tell you that, or you can believe other people, but all of those things are delivered to you through your senses to begin with.  Thus, as far as your being is concerned, the senses are a priori to reality.

[Forestluv]

@Twega It seems like you are asking “how can I trust experience”? And that is a different question.

Another frame would be “How can I trust ISness?”. It doesn’t really make sense because ISness is prior to trust. To add in trust, we have to start constructing. We need to create constructs of what is ISness? Is it sensations? Is it material or immaterial? How do I know I am accurately perceiving ISness? That is all second order. ISness is first order and prior to those constructs.

Also consider “what is experience”. Is not experience a contextualization? The mind makes up a story like “I just ate a ham sandwich. It was delicious”. That is one of many contextualizations we can create. As well, it is occurring now and is also ISness yet the mind creates a thing called “trust” to help protect it’s self interests and wellbeing. Can I trust the stories I am creating? Can I trust my feelings?. 

Let’s say I am gazing at a tree and an entity appears. I see it’s aura and feel it’s essence. . . It is what it is. . . We can then go second order and ask “Can I trust the experience I just had? Was that a real spirit entity? Was that a paranormal event? Maybe I have psychic powers. Or maybe it was just a bird. Maybe I’m losing my mind and need to go on medication.” Whether to trust a particular contextualization of ISness into experience is second order, yet it can be important and useful at the personal level. If I go around thinking birds are spirit entities from another dimension that are spying on me. . . trusting in that story may cause difficulties in my life. 

[WelcometoReality]

8 hours ago, Twega said:

"So first a lesson about trusting the senses is: don't. Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it's true, that doesn't mean it is true. The most important maxim for fighter pilots is "Trust your instruments." This is because your senses will tell you the most inglorious lies, and if you trust them-instead of your cockpit dials-you'll crash. So the next time someone says, "Who are you going to belive, me or your lying eyes?", consider the question carefully."

It's all direct experience whether you are looking at the dials or your looking out of the window it's your sense of sight. What is determining where your looking? It's your beliefs! If you were to believe that the dials are not to be trusted then you probably looking out the window and vice versa.

8 hours ago, Twega said:

My own notes: Eagleman uses his experience of perceptual illusions to generate his skepticism of deriving truth from mere experiential data. This seems to me to be contradictory. Or is it? A strange-loop  again. The only way to distinguish false experience from "true experience" is through experience?

Experience is experience and that gets filtered through your belief structure which then determines what's true or false.

[remember]

9 hours ago, Twega said:

Leo has mentioned that direct experience is KING. But I want to know why this is so. Now I'm familiar with the typical responses to this question, such as: "It's all you have dummy!"  & I totally agree with that. But I would like to know if there are other things I should look for to validate this notion that direct experience is KING. What sparked my skeptisim was a book  called Incognito by a neuroscientist named David Eagleman. Here is a small excerpt from the book and my own notes attempting to refute his notion. Tell me your thoughts, thanks.

as long as there is KING direct experience would be KING - in some sense you could say direct experience is always present. there is nothing despite that. when the king looses his clothes there is no difference between the story and the mirror.

 

"So first a lesson about trusting the senses is: don't. Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it's true, that doesn't mean it is true. The most important maxim for fighter pilots is "Trust your instruments." This is because your senses will tell you the most inglorious lies, and if you trust them-instead of your cockpit dials-you'll crash. So the next time someone says, "Who are you going to belive, me or your lying eyes?", consider the question carefully."

(( he follows by giving examples that illusion not merely trick your brain into believing something, but actually experiencing it.)))

 

My own notes: Eagleman uses his experience of perceptual illusions to generate his skepticism of deriving truth from mere experiential data. This seems to me to be contradictory. Or is it? A strange-loop  again. The only way to distinguish false experience from "true experience" is through experience?

there is no false experience, no true experience, all there is is experience - there are fields of experience - small universes of experiences side by side either merging or interfering or colliding or simply in awareness of each other. comparing data to experience and experience to data can give more security if none of both is a construct of self deception. in that sense: if invisibility is a fashion you might overlook that transparency is invisible because what is KING is always KING made.

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by remember

[allislove]

@Twega we can talk about direct experience in different contexts.

Imagine, I tell you there is a God in the cloud and you blindly believe me, maybe because I am your father or because everyone around says that there is a God in the cloud. So, you are making a belief based on the hearsay. Then, based on this belief you make other beliefs.
I think what is Leo suggests in the videos is: don't blindly believe anyone until you check it by yourself in the direct experience.

About book, I really love Leo's comment, how can you trust your instruments without trusting your feelings?
It's amazing how this spiritual work can easily help for distinguishing bs  

To talk about direct experience in different context:
Is there anything else except direct experience?
Where is reading of this message happen?
Where is thinking happen? 
What is direct experience?
Where is separation between you and the direct experience?
Nice things to ponder