Experience vs reason

[Marioxs34]

35 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

I think perhaps you are reading a bit into what Leo says.  As was stated earlier, no one, including Leo, is saying reason is bad.  Only that it has it's limits.  To go beyond reason, requires a different sort of perspective.   For example.. we have words like 'infinity', which you might think you know what that word means.. but it you might be surprised at how difficult it is to come up with a 'reasonable' definition.  You might say.. infinity is something that 'goes on forever'.. but then you've just substituted 'forever' for 'infinity'.  'forever' is another 'unreasonable' word. What does 'forever' mean?  All of time?  How does that make sense? Is 'All of time' a reasonable statement?  How much time, exactly, is 'all of time'? 

So to really 'grasp' what these concepts like 'infinity' and 'God' are REALLY getting at, requires a sort of 'meta-perspective'.  A kind of a 'letting go' of 'reasonable' concepts, and simply becoming conscious of what is True. 

Then where does the epystemological validity come from pure experience if reason can't justify experience? I don't think blind faith in experience is a good thing

Edited December 22, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 you can give me some very reasonable descriptions of what it's like to eat a peach.  You can describe it juiciness, and texture, explain the sweetness and citrussy flavor.. but these reasonable descriptions will never allow me to 'know what it's like to eat a peach' the way that 'experiencing eating a peach' will. 

[Nahm]

19 hours ago, Marioxs34 said:

I can experience that the sun revolves around the earth but through science i can understand that this Is not true.

Just like reason (from inspection) reveals that was a belief… 

2 hours ago, Marioxs34 said:

Then why Leo tells experience has to have privilege and reason can't question some its propositions?

Inspection of direct experience reveals that is a belief (that there is a “Leo”). 

Also, reason can’t question per se because reason is a thought / belief (that there is reason). 

[Marioxs34]

58 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Marioxs34 you can give me some very reasonable descriptions of what it's like to eat a peach.  You can describe it juiciness, and texture, explain the sweetness and citrussy flavor.. but these reasonable descriptions will never allow me to 'know what it's like to eat a peach' the way that 'experiencing eating a peach' will. 

So you're saying that reason is a medium to recognise whether the experience is an illusion? What does ultimately tell us that what we've experienced is not an illusion?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Mason Riggle]

17 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

So you're saying that reason is a medium to recognise whether the experience is an illusion? What does ultimately tell us that what we've experienced is not an illusion?

'Illusion/Real' is more dualistic language. They are no different, from the perspective of conscious experience. 

Consider, is this forum real, or does it just seem real to you (illusion)? Is there any difference? 

 

[Marioxs34]

5 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

'Illusion/Real' is more dualistic language. They are no different, from the perspective of conscious experience. 

Consider, is this forum real, or does it just seem real to you (illusion)? Is there any difference? 

 

Of course there's a difference. If it's real there's a forum, if it's an illusion the forum doesn't exist

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 it would exist as illusion, no?  

[Mason Riggle]

6 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

Of course there's a difference. If it's real there's a forum, if it's an illusion the forum doesn't exist

This started off about 'knowing'..  how do you know what's real? I posit, that what you consider to be real, is everything that 'seems real' to you.  From your perspective, the only one you have, 'seeming real' is just as good as 'being real'. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Marioxs34]

13 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

This started off about 'knowing'..  how do you know what's real? I posit, that what you consider to be real, is everything that 'seems real' to you.  From your perspective, the only one you have, 'seeming real' is just as good as 'being real'. 

When i mean that something is real, i mean that it makes logical sense that something is real not that something seems real. Now, we can not question the validity of reason since Leo too says that reason isn't bad. And now that i think about it, talking about the validity of reason, many philophers talk about the power of reason and indipendence from faith and meta-perspectives. I have listened this from my competent teacher of philosophy (i'm from Italy and here philosophy is taught in schools)

Edited December 22, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 we're both using reason to communicate.. nothing wrong with that.  I'm trying to reason with you now.  

Logically speaking, the only way for you to 'know' what is 'real', is by judging how it 'seems' to you.. your experience of it.   Have you ever had a dream that 'seemed real'?  During those types of dreams, you do not know it's just a dream, because you are lost in it, it 'seems real'.  How do you know you are not dreaming now?  This moment 'seems real'.. but is it real?  How would you know? Because it seems that way?? 

Of course, my logic is failing...  but what I'm pointing to, can be directly noticed as a matter of conscious experience. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Marioxs34]

14 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Marioxs34 we're both using reason to communicate.. nothing wrong with that.  I'm trying to reason with you now.  

Logically speaking, the only way for you to 'know' what is 'real', is by judging how it 'seems' to you.. your experience of it.   Have you ever had a dream that 'seemed real'?  During those types of dreams, you do not know it's just a dream, because you are lost in it, it 'seems real'.  How do you know you are not dreaming now?  This moment 'seems real'.. but is it real?  How would you know? Because it seems that way?? 

Of course, my logic is failing...  but what I'm pointing to, can be directly noticed as a matter of conscious experience. 

Descartes talked about the fact that he was doubting about everything but he could not deny logically that he was doubting and by doubting he was something that was thinking. So, something to be considered real must be logically self-evident not seeming real. This is the first rule of his philosophical method

Edited December 22, 2021 by Marioxs34

[Mason Riggle]

30 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

When i mean that something is real, i mean that it makes logical sense that something is real not that something seems real. Now, we can not question the validity of reason since Leo too says that reason isn't bad. And now that i think about it, talking about the validity of reason, many philophers talk about the power of reason and indipendence from faith and meta-perspectives. I have listened this from my competent teacher of philosophy (i'm from Italy and here philosophy is taught in schools)

Perhaps you are talking less about knowledge, and more about belief?  Faith(lack of reason) based belief vs Reason based belief?  

From my perspective, there is only 1 thing which can be 'known'.. and that one thing is- 'something seems to be happening'.   I can have all sorts of beliefs, based on logic and reason, about what that 'something which seems to be happening' is, but I can always be wrong, or have poor reasons, etc.. I can not be wrong about the 'seeming', however.. that there 'seems to be' whatever there seems to be, is Absolutely undeniable.  

[Mason Riggle]

12 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

Descartes talked about the fact that he was doubting about everything but he could not deny logically that he was doubting and by doubting he was something that was thinking. So, something to be considered real must be logically self-evident not seeming real. This is the first rule of his philosophical method

I think this is basically what I am saying.   Not 'logically self evident', however. Simply, self evident.  This experience is all the evidence of itself I need. I can not doubt that 'doubting' is occurring, as Descartes put it.  Anything beyond that is belief, which I can always be wrong about... especially if I have poor reasons or no reasons to believe it, and especially especially if I have reason to believe otherwise. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Marioxs34]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

Perhaps you are talking less about knowledge, and more about belief?  Faith(lack of reason) based belief vs Reason based belief?  

From my perspective, there is only 1 thing which can be 'known'.. and that one thing is- 'something seems to be happening'.   I can have all sorts of beliefs, based on logic and reason, about what that 'something which seems to be happening' is, but I can always be wrong, or have poor reasons, etc.. I can not be wrong about the 'seeming', however.. that there 'seems to be' whatever there seems to be, is Absolutely undeniable.  

Nope, i am talking about knowledge, not belief. Belief is when something seems real and you believe that that thing is real, before analysing it logically or you have poor reasons. But when something is absolutely undeniable, that's knowledge

[Mason Riggle]

6 minutes ago, Marioxs34 said:

But when something is absolutely undeniable, that's knowledge

And the only thing that is undeniable is 'experience itself'.  Beyond that, any reasons you may have for believing anything about the 'contents of experience', exist as more experience.  

When you dream at night.. are both 'the dream' and 'the contents of the dream' real?  

Edited December 22, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Gregory1]

May I ask you a question?

Isn't what you call "reason" also something that you experience?

Once you realized that it is, wonder who is the experiencer.

The experiencer experiences reason, doubts, ideas, experiences. What if it would be possible to turn the experiencer in on itself and see him? Try to do it, it is possible.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Gregory1

[Marioxs34]

3 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

And the only thing that is undeniable is 'experience itself'.  Beyond that, any reasons you may have for believing anything about the 'contents of experience', exist as more experience.  

When you dream at night.. are both 'the dream' and 'the contents of the dream' real?  

Descartes clearly used reason to claim that he was existing, he didn't experience it. And he also used logic to prove the evidence for mathematical and logical truths like the non-contradiction principle trough a sophisticated system of thought. Now this is going too far, i will not continue posting

[Gregory1]

Just now, Marioxs34 said:

Descartes clearly used reason to claim that he was existing, he didn't experience it. And he also used logic to prove the evidence for mathematical and logical truths like the non-contradiction principle trough a sophisticated system of thought. Now this is going too far, i will not continue posting

Decartes was fundamentally wrong. It should not be: "I think, therefore I am."

Instead what's true is: "I experience, therefore I am."

Thoughts are just an experience like everything else.

 

[RMQualtrough]

Reason itself is an experience, you couldn't reason without a mind. Sounds like that might pose a problem?

[Mason Riggle]

@Marioxs34 sure.. you can logically show that 'your own existence' is undeniable as a matter of experience.