More evidence for being beyond experience

[davecraw]

I hope this message finds you all in good spirits. Today, I want to invite you on a thought experiment — a journey to reflect on the depth of our being, beyond the limitations of our immediate experience.

I want to challenge the idea that seems to be commonly presented on this forum that the expereince and the experiencer are the same. 

To illustrate this, try these experiments:

1. As you read this post, try to complete it by solely using your current experience. Can you? Evidently not, because the rest of this post isn't part of your current experience. But do you end up reading the rest of this? If so that's an indication of a MAJOR difference between you and your experience.
2. Now sitting at your dining table with a plate full of your favorite food. Now, try to consume it using only your experience. Can you taste the tangy sweetness of that ripe orange or the comforting warmth of your grandma's famous stew? Without your senses, cognitive functions, and physical abilities — all of which are beyond mere experience — you can't.
3. Take a moment to think of the myriad things you do every day. Can you carry out these activities with just your experience? Perhaps you enjoy painting — can your experience alone hold the brush and mix the colors on the palette? Or maybe you're a musician — can the experience by itself strum the guitar or hit the right piano key? Evidently not.
4. Now, close your eyes and try to stop reading this post. Can you do that without you eyes that aren't part of your experience?

 

What these exercises highlight is the palpable absurdity of identifying ourselves exclusively with our experiences.

You, the one reading this, are the one that transcends this experience. If you're not convinced try close your eyes and try to respond with just that blackness. Now ask yourself where are the keys to type? Where are the hands to press the keys? Where is the post button with eyes closed?

[caspex]

Hey davecraw, thanks for posting. Let me address each of your points.

 

10 hours ago, davecraw said:

As you read this post, try to complete it by solely using your current experience. Can you? Evidently not, because the rest of this post isn't part of your current experience. But do you end up reading the rest of this? If so that's an indication of a MAJOR difference between you and your experience.

Right now this section of my post is in your clear experience, but the rest is in your periphery. When you get to the rest of the post, this part here will become the periphery and only a memory, but that whole state would also be part of your experience. "Memory" is also experience. The experiencer knowing stuff that is not in his experience anymore, is also part of the experience. The key insight here is that "past" and "future", as you think of them, are also experience.
 

10 hours ago, davecraw said:

Now sitting at your dining table with a plate full of your favorite food. Now, try to consume it using only your experience. Can you taste the tangy sweetness of that ripe orange or the comforting warmth of your grandma's famous stew? Without your senses, cognitive functions, and physical abilities — all of which are beyond mere experience — you can't.

your senses, cognitive functions, and physical abilities are not beyond experience, but are an integral part of your experience. Try to imagine that there is nothing beyond your experience, your experience right now, is all that exists. This can completely be possible. I am not saying it is, but it could be. So after this thought experiment, do your senses, cognitive functions, physical abilities disappear? No they don't. The key insight here is that using your hand to taste the food, is all part of the experience. The user, the used and the using, all forms part of the experience. Experience is not mere visual field in the present moment.
 

11 hours ago, davecraw said:

Take a moment to think of the myriad things you do every day. Can you carry out these activities with just your experience? Perhaps you enjoy painting — can your experience alone hold the brush and mix the colors on the palette? Or maybe you're a musician — can the experience by itself strum the guitar or hit the right piano key? Evidently not.

As explained earlier, expand your definition of 'experience'.
 

11 hours ago, davecraw said:

Now, close your eyes and try to stop reading this post. Can you do that without you eyes that aren't part of your experience?

If I have to explain this action according to "experiencer and experience are the same", then it would go like this.
A part of the experience(your sense of self), decided that it will control another part of the experience(closing of the eyes), to effect another part of the experience(the visual field).



To understand the sameness between the two, you cannot use logic like you tried to present in your post. I invite you to do "neti-neti" or the "I AM" meditation practices to completely detach from your sense of self. It's a state where you feel, quite literally, that there is no experiencer. This state is where the argument "experience and experiencer are the same" originate from. If you wholeheartedly feel this statement is wrong, then please try to achieve the state mentioned above, it's quite real.

[davecraw]

@Swarnim

To your first point: Do you think your memory of reading this reads this? When this is no longer being read do you remain? If so itn't than an idnication of a difference between you and this experience?

To your second point: So it's definitely possible to imagine only this exists. However is that true? The rest of this post isn't part of your experience right now but it still exists. Can't you confirm this by reading the rest of it?

To your third point: Why should I expand the definion of experience to things that aren't being experienced? What exactly are the criteria something must meet in your mind for you to consider it to be an experience? Perhaps we define the words differently. One way to define the verb experience is "having (or living with) knowledge directly". In that context the knowledge is the qualia themselves like the color red or the shape of these letters.

To your fourth point: If by sense of self you mean an experience of the experiencer then no such experience exists. The only indication there is an experiencer is the experience. Apparently the experiencer knows about its existence by experiencing its experience.

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by davecraw

[Yimpa]

20 hours ago, davecraw said:

2.  Now sitting at your dining table with a plate full of your favorite food. Now, try to consume it using only your experience. Can you taste the tangy sweetness of that ripe orange or the comforting warmth of your grandma's famous stew? Without your senses, cognitive functions, and physical abilities — all of which are beyond mere experience — you can't.

There’s a psychic ability called clairgustance. I’ve accessed this ability a few times in my lifetime. Stuff like this ain’t possible unless you expand your consciousness. 

https://www.yourdictionary.com/clairgustance

[davecraw]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

There’s a psychic ability called clairgustance. I’ve accessed this ability a few times in my lifetime. Stuff like this ain’t possible unless you expand your consciousness. 

https://www.yourdictionary.com/clairgustance

Hard to tell if your trolling but nevertheless that's not evidence that you're an experience.

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, davecraw said:

Hard to tell if your trolling but nevertheless that's not evidence that you're an experience.

Nope, I’m not trolling. It’s not something I can do at will, though, so it surprises me when it does happens. 

For example a week ago I was lying down on my bed and randomly tasted dark chicken skin and meat. Very tasty!

[WeCome1]

8 hours ago, Yimpa said:

For example a week ago I was lying down on my bed and randomly tasted dark chicken skin and meat. Very tasty!

Can relate. Just the other day I was sitting in my car, and the weirdest thing happened: a Taylor Swift song started playing in my head. And the radio was OFF!

[caspex]

19 hours ago, davecraw said:

@Swarnim

To your first point: Do you think your memory of reading this reads this? When this is no longer being read do you remain? If so itn't than an idnication of a difference between you and this experience?

To your second point: So it's definitely possible to imagine only this exists. However is that true? The rest of this post isn't part of your experience right now but it still exists. Can't you confirm this by reading the rest of it?

To your third point: Why should I expand the definion of experience to things that aren't being experienced? What exactly are the criteria something must meet in your mind for you to consider it to be an experience? Perhaps we define the words differently. One way to define the verb experience is "having (or living with) knowledge directly". In that context the knowledge is the qualia themselves like the color red or the shape of these letters.

To your fourth point: If by sense of self you mean an experience of the experiencer then no such experience exists. The only indication there is an experiencer is the experience. Apparently the experiencer knows about its existence by experiencing its experience.

 

1: The "You" is a part your experience that usually remains constant.

2: You cannot confirm whether the rest of this post exists or not, because even if you read the rest of it that is in the axis of time. Experientially there is only the present moment. If we are speaking by pure experience, right here right now, it's obvious that the experience and the experience are the same. Any thoughts and ideas seem to be only on top of this pure direct experience, which also form part of the experience once they appear.

3: What I meant is that you need to include the body, your senses, your ego etc. within what experience is. Right now it would look like a word game to you but if you detach from this sense of 'experiencer', it becomes obvious that what you currently consider as being not part of the experience, is also just pure experience. It's qualia without a witness to witness it. Even the experience of free will is just an experience.

4: Since the experiencer and the experience are one, it's the same as saying there is no witness or experiencer. First you have to detach from your sense of self to realize that the sense of self isn't experiencing anything. It becomes obvious that 'thoughts' and the 'self' are dead, just like a rock laying on the ground. You cannot think then anymore, only observe. What we truly consider alive is this consciousness/awareness that is actually aware. Then once awareness finally becomes aware of itself, it has to make a leap in awareness once again, and realize it is one with the experience. That it's not aware of something, but that the something is the only thing there, and that the awareness was a construct on top of that raw experience.

[Yimpa]

9 hours ago, WeCome1 said:

Can relate. Just the other day I was sitting in my car, and the weirdest thing happened: a Taylor Swift song started playing in my head. And the radio was OFF!

Mmm, now I’m craving a Taylor ham, egg, and Swiss cheese sandwich.