Why do people claim their experience is conscious?

[davecraw]

It seems this view is prevalent in many people's model of reality on this forum. Ex. "Only the experience exists." or "The experience is consciousness." etc.

If you have this view you could please explain what you mean?

Specifically what are you referring to with the word experience?

What do you mean by conscious and can you give your definition of that word?

Are you under the impression that only the experience of typing this post exists (the one posted with the davecraw account). Or are you trying to express something different?

Please help me understand!

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by davecraw

[Yimpa]

15 minutes ago, davecraw said:

Please help me understand!

Nah. You need to learn to walk on your own two feet now. 

[Breakingthewall]

Interesting questions. I would say that experience is the now, which is the reality. but it is confusing. The word experience implies someone having an experience, and the reality is that you are the experience. Consciousness is also confusing, it is the fact of being and being aware of it. I would say that both words mean existence.

[Inliytened1]

49 minutes ago, davecraw said:

It seems this view is prevalent in many people's model of reality on this forum. Ex. "Only the experience exists." or "The experience is consciousness." etc.

If you have this view you could please explain what you mean?

Specifically what are you referring to with the word experience?

What do you mean by conscious and can you giv your definition of that word?

Please help me understand!

 

It really points to Being or Consciousness  - but both- or Reality itself- are actually ineffable.   Because it is what you are, which is fundamental and prior to thinking of what you are - for there you have already gone too far.    See the episode called "What is Perception"

Edited May 27, 2023 by Inliytened1

[WeCome1]

40 minutes ago, davecraw said:

It seems this view is prevalent in many people's model of reality on this forum. Ex. "Only the experience exists." or "The experience is consciousness." etc.

Is it?

Maybe it would be a good idea to begin by providing some quotes which gave you that impression - then we would have something to work with. We could pick those apart. Or the authors of those quotes could come and specify what they meant. Because now it looks like you are just generalizing and putting words in "some people's" mouths.

44 minutes ago, davecraw said:

"Only the experience exists."

I've asked once before in your previous thread, I'll ask again:

ONLY the experience exists?

Only the EXPERIENCE exists?

Only the experience EXISTS?

Do you see how those are three completely different statements? If you want answers - be specific with your questions.

On 5/26/2023 at 7:24 PM, WeCome1 said:

A problem well stated is half solved.

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

1 hour ago, davecraw said:

Specifically what are you referring to with the word experience?

What do you mean by conscious and can you giv your definition of that word?

Well here's the catch... we are talking about the very ground of reality here, which by definition cannot be defined (if you pardon the pun). You can only define some specific thing which exists inside consciousness/experience, not consciousness/experience itself. How do you define that which is EVERYTHING? You can replace it with another word, but that's about it.

"What is experience? It's the activity of consciousness. What is consciousness? It's perception of reality. What is reality? It's that which you experience." See how completely circular it is?

That's why the Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao. Names can name no lasting name, as one bearded fellow said a long time ago.

[Moksha]

Awareness is the absolute focused internally.

Experience is the absolute focused externally.

The apparent shifting of focus between the external and the internal is the OM, or the birth and death of the cosmos.

[davecraw]

1 hour ago, WeCome1 said:

Is it?

Maybe it would be a good idea to begin by providing some quotes which gave you that impression - then we would have something to work with. We could pick those apart. Or the authors of those quotes could come and specify what they meant. Because now it looks like you are just generalizing and putting words in "some people's" mouths.

I've asked once before in your previous thread, I'll ask again:

ONLY the experience exists?

Only the EXPERIENCE exists?

Only the experience EXISTS?

Do you see how those are three completely different statements? If you want answers - be specific with your questions.

To your first point consider the first few reponses in this thread. People are apparently explaining their reasoning.

In addition consider the posts in these threads: 

So it seems some people do hold this view.

But as to your next point it's not clear what the difference is. You asked the same question and bolded different words. Can you elaborate?

Edited May 27, 2023 by davecraw

[WeCome1]

40 minutes ago, davecraw said:

But as to your next point it's not clear what the difference is. You asked the same question and bolded different words. Can you elaborate?

I have, you did not read it. But ok, let's try again.

ONLY the experience exists. Only this/my POV experience exists; there is nothing beyond this "bubble of perception", and, consequently, no other POVs as well. What they call Solipsism.

Only the EXPERIENCE exists. Only the experienced phenomena or qualia exist. Those subjective phenomena are not reflections of some objective reality - the appearance you see before you is the ultimate bedrock reality , it is a-mechanic, there is nothing hidden underneath. What they call Subjective Idealism, I think.

Only the experience EXISTS. Much like the previous one, only phenomena or qualia exist - but here the emphasis is on the fact that there is no one experiencing them, no subject, they are "self-experienced", self-apparent, self-known; "Being, not Knowing". What they call Monism in the West or Advaita/Non-duality in the East.

Which one(s) you wanted to talk about?

I'll leave the rest for tomorrow.

Edited May 27, 2023 by WeCome1

[davecraw]

18 minutes ago, WeCome1 said:

I have, you did not read it. But ok, let's try again.

ONLY the experience exists. Only this/my POV experience exists; there is nothing beyond this "bubble of perception", and, consequently, no other POVs as well. What they call Solipsism.

Only the EXPERIENCE exists. Only the experienced phenomena or qualia exist. Those subjective phenomena are not reflections of some objective reality - the appearance you see before you is the ultimate bedrock reality , it is a-mechanic, there is nothing hidden underneath. What they call Subjective Idealism, I think.

Only the experience EXISTS. Much like the previous one, only phenomena or qualia exist - but here the emphasis is on the fact that there is no one experiencing them, no subject, they are "self-experienced", self-apparent, self-known; "Being, not Knowing". What they call Monism in the West or Advaita/Non-duality in the East.

Which one(s) you wanted to talk about?

I'll leave the rest for tomorrow.

Okay thank you for that. 

With your second framing are you suggesting there are multiple experiences coexisting or just one? 

The third one doesn't make sense because in that case the experiencer is the experience. In other words the experiencer is experiencing itself or the experience is experiencing itself.

As for which one to discuss all and any variations. 

[WeCome1]

15 minutes ago, davecraw said:

As for which one to discuss all and any variations. 

Nope, this passive attitude is a non-starter. You want a lecture about all those three topics at once, with slides and notes, delivered for your consumption? Well, I don't know about that...

You had something in mind when you started this topic and the two others, something specific. You had some idea of what this "only the experience exists" means - so what was it? Be explicit! What is it exactly that you want to know? What is your question about? Formulate!

[davecraw]

20 minutes ago, WeCome1 said:

Nope, this passive attitude is a non-starter. You want a lecture about all those three topics at once, with slides and notes, delivered for your consumption? Well, I don't know about that...

You had something in mind when you started this topic and the two others, something specific. You had some idea of what this "only the experience exists" means - so what was it? Be explicit! What is it exactly that you want to know? What is your question about? Formulate!

Well then let's analyze the idea that only the experience of typing this message out exists. This message is the one posted with the davecraw account. Is that what people are claiming only exists?

Edited May 28, 2023 by davecraw

[davecraw]

3 hours ago, Yimpa said:

Nah. You need to learn to walk on your own two feet now. 

But this experience doesn't have feet so how to do that?

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, davecraw said:

But this experience doesn't have feet so how to do that?

It does until it doesn't.  Self inquire.   But keep in mind that true self inquiry will kill you. 

[Kksd74628]

@davecraw

I can give all answer for you in couple hour long voice conversation, but is that what you really want, because wouldn't that kind of be solving the sudoku for other person. The fun is to explore the answers and not just have them. Anyways if you're interested hit me up on PM.

-joNi-

[davecraw]

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

@davecraw

I can give all answer for you in couple hour long voice conversation, but is that what you really want, because wouldn't that kind of be solving the sudoku for other person. The fun is to explore the answers and not just have them. Anyways if you're interested hit me up on PM.

-joNi-

Why a private conversation. That's not helpful to everyone on this forum. Before taking the time to converse with you can you briefly outline your view of reality that you will apparently present? 

[Kksd74628]

@davecraw

Making impact to someone requires more than couple words written in pixel format. That's just how reality is. I could go and express myself here, but that wouldn't really change you in any meaningful way. It would just be couple sentences in a ocean with its friends. Lot of things that are spoken here are just merely word salad without any point. The thing I'll say here is that if you continue arguing here with these people you won't find your highest potentiality if you aren't going to the journey by yourself. The ball is on you, universe gave you possibility, now it's just your decision if you decide to go for it. Point of PM is just to change contacts so we can hop on call which just is 100x more productive than this shit. I am waiting you <3

-joNi-

[OldManCorcoran]

On 28/05/2023 at 0:24 AM, davecraw said:

Okay thank you for that. 

With your second framing are you suggesting there are multiple experiences coexisting or just one? 

The third one doesn't make sense because in that case the experiencer is the experience. In other words the experiencer is experiencing itself or the experience is experiencing itself.

As for which one to discuss all and any variations. 

You can't just claim it "doesn't make sense", when the reason it doesn't make sense is because that logic is built upon a wrong assumption (that sights are seen by something and sounds are heard by something).

Which you maybe won't be able to comprehend until qualia remains when you are completely gone. Which is ego death. Until qualia is present when you are not, it doesn't seem something that is possible.

But you do know that the "I am seeing" in "I am seeing red" is a thought added by your brain/mind onto what is actually present, which is the color red. If that entire process of thought is turned off somehow, then things appear without the I entity (the "witness") being existent at all.

[Yimpa]

6 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

But you do know that the "I am seeing" in "I am seeing red" is a thought added by your brain/mind onto what is actually present, which is the color red. If that entire process of thought is turned off somehow, then things appear without the I entity (the "witness") being existent at all.

6 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

You can't just claim it "doesn't make sense", when the reason it doesn't make sense is because that logic is built upon a wrong assumption

[WeCome1]

On 5/28/2023 at 2:24 AM, davecraw said:

With your second framing are you suggesting there are multiple experiences coexisting or just one?

This philosophical position does not suggest anything about how many "parallel" POVs there are - it is not about that. It merely states that there is no "objective reality" beyond your "subjective experienced phenomena", i.e. qualia are the bedrock reality. Might be a single solipsistic POV, might be many parallel POV bubbles made of qualia.

On 5/28/2023 at 2:24 AM, davecraw said:

The third one doesn't make sense because in that case the experiencer is the experience. In other words the experiencer is experiencing itself or the experience is experiencing itself.

Is water wet? No, really - is it? See, the meaning of "wet" is "covered in water", which implies that there has to be something else than water, that that something is finite, has an outer boundary or surface, on which water is applied to make it wet. Now, hypothetically, if there was only water spanning infinitely in every direction - would it be correct to say that "water itself is wet"? Probably not. You would rather say something like "water is water" - but, see, this becomes tautological really quickly. Water is water = Water IS = Water = ... ??? (because when all there is is water, it is meaningless to try defining it, because there isn't anything to define it against).

Well, it's the exact same thing with "experience" (or perception, or awareness, or knowing, or understanding). All of those contain implied duality: that there is an object to be experienced, the subject who is separate from object and experiences it, and that there is the process of "experiencing" going on. The claim advaita makes is that all there is is "consciousness all the way in every direction". If that were the case, the word "experience" kind of becomes redundant. Consciousness isn't experiencing the phenomena - it is appearing AS phenomena, or sort of "takes shape" of phenomena. So consciousness is consciousness = consciousness IS = consciousness = ... ??? Hence "neti-neti", not this, not that, not anything in particular.

The difficult part is to grasp the sheer TOTALITY of it. It is somewhat acceptable for a dualistic mind that colors, sounds and other senses are "made of consciousness", as are thoughts and concepts which are pure abstractions. But once you continue with this line of thinking towards something like "consciousness does not know itself/MYself - it only takes shape of the thought "I am""; or that "consciousness does not know or understand anything - it only takes shape of "knowledge" or "understanding" (even "absolute knowledge and understanding" - because there is no limit to what shape consciousness can take) - then it might start getting existential... You will, in fact, never understand it - IT will appear or take shape of the story of you understanding it. The lights are on but there's nobody home.

Edited May 29, 2023 by WeCome1