The Simple Explanation of Life

[Ginkgo]

As to consciousness, I never said anything about it, I just asked you to justify one of your claims.

Yes, it's not very helpful because it is a tautology.

So, are you saying that consciousness = experience, that these are the same (i.e. have identical definitions)?

Not exactly. As I said previously there are many things that enter into our consciousness that go unnoticed. So we need to know the conditions required for these things to enter into our consciousness. In other words, what kinds of things enter into our experience? The answer usually given is the things we choose to attend.

[Lev Muishkin]

...life is not "Simple" and that no simple explanation will do, and is unworthy of the massive differences and complexities.

Lev, before you discount the simplicity of life, let me ask you --- Do you agree that life (as we know it) is comprised of ONLY experiences? Or do you feel that there is something more than ‘experience’?

That might depend on what you mean by experience.
The word might be used more widely than is valuable to this discussion.
For example you might say that the moon and the sun experience each other as they effect each other's gravity.
By contrast you can also say that a man can experience the full blown beauty of a sunset and think the universe is generated by a supreme being that wants to bestow love and care on his creation.

I just don't see that these "experiences" are comparable, and the first has nothing to do with life at all.

[Lev Muishkin]

So, recognizing the logic above, (I thereby propose) a convenient classification / grouping of these experiences (these that make up our reality) to be internal, external, and memory. The internal are Feelings (emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, compulsions, instincts, etc.). The external is Awareness (sensory experiences). And the memory is Thoughts (memory experiences). All that we experience, and subsequently KNOW in this life, are the result of these experiences.

For it is not logically possible to experience ANYTHING that is not itself an 'experience' (...dwell on this sentence a moment to grasp its full meaning). EVERYTHING that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience.

... is a given, although not very helpful. …You have to justify why anyone should adopt your subsequent categorizations.

It does NOT matter how one categorizes these experiences. The point is that experiences are ALL there are to life. For clarity sake, I categorize these ‘experiences’ into 3 basic groups; internal, external, and memory. If you like my categorization, then you’ll adopt it. If you don’t, then you won’t. No big deal either way, as it (the categorization) has no effect on the realization that Experiences are ALL there are to Life.

All you are doing is ignoring the complexity. Any thing can be simplified.

If you want you can call classical art: paint on canvas and completely miss what is important about Turner or Constable, or how they differ from Andy Warhol.

[HexHammer]

So by your logic, any robot is alive, brilliant logic ............NOT!!

Hi HH, you may want to rethink "your logic". --- “All Apples are Fruit” does NOT mean “All Fruit are Apples”.

Then you need to specify your claim. I'm not making faulty claims!

[RG1]

...life is not "Simple" and that no simple explanation will do, and is unworthy of the massive differences and complexities.

Lev, before you discount the simplicity of life, let me ask you --- Do you agree that life (as we know it) is comprised of ONLY experiences? Or do you feel that there is something more than ‘experience’?

That might depend on what you mean by experience.
The word might be used more widely than is valuable to this discussion.
For example you might say that the moon and the sun experience each other as they effect each other's gravity.
By contrast you can also say that a man can experience the full blown beauty of a sunset and think the universe is generated by a supreme being that wants to bestow love and care on his creation.

No, no, I am talking about one's own personal (subjective) experiences.

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

[Wyman]

[quote="RG1"]

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?[quote]

That's called solipsism. Read Descartes' Meditations, then Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's development of those ideas, Hobbes' criticisms, then Kant's response to Hume. Then, you'll be up to the 1800s almost. If you're still interested after that, we can direct you to a more current cannon.

[RG1]

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

That's called solipsism. Read Descartes' Meditations, then Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's development of those ideas, Hobbes' criticisms, then Kant's response to Hume. Then, you'll be up to the 1800s almost. If you're still interested after that, we can direct you to a more current cannon.

Wyman, thanks for the info, but regardless of what it is called, isn’t this an ‘unescapable’ truth?

We can close our eyes and 'pretend' reality is ‘other’ than what it is. We can believe in a magical reality; one to our own liking (or predisposition); one that may include the made-up notions such as the soul, consciousness, free-will, etc. Some may even desire to believe in a reality of Gods and spirits and unicorns. But isn’t all this ‘pretending’ just a 'feel-good' game that we (seemingly are destined to) play?

I for one have no desire to close my eyes and play 'pretend'.

[Wyman]

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

That's called solipsism. Read Descartes' Meditations, then Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's development of those ideas, Hobbes' criticisms, then Kant's response to Hume. Then, you'll be up to the 1800s almost. If you're still interested after that, we can direct you to a more current cannon.

Wyman, thanks for the info, but regardless of what it is called, isn’t this an ‘unescapable’ truth?

We can close our eyes and 'pretend' reality is ‘other’ than what it is. We can believe in a magical reality; one to our own liking (or predisposition); one that may include the made-up notions such as the soul, consciousness, free-will, etc. Some may even desire to believe in a reality of Gods and spirits and unicorns. But isn’t all this ‘pretending’ just a 'feel-good' game that we (seemingly are destined to) play?

I for one have no desire to close my eyes and play 'pretend'.

Descartes proved that there are no certainties, except that we can't be certain of anything (except that we exists) as what we experience is experienced through a 'veil of ideas.' This is, I think, where you are. Hume reached a similar conclusion via an analysis of 'what we can know from experience (soley).' Like you, his interpretation of 'experience' encompassed everything subjectively experienced. These are both knowledge claims, aka epistemic conclusions.

Descartes had a criteria for accepting knowledge claims. A claim, to be 'knowledge,' has to be 'clear and distinct.' As an example of a clear and distinct idea, he came up with 'I think, therefore I am.' Then he went through some smoke and mirrors (I won't go into that) and came up with other knowledge claims which were clear and distinct - first and foremost would be the claims of mathematics.

I think up to the point of the certainty of mathematics, most philosophers agree that such ideas are 'clear and distinct.'

G.E. Moore, in his famous 'Proof of an External World' used, I think, a similar method to Descartes' in getting 'back' the external world from epistemic solipsism. He set a criterion for accepting a knowledge claim. He didn't use Descartes' 'clear and distinct' as a criterion. He went through an analysis of what it takes to accept a knowledge claim. Then, he held up his hands and claimed that he was as sure that they existed as any other acceptable knowledge claim. This is a very rough paraphrase. Another famous philosopher, I forget whom, used a similar argument - he kicked a rock and said 'I refute you thus' to Berkeley.

So, if you do have any knowledge claims that you are willing to accept, use them as paradigms and see whether they are any more 'certain' than 'I see my hand' or 'My foot hit solid rock.' I think you will be hard pressed to do so.

[HexHammer]

No, no, I am talking about one's own personal (subjective) experiences.

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

Strange, in OP you talk about ALL life, that be other people's experience and how objectively all life is, so suddenly you talk exclusively about your own experience, make up your mind if you have one.

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev, before you discount the simplicity of life, let me ask you --- Do you agree that life (as we know it) is comprised of ONLY experiences? Or do you feel that there is something more than ‘experience’?

That might depend on what you mean by experience.
The word might be used more widely than is valuable to this discussion.
For example you might say that the moon and the sun experience each other as they effect each other's gravity.
By contrast you can also say that a man can experience the full blown beauty of a sunset and think the universe is generated by a supreme being that wants to bestow love and care on his creation.

No, no, I am talking about one's own personal (subjective) experiences.

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

You are making no sense whatever.

[Lev Muishkin]

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

That's called solipsism. Read Descartes' Meditations, then Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's development of those ideas, Hobbes' criticisms, then Kant's response to Hume. Then, you'll be up to the 1800s almost. If you're still interested after that, we can direct you to a more current cannon.

Current is not necessarily better.
Many think that Hume is where is was all answered on this question, and all Kant did was to hit the problem with a jargon-fest, that does not work unless you are as autistic as he was.

[RG1]

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

That's called solipsism. Read Descartes' Meditations, then Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's development of those ideas, Hobbes' criticisms, then Kant's response to Hume. Then, you'll be up to the 1800s almost. If you're still interested after that, we can direct you to a more current cannon.

Wyman, thanks for the info, but regardless of what it is called, isn’t this an ‘unescapable’ truth?

G.E. Moore, in his famous 'Proof of an External World' used, I think, a similar method to Descartes' in getting 'back' the external world from epistemic solipsism. He set a criterion for accepting a knowledge claim. He didn't use Descartes' 'clear and distinct' as a criterion. He went through an analysis of what it takes to accept a knowledge claim. Then, he held up his hands and claimed that he was as sure that they existed as any other acceptable knowledge claim. This is a very rough paraphrase. Another famous philosopher, I forget whom, used a similar argument - he kicked a rock and said 'I refute you thus' to Berkeley.

So, if you do have any knowledge claims that you are willing to accept, use them as paradigms and see whether they are any more 'certain' than 'I see my hand' or 'My foot hit solid rock.' I think you will be hard pressed to do so.

Not so. It is the ‘experience’ of seeing my hand that is much MORE certain than the “pseudo-truth” that ‘I (actually) see my hand’. It is the ‘experience’ that is ‘certain’, NOT the actual event. Who knows, maybe I was delusional, or on drugs, and had a vision that I saw my hand.

So again, do you agree that ‘experience’ is the ONE and ONLY 'inescapable’ truth, and therefore Experiences are ALL there can be to life?
And then do you further agree, that it is from this ‘starting point’ that we should draw ALL our philosophical conclusions from?

[RG1]

Lev, before you discount the simplicity of life, let me ask you --- Do you agree that life (as we know it) is comprised of ONLY experiences? Or do you feel that there is something more than ‘experience’?

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

You are making no sense whatever.

The word ‘experience’ is used twice in my sentence (above). This is an intentional play on words to help illustrate/demonstrate the 'futility' of something/anything existing ‘other’ than our experiences. …which further confirms the realization that Experiences are ALL that can exist.

[Wyman]

So again, do you agree that ‘experience’ is the ONE and ONLY 'inescapable’ truth, and therefore Experiences are ALL there can be to life?
And then do you further agree, that it is from this ‘starting point’ that we should draw ALL our philosophical conclusions from?

That's kind of what I've been trying to say from the beginning of this thread - many philosophies DO take this as the starting point, so your epiphany is not that interesting. It is the next step that would distinguish you, or not, from many others.

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev, before you discount the simplicity of life, let me ask you --- Do you agree that life (as we know it) is comprised of ONLY experiences? Or do you feel that there is something more than ‘experience’?

Are we not trapped within our own subjective experiences?
Or do you believe that we can experience something (or anything!) that is not itself one of these experiences?

You are making no sense whatever.

The word ‘experience’ is used twice in my sentence (above). This is an intentional play on words to help illustrate/demonstrate the 'futility' of something/anything existing ‘other’ than our experiences. …which further confirms the realization that Experiences are ALL that can exist.

I disagree entirely. Such a ploy is totally solipsistic.
And a million everyday mundane experiences in the most banal circumstances tells us this is an utterly false position to take.
For example.
I sit here contemplating a mug that sits on a table across the room. All I can experience is a 2D shape, rectangular, curved at the top. Previous experiences alone inform me alone that the object to has a 3rd dimension. I might be wrong - the mug might be an illusion. But it does tell me that the object has more that can exist beyond my apprehension of it.
We has to wait thousands of years for a man to see the dark side of the moon. I will never see it first hand, so I know that there is much beyond my experience.
We witness bats flying in the dark. We know they use sound to navigate. But we can never share that experience yet we know that such a thing is no beyond the experiential world of some things.
Then there is the world of the macrocosm; worlds we know exist that will always be beyond out experience.
Next the microcosmic world, structures beyond the ability of the wavelength of light that we can only represent with a SEM. Shall I go on to the atomic and subatomic world??

You cannot experience a quark.