(2025-01-24, 05:43 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I do agree there are experiencers having their own experiences, though "own" gets tricky when we consider telepathy and maybe empathy.
I think a helpful way of clarifying this (which I first suggested in another thread) is to make the distinction between the experience itself and its contents. Via telepathy and empathy our own experience(s) might share the contents of another's own experience(s).
(2025-01-24, 05:43 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [Possibly also just by mundane quales like red, and if people can correctly solve a proof that has an answer or even grasp a known fallacy/syllogism logical correctness. These suggest while there's a 1st Person PoV the raw nature of experience may be shared in some way. But I would agree these are still within the 1st person PoV so the set of Experiences for any one Person is still unique and not describable in 3rd person terms.]
Again, the distinction between the experience itself (of an own person) and the contents of the experience (duplicable for redness, proofs, and logical fallacies/syllogisms) seems helpful here.
(2025-01-24, 05:43 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: But I'm considering one experiencer for the sake of epistemology, and to make sure it's clear that before any ontological consideration there's some basic agreement.
Though I do think we be covered if there's agreement on the following:
There's an Experiencer who has Experiences which are "Bound" in the sense of coming to a person as a Whole picture, at least when considering external experience. There's room to consider daydreaming, thinking hard about a math proof, and other internal mental activities [that make us lose focus on the incoming Experience].
The Experiences have some causal ordering, which doesn't demand a particular Structure. Ontologically Experience could be Humean "Hyperchaos", but epistemologically there at least *seems* to be Structure.
[The Experiences are also of what seems to be an external world, as well as internal experience of thoughts/reasoning/etc.]
I think anyone, no matter their metaphysics, would be amenable to these starting assumptions?
Yes, I'm amenable to those.
(2025-01-24, 05:43 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I feel it's important for me to emphasize that these are epistemological to me, with any ontological assumptions being foundational enough most would agree these are fair and unbiased starting points.
By "epistemological" do you mean roughly that you're simply describing that which we can know by mere observation or self-reflection, prior to speculating or making any assumptions, inferences, arguments, or extrapolations?
(2025-01-24, 05:43 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I'd personally go a step further and argue against a Humean view where Causality is illusory, but I feel we both agree on that - as do most - but we can look deeper into this if you desire.
Yes, the view that causality is illusory seems pretty absurd to me.
So, we're agreed as to how to describe at a basic level what seems to be the case for a single experiencer. Now can we bring in multiple experiencers?