The universe we describe is inseparable from the organism that describes it

[Laird]

P.S.

how could one answer such a question

I'm not demanding an answer to that question ("What is it that comes before the equals sign?"). I'm just trying to clarify that there is something (on your view).

I can understand this figuratively, but literally, I don't think it makes sense (in particular, being "within" experience).

Well we know where one issue is... it makes sense to me... but it took so much searching to get to this perspective...

P.S.


I'm not demanding an answer to that question ("What is it that comes before the equals sign?"). I'm just trying to clarify that there is something (on your view).

The answers 'no' again...

[Laird]

The answers 'no' again...

So, you write that "there is what comes before the equal sign", but then deny, when I ask, that "there is something [that comes before the equals sign]".

Unfortunately, the logic in this really eludes me.

Maybe you're trying to say that "what comes before the equal sign" is not truly distinct from what comes after (experience), so, some sort of dual-aspect monism?

[Laird]

Well we know where one issue is... it makes sense to me...

I can sort of see some sense in it if you are suggesting a sort of dual-aspect monism.

So, you write that "there is what comes before the equal sign", but then deny, when I ask, that "there is something [that comes before the equals sign]".

Unfortunately, the logic in this really eludes me.

Maybe you're trying to say that "what comes before the equal sign" is not truly distinct from what comes after (experience), so, some sort of dual-aspect monism?

You wrote: "Experience plus experiencers plus something more", where the "something more" is "what comes before the equal sign".

I said no, because you defined what 'something more' more was... and I can't claim that, because we're stuck within Experience.

[Laird]

you  defined what 'something more' more was

I don't think I did. Can you please quote where I did that? Nevermind. See my later post where I clarify this response.

[Laird]

I also notice that you ignored this question, which it would be helpful if you answered:

Maybe you're trying to say that "what comes before the equal sign" is not truly distinct from what comes after (experience), so, some sort of dual-aspect monism?

I can sort of see some sense in it if you are suggesting a sort of dual-aspect monism.

I'm claiming we're stuck within Experience, and that's all we have, so that is closer to my ideas...

[Laird]

I don't think I did. Can you please quote where I did that?

OK, I misread you. You're saying I defined the "something more" as "what comes before the equal sign", and you object to that definition. So, are you saying then that, yes, there's something more, but it's not "what comes before the equal sign", or at least not just that?