(September 18, 2016 at 10:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: An axiom that assumes the accuracy of the contents of such an experience is far too pregnant to be called an axiom. May as well just stop the conversation there. If you know that you aren't "one with the tree" or that your experience of locality is strictly representative....purely because of your experiential point of view...becauseyou take such experiences to be axiomatic...why not simply employ -that- on whatever else it is you believe? No argument required. Whatever you experience, you ascribe accuracy to the contents of that experience axiomatically.
The events making the tree are most definitely not in your brain, unless you have a gaping hole in your head. Big enough to fit a sapling. Unless, ofc, the experience is what counts, if you ascribe accuracy axiomatically. In which case you most assuredly -are- "one with the tree-of-your-mind" and do experience that locally as a part of yourself. You just aren't used to describing it as such.
This shit is unworkable.
The events making the tree in your experience. There is a tree out side your body. Light from that tree creates events in your eyes and subsequently from your eyes via nerves in your brain. Now these last set of events is the tree you see. You see a representation of the real tree out there never the real tree itself.
