Pleasure and Joy

[bennyboy]

Are you willfully misunderstanding my statement? Let's see if you get it through analogy:

---

Black-hole is a superdense matter. Simultaneously, superdense matter explains a black-hole.

Electric current is a flow of electrons. The flow of electrons explains electric current.

Clouds are suspended water-particles. Suspended water particles explain clouds.

Similarly, experience is brain-function. Brain-function explains experience.

---

Do you get it or do you need further explanation?

. . . because increased condescension = better truth?

The problem with all your examples is that each inferred explanation starts with an observable property and a question about what caused it. That's how it works-- you see something, and you explain it. Sometimes, you can't see what causes a property-- then you must infer (or downright guess) what causes it. But in none of these cases do you start with an observable and sufficient cause of observable property X, and start guessing how it's the cause of unobservable property Y.

Get it yet?

Unfortunately for you, the super-dense matter of the black hole is not observable - given that the black-hole itself is not observable. As for it being 'required' to explain anything - that's debatable. Fairy-dust would explain the existence of black-hole equally well, the same way soul would explain the existence of experience.

The black-hole isn't the property. It's the explanation required to explain properties.

And you are sure of this because....?

I did carefully consider physical facts. I do know of the existence of my own awareness. The physical facts I considered were separating behaviors which are necessarily the result of experience and which aren't. Other physical facts are my physiological reactions. Yet others are the same behaviors and reactions in other. Which is why I know that others actually experience.

Which did you know first-- that you were actually experiencing, or that the brain was the source of your experiences?

Sorry, they don't. You cannot display behavior like subjective preferences, learning, conditioning etc. without actual experience

Just like a computer can't win a game of chess without actual imagination?

Sorry, but unless you make the assertion about the existential reality of the milk - no, you cannot know.

Sure I do. I open the fridge and voila! there's my milk. Why are you arguing against that, anyway? When you open your fridge, do you say, "Voila! There's a contained collection of x^n wave functions vibrating in space!" ? No, because the underlying reality isn't important-- if milk were made of Matrix code or the Mind of God, it would still just be milk. In the context of puttering around my house, my knowledge is based on direct experience, not on ideas about the underlying nature of things which get replaced every hundred years. Now, if I want to start making assertions about the absolute source of my milky experiences, then I'm going to be in big trouble.

Here's where you go wrong - I've already laid out my assumptions. I've also laid out why my assumptions are axiomatic and how any denial of those assumptions results in self-refutation. I've also shown why gnosticism is valid only within the context of those assumptions. And here's the kicker - assuming that others are capable of experience is not and has never been one of my assumptions. That knowledge is based on evidence. Which is precisely why your accusation of circular reasoning fails.

What's wrong with self-refutation? Science does it all the time.

Anyway, you've already established that you base your knowledge of experience on (the experience of) evidence-- like the Cyberboy 2000's ability to modify it's face structure to seem like it expresses emotions. What you haven't established is that the evidence you accept is sufficient to make it WORTH taking a gnostic position.

I know that at least some things are not what they seem. Therefore, something seeming to be does necessarily make it so.