Breaking down the "God sees argument"

[Edwardo Piet]

Ohhh you mean blowin--

I can't do that anymore.

[RozKek]

If it adds anything I'm quite confident that anything subjective must have an objective basis. E.g. the subjective experience of a human cannot be without something objective, in this case the human brain.

[bennyboy]

Experience is generally termed "subjective," while those things the experiencer experiences are at least sometimes called objective.

The experiencer is not separate from the experience though [emoji6] Let us not duplicate our phenomenology: I myself as an experiencer from that position as myself as an experiencer am not and cannot be separate from my experiences... from the position of my own simple experience there is no "out there" because out there is in here... the only thing that an experiencer can experience is experiences... and that includes experiencing him or herself as an experiencer... he or she is not separate from their experiences--again, from the position of themselves as an experiencer

Yep.  That's why I said experiences are sometimes called  objective.  As for whether experiences are PART of the self, or ARE the self, or happen TO the self, nobody can really know for sure.

However, if you already accept that other people exist, and that you can share some experiences with them, and cannot share other experiences, then those experiences, WHATEVER they are or does/doesn't lie behind them, can be called objective.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok there is a mess of a thread to deal with now. I will formulate the argument differently, and we will go one step at a time.

1. We either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

Let us not move on, before we understand what is meant.

What I mean by we of course is not hands or feet or body, but that experience we constantly call "I".

Let me know if any objects to this 1st premise.

I am willing to entertain the notion that I am not in fact real. I've had many discussions about this in my teenage years.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/elon-mu...hypothesis

[theologian]

Ok there is a mess of a thread to deal with now. I will formulate the argument differently, and we will go one step at a time.

1. We either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

Let us not move on, before we understand what is meant.

What I mean by we of course is not hands or feet or body, but that experience we constantly call "I".

Let me know if any objects to this 1st premise.

My objection here is that our "I" must include our hands, feet, or our body itself, for we are not ghost in the machine. We are man, and every man has body.