Smears:
But the fact (if it is a fact) of a----->b is very crucial to the downfall of what I call: Non-experientially generated psychophysicalism (ergo: that which isn’t consciousness or subjective experience at all [if it were it would experience] being said or believed to create or give existence to the very thing that it, itself, is not in the least. That’s the fatal flaw. Experience, by nature, experiences. It can do nothing else and it does nothing else. One cannot speak of experience without speaking of experiencing. So in the end we’re all talking about experience (experiencing), or something that supposedly exists when there is no experiencing at all (and if this thing can exist when there is no experiencing at all, then it is not experience).
It does not matter that there are 100 billion neurons pumping non-tethered electrons directionally (from dendrite to axon) toward each other at fantastic rates of speed and in ways that make even neuroscientific heads swim. If the neurons and the electrons are all physical, or made up of something that isn’t subjective experience at all, then the very statement that they somehow produce subjective experience, something that they are not in the least (as neurons and electrons can exist, as they do during periods of dreamless sleep [if dreamless sleep even exists] without any consciousness or experience about), defies logic and reason.
But…we are experiences and the only thing we do is experience. That is all. Everything that we perceive is perceived because we’re standing there to perceive it, and wouldn’t be perceived (at least by oneself) if we were not there. Reality, as it actually manifests itself, is just you and what you happen to be thinking, feeling, seeing, etc. at a certain frozen moment in time. This is what Kant was preaching about (in Part Two). What would exist without persons perceiving them? What could be known with certainty (in such a way that faith or speculation is not required to believe it) to exist without someone having perceived it, or standing there to perceive it? The perceived and the perceiver are, in reality (reality that is actually experienced on a constant basis) inseparable. We simply cannot answer the question of what exists in the absence of persons without speculation and make-believe; we certainly can’t know that what we’re making up is absolutely true, despite the fact that we unwaveringly believe it, as it is something that cannot be experienced.
I charge that it makes sense that we do away with the existence-magic of trying to make experience something that requires something else in order to exist, particularly if that “something else” isn’t experience at all. It’s magical thinking, once you’ve done the mental homework, and it defies logic and reason. The existence of experience has yet to be explained (if it can be); it is mind-boggling that we invoke something that is not experience at all to reach in and pull out of itself, like the proverbial rabbit out of the hat, something that it, itself, isnt. How does the thing have, within itself, a completely different type of existence? How can it pull out this existence without this different existence having existed all along?
J.