So we’re in agreement that “more true” or “less true” are valid with respect to reality, but you also say “more true” indicates false?
And since “more true” is truer than “less true”, then presumably “less true” is also false by the same logic?
So is any relative degree of truth “false”, except absolutely true?
Surely “more true” is simply “less false”, and “less true” is “more false”?
That doesn’t mean both are flat-out “false”.
Perhaps you’re saying they’re degrees of false? But “absolutely true” is “more true” than any other degree of truth, yet “absolutely true” being “more true” here doesn’t mean “false”.
I’m not using “more true” as “false”. I literally mean there are degrees of truth (and falsity), and “more true” can mean anything up to and including absolutely true. My claim is that Continuous Experience is how “absolutely true” is experienced. Since it’s “absolutely true”, it’s also “more true” than discrete experiences - and also, some ways of interpretting discrete experiences are more or less true than others: they are all true/false relative to Continuous Experience.
I acknowledge that you’ve been attempting to argue against my points, but are you experiencing any degree of understanding of the arguments that I’m making whatsoever?
You’ve experienced how annoyed I get when people when people mistakenly tell me I’m saying something other than what I’m saying as fact. I’d rather avoid being annoyed, so if you’d help me out with that, I’d appreciate it. I don’t like being annoying, nor the effect it has on others, but most importantly how little it helps the discussion of facts. Moving swiftly on.
Noumena are already defined as beyond phenomena, which are the only means by which we have access to reality and the only means by which we can derive knowledge. It’s only logical that if something is inaccessible and beyond our means to derive knowledge of it, that it’s unknowable. Sure, by virtue of being unknowable, noumena are “outside of the mind” as a consequence, but I’m well aware that that’s not the definition. We’re supposed to “otherwise know” of noumena at least “indirectly” - as though they can conceptually exist “within our minds” without being directly knowable, but this doesn’t work for the reasons I already explained. Any conception whatsoever that we attempt of noumena will be in terms of experience - it’s impossible to conceive of noumena without any reference whatsoever to experience: conception itself is an experience. As such, even “indirect” knowledge of noumena has to be knowledge of phenomena.
Okay, so the problem with “potential experience” is that it’s always “beyond experience” until it’s being actually experienced.
The reason we think that non-actual experience is “potential” is because we’re actually experiencing either a memory of it having been actually experienced “before” (though the memory occurs in the present), or we’re actually experiencing the belief in someone else’s actual experience of it - and/or we experience a belief in the reliability of the conceptual model of causation for such an experience to happen again. These are all “actual” experiences - that’s the direct verification required of the absolutely true - anything else is unfalsifiable. To conceive of actual experiences as some other kind of potential experience twists this truth into a useful conceptual model, but it’s not as true.
It proves that precision over what “portions of space” are “NOT occupied by the tiger” is a counter-productive pursuit, the more you attempt to refine it.
We can be a lot more sure that the centre of the tiger least environs the tiger compared to the tip of its whisker, and the further away from the tiger that the environment is, the more sure we can be that it’s unoccupied by the tiger - both subject to what we attempt to precisely define as tiger and not environment (and vice versa), which we’ve established gets increasingly grey the more black and white we try and make it. Or is that “centre of the tiger” more heart than tiger, or less tiger than jungle etc. depending on how macro/micro we’re defining things?
Again you’re distinguishing the ability of people to determine something from “the fact”, which I showed to be logically inconsistent: existence purported to be pre-knowledge is a statement of knowledge, and knowledge is something that requires existence. So it matters “which way we settle it” - the environment cannot be separate from the tiger “as a fact” if determining this as knowledge is problematic. If there’s an epistemic problem, there’s an ontological one.
A “conceptual” gap is an experience. No physical lines are needed - even the existence at all of physical lines in nature is a highly dubious proclamation.
I’ve already explained that non-intersection of two bodies means mutual intersection with a gap, and as I explained, the precise bounds between the bodies and the gap are also highly dubious. Forget lines - the harder you look, the more indistinct it is whether one bit of what could be tiger is environment and vice versa, and the less clear it is if you’re talking about tiger, part of tiger, or what tiger is part of. Just like you might not be able to see the tiger for the jungle, you might not be able to see the tiger for carbon atoms. You have to be general and imprecise to interpret your statements about separating two portions in the way others interpret it, which as you say is how you’re interpretting it. I’m well aware how people normally conceive of distinctions - I’m just saying that upon examination, these ways are significantly flawed in the ways I’m arguing, and can easily be resolved through Experientialism.
I believe it would help the discussion if you were able to confirm if you have any understanding at all of my points, so I can better gauge if I need to be explaining some bits differently than how I already am - because I’m becoming conscious that I’m starting to repeat the best ways I can think of to explain these points and I really can’t see how you could be failing to see their sense. You don’t have to agree on an emotional level, I’m just interested if you see my points at all on an intellectual level.