Hi J
I think I found a way to resolve issues I have had before, concerning theories like yours and the apparent duality they evoke toward physicalism, or a physical side to the mental world.
If you get the chance to read it i’d like your thoughts. …it short it proposes that you can have many layers of realities correlating as one, kinda.
meantime, I look forwards to your finished thread here.
Amorphos:
Greetings, again. 
I will read your post, reply to it, and fix this one. I’ve revised the pics and will present the new version of this post probably before Saturday. It’s tough finding out that most of your pics didn’t stick.
J.
[b] This is a revision of the previous post:
Greetings,
Until I think of something more elegant to say, let me say that I am glad to be back. Below is my next to last “pictured” work, and it sums up, I think, everything I’ve stated in regard to my philosophy and person belief concerning the nature of reality and the external world. This is no hurried project: I’ve given myself til the end of the year to complete the work before moving on to my last (I believe), most ambitious work.
Enjoy, and remember: denizens of the ILovePhilosophy Forums are, in my honest opinion, on the cutting edge of philosophical intelligence.
Phenomenal Graffiti[/b]
Hi again J, I replied on my thread but the latter part I felt my reply belonged more here.
Quoted from my ‘physical dualism’ thread
this part sums up the crux of the matter perhaps;
‘given that the only thing that manifests its existence, to us, is experience’
the experience of that which is not the experiencer e.g. colour ~ or could we say that what we are is colour or a given other quale?
Is the experiencer colour?
Is another experiencer the same thing as you the experiencer?
We could continue through all things, arriving at what is an experience or the experiencer itself. It seems though that at least in some cases, the experiencer is not the same as that which it is experiencing e.g. I would not like to be my poop while visiting the lavatory ~ if your forgive me lol.
In short there is one thing or many things, or both!!!
if more than one, then my theory works alone or with yours IMHO.
_
Amorphos:
Existence manifests, and always manifests, only in the form of an experiencer and that which the experiencer experiences, so in this case there is not just one thing: there is the experiencer and that which it experiences (so there are “many things” at least in this sense, although there is only “one thing” in terms of essence or substance [if we postulate the existence of mentality that is not experience nor an experiencer but consists of the substance of experience itself, then we have another version of “many things” in terms of essence if not manifestation] but there is a problem with this, as stated below].
Setting aside Existence in the form in which it actually appears or manifests (a particular person and what it is experiencing = “the Constant of Empirical Knowledge” or the “Empirical Constant of Existence”)…
…we are left with everything that is neither any person nor anything any person has ever experienced: this is the actual, non-fictional, non-speculative nature of the external world. Anything we state or assert exists that is not a person nor anything experienced by a person must be, at best, a fiction, as existence in this case manifests only asl a person having the experience of the thought of the concept of something that is not a person nor anything experienced by a person.
But despite the fact that existence only manifests or appears in the form of a person and its experiences, it is quite reasonable to assume that something other than persons exists. Incredibly, objective reality might be otherwise, but it requires the simplest reason to suppose that if things do not come into nor go out of existence, and given that the experiences of an experiencer change (one does not have the same “frozen” experience from birth to death, but a litany or sequence of different experience), the disappearance of one experience and the appearance of a new, different experience (regardless of its similarity to its predecessor) must be explained: experience seems to “come from somewhere”, and it is here that all the fictions begin in regard to the nature of the external world.
J.
your graphics are beautiful and awesome.
J
hope this gives some answer to your whole post …
[i]What come prior to the experiencer then? ‘manifest’ infers an origin/beginning.
Given a collective of experiencers, what is the entirety of them?
That they have beginnings [and presumably endings [so as to avoid infinity paradoxes]], assumedly there are differing amounts of them, thus the collective reality of them is variable. [/i]
= We could say that there is ultimately one experiencer or as I would call it, one medium. Then there could be multiple expressions of its experience [like colour etc], this creating ‘that which is being experienced subjectively’. So now we have an experiencer and experiences, without a duality. Experience includes perception, and just as our percepction can percieve itself the experiencer can experience itself.
We could then metaphisically assume objectness to the manifesting quale of existence.
The question then becomes; do some of these quale-objects become distinct in some way to an experiencers quale?
In short I would say that a third party is manifest in and of the communication of experiences and quale of the experiencers. Information! You experience a green apple and I do too, you take a bit and I do too, there then needs informations to correlate what is being experienced.
Hence informations arise to make such communications between experiencers, and the universe is the set of 3rd party informations.
Can we not simply say that the informational universe could exist prior to us humans and even all life?
we could say there is an original and universal experiencer also ~ to derive former/prior quale.
We dont need fictions, and every real is equally real, no?
I read the first page.
To me, nature is only separated by time and space, it is not separated into real and unreal.
Therefor our perception is real also. It may or may not be ‘accurate’, but it does exist and is natural.
I don’t feel I need to divide and abstract unless I want to communicate.
Meanwhile, I believe in a non-abstracted single reality, which we are mostly numb to, but that it still fully exists and connects with itself in some ways.
I’m just saying this to make my view clear. I’m not criticizing the first page. I’ll read more later maybe.
Arcturus Descending:
Thank you. This makes it worth the effort.
Dan:
Time is change (re: displacement or continuous replacement of a different with a difference) or measure of rate of change (clocks, timers, calendars, etc.); space is fundamentally the room needed for the differences that display the passage of time to exist and move within. There’s something else that must fill the rank of nature: as existence actually manifests itself, this third thing is an experiencer and that which it experiences.
As for the notion of difference between ‘real’ and ‘unreal’, while I do not believe in the existence of that which is neither experience nor mentality at all, I cannot honestly rule it out (as I am fundamentally an experience having experiences, and my experience of myself and that which I currently experience fills the totality or every interstitial space of reality as it is to me). Nevertheless, as experience and that which isn’t experience at all are two completely different types of existence, it does not follow that one can, outside magic, have anything to do with the existence of the other. This is pretty much the gist of my philosophy of existence at a technical level.
Of course our perception is real. If it weren’t we’d be in a state of dreamless sleep. I’m merely stating that there is no rational or logical relation between perception and experience and that which is neither perception nor experience, and that we certainly do not stand in an epistemic situation that allows us to assert the unquestionable, absolute existence of non-experience/mentality.
I believe in it as well (and your statement that you ‘believe’ in a non-abstracted single reality is an admirable admission of philosophical honesty to which we should aspire): it seems (although we cannot rule it out) that we do not pop into and out of existence. If we do not come into nor go out of existence (fundamentally and essentially), then we must emerge from a background reality (aka the external world): my view, in a nutshell, is that this background reality is not something that is not experience or mentality at all, as that which is neither experience nor mentality probably cannot bring into existence that which it is not, nor transform itself into something it is not. All that I am saying is that the non-abstracted single reality is ultimately mental.
That’s cool, man. I hope you read the rest and all that comes after, especially after the clarification given above.
Thanks for your input,
J.
Amorphos:
‘Manifest’ infers an origin or beginning, but in practice it is an appearing or a ‘becoming visible’. Regardless of the concept of it having an origin, existence only manifests (i.e. appears) in the form of a person and that which the person experiences. In regard to origin/beginnings, if an experiencer and that which it experiences does not come into existence from a previous, total nonexistence, that something must comes prior to the appearance of the experiencer, and the experiencer and the manner in which it actually exists (in the form of something that experiences or is experiencing) has its origin/beginning from this “whatever”. Given the fact that anything that emerges from this “whatever” seems to always arrive as or in the form of an experience that experiences, one can conclude that the “whatever” seems to only produce experiencers and experience: it doesn’t seem to produce anything else (given the fact that we are nothing but experiences, this is certainly the simplest induction one could make).
The omniversal entirety of logical constructions of sense-data, cognition, and emotion (I love the term: ‘omniverse’ and what it means).
True, although their presumable ending is not so much cessation of existence (if things do not come into nor go out of existence) but dissolution (regardless of reconstruction into other persons or reconstruction into the same person with a different exteroceptive avatar [body] or no avatar at all)
Exactly. But it is at this point that we instinctively and habitually indulge the illusion of departing from the empirical to the meta-empirical. We move beyond the manifest (the obvious) toward imaginative speculation of the nature of the invisible world. (See below!)
We can never know. One is free to believe that they do, although I argue that, except for distinctness in terms of resemblance between one experiencer-quale and another, there is probably no objective object that ‘becomes’ the experiencer’s quale itself: the objective object is not one and the same thing as the experiencer’s quale, thus it should have nothing to do with the existence of the quale.
I intuitively believe in the existence of this third-party information, but if things neither come into nor go out of existence, the experiencer’s quale, qua the substance of quale itself, pre-existed for eternity and only recently assumed the form of the green apple, ourselves, and our mutual partaking of the apple. That is, irrespective of the third-party information that informs the shape the quale takes, the quale itself has existed for eternity alongside the 3rd party information.
[We can easily throw out ex nihilo magic, in which the 3rd party magically creates the quale and ensures it mimics the 3rd party information: this begs the question of whether or not the 3rd party info is conscious and therefore wants to emulate itself in the form of persons and the things they experience, much more that it can magically cause that which does not exist to come into existence.]
My point is that existence, to us, manifests (appears, “shows up” or becomes ‘visible’) only in the form of an experiencer and that which it currently experiences (the entire spectrum of experience: past, present, and future, have/will appeared/appear, and can thus be considered to have ‘happened’ in that they were experienced/will be experienced): if things do not come into nor go out of existence, then we must have quale (clay)in existence throughout eternity, alongside 3rd party information (person forming the clay or the object which the clay mimics [i.e. a real green apple v.s. a clay statue of the apple, regardless of whether or not (theistically) the statue was molded by an external experiencer or (atheistically) the statue spontaneously and autonomously shaped itself, accidentally, in the form of a green apple that also exists in non-quale form]. It is just that quale, when not in the form of a person and that which the person experiences, must exists in non-person or non-personally experienced form.
Your paradigm of existence includes the existence of quale in the form of an experiencer and that which it experiences, but denies that these exist without (hopefully, it does not deny that they cannot exist) an invisible tertium quid (the 3rd party information of an informational universe) behind the scenes behaving in a way that is mimicked and represented by the quale in the form of an experiencer and what it is currently doing and experiencing. I argue, however, that the 3rd party information, in order to rationally and logically relate to quale and the shape quale takes, must either itself consist of quale or consist of proto-quale that, because it is a form of mentality, more or less transparently possesses a natural causal relation with experience itself (the eighth mentality or force introduced in the OP).
If the 3rd party information is something that is neither experience nor mentality at all, it does not follow how it could affect experience or mentality, and there is no reason to the stipulation that experience should mimic it or “follow its lead”. Following Hume, one is merely assuming that something other than experience or mentality exists, then going so far as to imaginatively create a way in which that which is not experience nor mentality in the least relates or interacts with a completely different existence. One “has got into fairy land”, yet still has the temerity to insist that that which has not, nor cannot, appear in the form of existence in which it routinely appears and manifests actually exists and worse, somehow interacts with the obvious form of existence. This requires faith of the worst sort.
[Although this is NOT an accusation toward you, my friend. ]
Sure.
This is what I ultimately believe, and what I’m sneakily leading up to. 
What I meant by ‘fiction’, as stated in another post, is the use of imagination to imaginatively invent a scenario or state of affairs that cannot manifest in human experience. We create fiction whenever we hypothesize or attempt to conceive the nature of the external world and any process in which the external world produces consciousness. Heck, we create fiction in any conception or explanation of how the brain creates consciousness. The second definition of ‘fiction’ in the Merrium-Webster dictionary, the definition for which I strike in my work above, holds that a ‘fiction’ is an assumption or assertion of the existence of a ‘reality’ that cannot be experienced regardless or heedless of the question of the fact that objectively, the ‘reality’ may not exist.
This was educational. Thanks for reductively explaining your stance (the whole ‘green apple’ thing)
J.
Moved a couple of posts from the other thread in order to delete it at OP’s request - I hope I haven’t messed up the flow too much. If you want any further housekeeping, drop me a PM.
Only_Humean:
Thanks again.
J.
J
Interesting! So we have…
an invisible or non-appearing oneness/being. It contains and hence probably is an experiencer.
Then we have an appearance, and that is a manifestation of the above in the singular or some manner of uniqueness from the oneness. We could call this; primary division.
When those unique beings interact their thoughts and quale, we then have the tertiary level of separateness; information.
My problem now is that we need a divider in both stages, and although information may not be connected to the oneness in the above set, we could still have a scenario where information/nature exists prior to the experiencer and be the cause of the divide. Perhaps this is how the experiencer is born innocent into nature and the world!?
If the oneness caused the duality that would be a logical contradiction of its very unity. We appear to need all three aspects to the grater nature of things, and each in the general sence are eternal and infinite.
Perhaps the omniverse isnt so solid as I inferred. It most likely is the collection of all [the above] from the perspective of experiencers, many of which are coming in and out of life as do their quale and informations. If we rid ourselves of the edges in our minds, the omniverse may be the set of all things fading in and out of reality – the oneness. see also below*
Metaphorically, as like drops of water falling in and out of the great lake.
But arent things coming in and out of existence? I largely agree with your most salient point, that there must be eternal versions of all quale, but i’d go one step further and say that ‘all is within the oneness of reality’. What we actually have is the ‘whatever’, or the oneness of reality, or God*, if one wishes to see from that perspective. We would not assume e.g. that God does not include all, and the potentiality to manifest or make appear any particulars within him to without.
Thanks!
The simplest way that I have come to visualise a mind only reality, where reality is also beyond me, is to think of our minds being a subset of a greater mind.The greater mind provides the information that composes our reality.There is a degree of separation between the greater set and its subsets insofar as the subsets can have wrong thoughts.
Apologies for late replies. There will be gaps in response as I am currently “hoofing it” through Chapter 2. However, thanks for all responses and continued discussion of the topic at hand-J.
Chester:
And this happens to be my view of the true nature of reality. It’s great you came to this induction, as it is probably, as you said, the simplest induction of the nature of a purely mental reality in which reality in the form in which it actually appears is the primary or fundamental state of infinity. A secondary state, one which enables the existence of the subsets and all change of content within the greater mind and the lesser internal minds, is an eighth mentality in the form of a mental force or emergent material reservoir that permeates both greater and lesser minds. Great response.
Amorphos:
If, following Chester’s induction above, there exists a duality in the form of an Experiencer and a multitude of experiencers experiencing “hand-me-down” content from the Experiencer:
(or even more interestingly the "hand-me-down"s are provided by an entity behind the Experiencer that produces content in the form of an existential polarity between experiencers and the Experiencer…in which the mind and personality of the Experiencer, and its opposite, are reflected in allegorical form within experiencers)
:the divider-in the form of the source of the material providing the experiences of the Experiencer and all experiencers and the force that gathers, forms, and dissipates frames of experience occurring to the Experiencer and experiencers-is (one could argue must be) a form of mentality that is neither sensory, cognitive, nor emotional but that nonetheless can causally interact (being a “pure” or basic form of the mental substance making up sensory, cognitive, and emotional experience) with manifest mentality.
As far as experiencers are concerned, the informational universe or their informational source is either (with ‘information’ as I understand it and use it being the presented form in which a material is shaped as opposed to just the material qua the material itself independent of any shape: i.e. the use of letters of the English alphabet to form the word: ‘skyscraper’ and the mental and sensory image or object that the term usually describes or depicts as opposed to the letters used to form the word independent of their arrangement in the form of the term):
The content within the conscious and unconscious mind of the Experiencer (there is a duality, opposite the notion that the very substance of the experience of the Experiencer, once the Experiencer ceases to experience it, “travels” to another part of mental space to form the indexical experience of any experiencer or all experiencers, in which there is indeed an eternal or invariant separateness between the Experiencer and experiencer in which information (as conceived above) necessarily involves isomorphism, or contextual mimickry between the two.
A combination of the content within the conscious mind of the Experiencer and the background mentality, which (by random chance of limited nature of existence and action) produces copies of the content of the conscious mind of the Experiencer in the form of the content of the mind of the experiencer, or an allegorical polarity to the aforementioned content or the inherent nature of the Experiencer itself.
The ‘fading in and out of reality’, if things do not materistically or substantially cease to exist or come into existence from a previous state of absolute non-existence, is or can be nothing more than a dissolution of a previous manifestation or ‘appearance’ into something that other than the previous manifestation. A sort of 'now you see it-now you don’t". The material making up the thing that is no longer experienced still exists, just not in the form of that which momentarily appeared.
[Set of reality in which nothing comes into nor goes out of existence in the literal sense=omniverse containing nothing more than an eternally existing material that “morph” or assumes form or appearance, then dissipates to re-form into another appearance. In terms of information, as you have said, there needs be a form of communication in which the source of information relays its appearance and form to something that mimics its form and appearance. My view is that if the source does not use itself or the material making up itself to form the unique, separate, copy of itself—the similarity between the “informational source” and its “recipient” comes about merely by sheer chance: the appearance and nature of the latter is not what it is because of the appearance and nature of the former.]
Excellent metaphor.
This is the gist of things. My view is that reality, as it appears in the form of “non-God” persons, refers to God in a positive or negative sense. Materialistically (induction made from the nature of existence in the form in which it appears), the basic ‘oneness’ of reality is in the form of experience or the basic substance of experience in appearing and (if it exists) non-appearing form.
J.