Glostik91 wrote:In order to be more precise I should have said pure intuition instead of raw experience. Intuition of the object is what I was referring to.
Pure or raw, the invocation sounds similar. In case you're interested in the term, at this forum I wrote quite a few times about intuition
, including Spinoza's and Nietzsche's usage.
A dream is an experience of something. A waking state is an experience of something. The something in the dream state is considered to nonexist. The something in the waking state is considered to exist. Existence is part of the way in which one comes to an understanding of something. Other ways to understand a thing are in terms of parts/whole, large/small, on/off, etc. These are categories of relation i.e. causality.
It's not clear how you'd come to distinguish between dreaming and waking states, or illusions and reality for that matter. A dream can be perfectly reasonable and understandable and surely, at least during the dream, it's rarely being questioned. Normally only after waking up, one concludes it must
have been a dream, since it suddenly discontinued without a trace. But how to reason on this within a dream itself? Did you ever find yourself reasoning within a dream on the probability of it being a dream? These are interesting moments (aka "dream lucidity").
Both pure intuition and understanding are lenses by which we come to intuit and understand the real object - the object as it is in itself. You're mistaking my use of 'raw experience' or 'raw consciousness' here.
You are asserting an actual thing which just needs to be "uncovered" or studied then? Again you clearly use "raw" and "pure" as quality of observation. Like wiping your camera lens or buying more gear, getting various angles and wider lens, HD immersion?
I am not saying that molecules and atoms are not the real thing. I am saying it is wholly unknown whether molecules and atoms are the real thing. The noumenon, the thing in itself, is wholly unknown.
If it's wholly
unknown, it doesn't matter
at least until we could relate to it somehow, don't you think? Exit noumenon.
The question however was if you can have a "real thing" in the first place, logically. Not if the observation, the lens of the display is the thing or if the thing is the combination of all kinds of little question marks bound together.
We experience free will, we don't experience causality.
That's just a declaration! Just as easy to say we experience in everything cause and effect but no free will in anything.
One can experience a self but it's not a given either. It's possible to claim that no self is being experienced. How to answer to that?
I see a ball 'A' hit another ball 'B', I might say that it seems like the A ball hit the B ball causing it to move, but this isn't necessarily the truth. It's possible something else entirely caused the B ball to move. The exact same thing occurs when I want to make a decision. I experience free will because I don't experience causality.
Same form of reasoning could annihilate the idea of experiencing a self, as agency or being and the various choices being made.