What is experience?

[UnbornTao]

On 5/3/2025 at 0:35 PM, UnbornTao said:

A couple definitions to keep us going:

experience:

1. something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
2. the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

Forgot adding concept: 

1. An abstract and general idea; an abstraction.
2. Understanding retained in the mind, from experience, reasoning and imagination; a generalization or abstraction (mental impression), of a particular set of instances or occurrences (specific, though different, recorded manifestations of the concept).
3. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
4. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

--

And one more;

phenomenon: 

From Late Latin phaenomenon (“appearance”), from Ancient Greek φαινόμενον (phainómenon, “thing appearing to view”), neuter present middle participle of φαίνω (phaínō, “I show”).

1. A thing or being, event or process, perceptible through senses; or a fact or occurrence thereof. 
2. A knowable thing or event (eg by inference, especially in science)
3. Appearance; a perceptible aspect of something that is mutable. 

[Reciprocality]

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Forgot adding concept: 

1. An abstract and general idea; an abstraction.
2. Understanding retained in the mind, from experience, reasoning and imagination; a generalization or abstraction (mental impression), of a particular set of instances or occurrences (specific, though different, recorded manifestations of the concept).
3. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
4. a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

--

And one more;

phenomenon: 

From Late Latin phaenomenon (“appearance”), from Ancient Greek φαινόμενον (phainómenon, “thing appearing to view”), neuter present middle participle of φαίνω (phaínō, “I show”).

1. A thing or being, event or process, perceptible through senses; or a fact or occurrence thereof. 
2. A knowable thing or event (eg by inference, especially in science)
3. Appearance; a perceptible aspect of something that is mutable. 

@UnbornTao Can we only refer to a phenomenon either in particular or in general? If so then when we refer to it in general what is different between this and a concept? And when we refer to the particular phenomenon could something else that were not identical to it have replaced it without us knowing?

If something else could have replaced the particular phenomenon you referred to without you knowing then would that imply that concepts are inescapable also when we refer to a phenomenon? And if not, then what is the difference between the distinction between a) phenomenon and b) its replicability vs c) phenomenon and d) our concept of it?

 

 

[UnbornTao]

22 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@UnbornTao Can we only refer to a phenomenon either in particular or in general? If so then when we refer to it in general what is different between this and a concept? And when we refer to the particular phenomenon could something else that were not identical to it have replaced it without us knowing?

If something else could have replaced the particular phenomenon you referred to without you knowing then would that imply that concepts are inescapable also when we refer to a phenomenon? And if not, then what is the difference between the distinction between a) phenomenon and b) its replicability vs c) phenomenon and d) our concept of it?

A phenomenon is what happened as it was experienced. Yes, it is still interpreted and is likely automatically filtered through our network of conclusions, preferences, and so on. I'm not sure what you mean by "particular or general phenomenon." The point is to see the difference between what we think happened--our mental activity around the event--and what we actually experienced as the event.

As for the question: "And when we refer to the particular phenomenon could something else that were not identical to it have replaced it without us knowing?" I'd need some clarity on that. In the meantime, I'd add that we often struggle to separate the event itself from what we mentally add to it.

We're beginning to see now just how pervasive conceptualization really is.

Edited May 27 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

15 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

We're beginning to see now just how pervasive conceptualization really is.

A concept is experience crystalized, it's the same substance and it also occurs now. It's a complex structure but still it's fundamentally experience. 

You can't evade concepts completely ever, or we couldn't discuss anything. You are trying to go fishing without a net. You will see a lot of fish, and it's nice, but we gotta catch something sometimes.

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

A concept is experience crystalized, it's the same substance and it also occurs now. It's a complex structure but still it's fundamentally experience. 

You can't evade concepts completely ever, or we couldn't discuss anything. You are trying to go fishing without a net. You will see a lot of fish, and it's nice, but we gotta catch something sometimes.

I don't think evading them is necessary; it's about learning to recognize a notion for what it is. 

If a concept is a mental representation of something--usually an experience--then it is non-objective. We can experience a concept, but that is not the same as the concept itself. Refer to the definitions above: experience means personally going through an event. A concept, on the other hand, is inferred and, in a sense, invented, whereas experience occurs as a phenomenon or fact, seemingly independent of our notions.

Contrast a memory of something with your actual experience of it. Stand up now, then sit down. Compare your memory of standing up with the experience itself as it unfolds.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@UnbornTao

Yep a video of an event is not the event. A memory is a recording.

I don't know but presume that a hardcore non dualist like Leo would say here that this distinction, between memory and actuality, can also collapse, and you can see that both are God and real in that sense.

Although non duality can show that all distinctions are imaginary, they are still useful to mere mortals like us : )

Our conversation has helped me come up with a new ontological fallacy: The Word Realism Fallacy where one imagines that all words should have a corresponding object or phenomenon in existence.

Edited May 28 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

On 5/28/2025 at 4:08 AM, Anton Rogachevski said:

@UnbornTao

Yep a video of an event is not the event. A memory is a recording.

The exercise was meant to show that memory, a form of concept, is different in kind from the lived experience that the memory is supposed to refer to. Notice, for example, that memory itself tends to be incredibly biased and subjective. In fact, it often is a complete misrepresentation of whatever was experienced, in part because we weren't paying much attention to what really happened but were more concerned with subjective matters and personal machinations. How does that differ from experience?

Quote

Our conversation has helped me come up with a new ontological fallacy: The Word Realism Fallacy where one imagines that all words should have a corresponding object or phenomenon in existence.

Representing an experience is what the word is for. Perhaps it doesn't have to be about something objective, but terms like "confusion", "abstract", "ability," or "paradox" still point to some kind of experience, something that we notice to be different from what it is not. And it could be just a thought. If there's a word for it, it is representing something we're aware of.

We could leave the investigation of language for another time, though. New thread needed, come on people.

Edited May 31 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

18 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

How does that differ from experience?

An experience and a memory of an experience are both types of experience. One is direct and the other indirect. The brain is exceptional at mixing these two channels seamlessly, as it does with all the different types of senses.

There is just experience and nothing else, and What is experience? - Mu! (Phenomenologically speaking)

18 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

what really happened

We can't know that actually. Only what was experienced.

On 5/27/2025 at 11:06 PM, UnbornTao said:

personally going through an event

There's no one to go through an event. Nobody is going "through" it, experience is just playing out to itself, it's self aware.

Edited May 30 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

On 30/5/2025 at 5:40 AM, Anton Rogachevski said:

An experience and a memory of an experience are both types of experience. One is direct and the other indirect. The brain is exceptional at mixing these two channels seamlessly, as it does with all the different types of senses.

Neither is direct; perhaps a better word would be personal, since both seem to be personally experienced - they just aren't of the same "kind." Your memory of a punch doesn't physically hurt you - a punch does. However, what you do in relation to the memory could hurt you! Which is to say, your mental activity - ideations. Not sure where this is going.

Quote

There is just experience and nothing else, and What is experience? - Mu! (Phenomenologically speaking)

Mu! is actually the best answer.  

Quote

We can't know that actually. Only what was experienced.

Why not?

Don't confuse our failure to grasp it with the impossibility of doing so. 

We can have a memory of/memorize something ("what was experienced") and experience the having of the memory. Anyway, it might be the case that we didn't really know what was experienced in the first place. We come back to what experience is, now. I brought up 'memory' to make a point about concept.

Quote

There's no one to go through an event. Nobody is going "through" it, experience is just playing out to itself, it's self aware.

If you are conscious of that, that's awesome. Is your experience like that, though? I suspect we both currently have a pretty solid sense of self - the one somewhere behind our eyes reading this - as well as think that is what we are.

Edited June 1 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

52 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Neither is direct; perhaps a better word would be personal, since both seem to be personally experienced - they just aren't of the same "kind." Your memory of a punch doesn't physically hurt you - a punch does. However, what you do in relation to the memory could hurt you! Which is to say, your mental activity - ideations. Not sure where this is going.

Surely I'm not equating a recording of an event with the actual sensual event. They are two diffrent types of experiences. Their substance is the same, but the intensity and feeling of realness are different.

52 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If you are conscious of that, that's awesome. Is your experience like that, though? I suspect we both currently have a pretty solid sense of self, the one behind the eyes reading this.

I am under the illusion of being a separate self currently, that's a very good and sane mechanism that helps the body survive and function properly. The fact that it's illusory doesn't prevent it from being very useful and important. I do have memories of having the ego expend and merge with almost the whole of experience, but from my understanding which I call Post-Non dualism I can see clearly why experience must be like that. 

52 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

prove a point about concept

What point? You wanted to say that a concept of something is not directly in our sensual feed right now, but in a sort of recorded and crystalized form of experience? A recollection?

Edited May 31 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

On 5/31/2025 at 3:30 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

Surely I'm not equating a recording of an event with the actual sensual event. They are two different types of experiences. Their substance is the same, but the intensity and feeling of realness are different.

You keep conflating concept and experience! Yes, as you say, a concept can also be experienced, yet it isn't an experience. You'd experience the mental activity giving rise to it. Like experiencing a pineapple versus the recollection that your uncle Bob bought it for you.

Quote

I am under the illusion of being a separate self currently, that's a very good and sane mechanism that helps the body survive and function properly. The fact that it's illusory doesn't prevent it from being very useful and important. I do have memories of having the ego expend and merge with almost the whole of experience, but from my understanding which I call Post-Non dualism I can see clearly why experience must be like that. 

Sounds good! The body might not need a self but that's another topic.

Quote

What point? You wanted to say that a concept of something is not directly in our sensual feed right now, but in a sort of recorded and crystalized form of experience? A recollection?

That one is different from the other. It sounds like you are calling experience the sensual feed (sensory field?) - I'd call that perception. And I'd say that perception comes prior to concept. Perception > experience > conceptualization. Don't take this model too seriously, btw. I'm not even saying it's true but it might help us ponder what each process is about.

Edited June 1 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

On 6/1/2025 at 6:35 PM, UnbornTao said:

a concept can also be experienced, yet it isn't an experience.

I hope you can see the oxymoron here. It can only be known through experience, just like everything else. If it is experienced it's substance is Experience. There isn't a substance that is "concept". 

 

On 6/1/2025 at 6:35 PM, UnbornTao said:

You keep conflating concept and experience!

It seems like you want them to be separate and different. ("Difference" and "Separation" "categorization" "conceptualization" "process" are concepts) Do you want to say one is real and the other isn't? They are both unreal phenomenologically speaking in the same way since experience is pure hallucination. (They still might represent something in the material world, but we can only assume that.)

On 6/1/2025 at 6:35 PM, UnbornTao said:

It sounds like you are calling experience the sensual feed

When I say "sensory feed" I mean exactly like a data feed input into a computer. Imagine a camera and a cable connected to a computer: The raw data that is transferred that is the feed.

For me they are synonymous. It's just easier sometimes to refer back to the material in order to be more clear within the spiritual. A "sensory feed" is an idea that can only exist within a hypothetical "material 3rd person perspective", because we can't actually look at this process from the "outside" (idea)

When directly experienced this sensual feed is what we are and what we see simultaneously - a pure undefined sensory data from "within" (Idea).

----

Extra fresh ideas by GPT:

Modern neuroscience supports this: perception is predictive modeling, not passive reception. Your experience of “reality” is a controlled hallucination (Anil Seth), constrained by sensory input and shaped by prior expectations.

You might assume experience is locked inside your skull—but Merleau-Ponty insisted: experience is embodied and relational. The world shows up through the body, not inside the brain. You are in the world, not observing it from a control room.

Wittgenstein warned against the “private language argument”: if your experience were totally private, how could you even name it? Language—and thus meaning—requires shared experience.

Edited June 3 by Anton Rogachevski

[Reciprocality]

On 25/05/2025 at 6:02 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Reciprocality

I really loved your prose! Such rich and colorful words. It does seem at times like you almost touch the untouchable while dancing so beautifully around it. 

I think that "time" is an illusion created by memorised experience. It's hard to even imagine time existing phenomenologically without memory. And I do think that a major component of consciousness as we know it is memory. Sure we can only know about memory because we first experience it, so it seems paradoxical to assume that experience requires memory to do anything at all, when in fact experience is prior to remembering.

@Anton Rogachevski I stubbornly stuck with this way of writing until it became hard to restrain it, I believe we are all honing in on our personal stamp through practice because it is the only means that is the most harmonious to our thoughts and all our thoughts seek harmony with each other. Also, thank you for the compliment.

You say that time is an illusion founded on memory, this appear entirely consistent with your other idea that memory is a Humean secondary impression, given that something that has the capacity to create illusions must be substantial and substance must be immediate, whether diminished or not. But what is the mechanism, the universal invariance, that ensures not only that this illusion occurs but potentially also that its alternatives are mere fictions? I would propose that diminution of substance independently of its intensity could be that kid of bedrock, particularly because I believe phenomenologically we have always experienced that the linearity of time accompanies this diminutive invariance and that proposals of counter variants breaks linearity via time-paradoxes because the "now" would accumulate where there is most intensity.

I want to ask you this, in the formation of memory, must there be agency that identifies the separation between it and phenomena? Must that separation be identified for memory to form? When some memory becomes meaning--so much so that words or analogies are formed that applies in all kinds of situations--do that meaning share its substance with the memories they were founded on? If not, what is the ontology of this additional--presumably platonic--substance?

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

all our thoughts seek harmony with each other.

Beautiful idea.

 

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

If not, what is the ontology of this additional--presumably platonic--substance?

It's ontology is unknowable in my view, as I only have access to the substance of experience and that is made of pure imagination.

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

I want to ask you this, in the formation of memory, must there be agency that identifies the separation between it and phenomena?

The process of forming memory is the conscious presence, usually emotional stimuli and openess to receive at that moment, or such a strong stimuli that simply leaves a scar. There is a function of the brain, that when functions healthily, puts a mental label that allows us to tell apart memory from present experience. This process is mixed well so seamlessly that the transition is not always obvious to the experiencer.

Like you said intensity and the generated sane feeling of "realness" play a huge role here.

We take memory so for granted, but without it we couldn't realize anything and much less communicate at such a level of abstraction. That said pure experience is still beautiful and mystical!

[UnbornTao]

On 6/1/2025 at 5:41 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

I hope you can see the oxymoron here. It can only be known through experience, just like everything else. If it is experienced it's substance is Experience. There isn't a substance that is "concept". 

It is experienced as concept - mental activity. The having of the concept isn't. Think of doing something, and then do it - these are the domains I'm talking about. I'm not conscious of what experience is yet, so won't speculate on its substance. 

Three activities seem to be involved here:

• experience
• concept
• experiencing a concept (experience) 

The latter isn't commonly done. It is the possibility of not only having a thought but experiencing the activity that is the thought as it occurs. Hence the conflation.

Quote

It seems like you want them to be separate and different. ("Difference" and "Separation" "categorization" "conceptualization" "process" are concepts) Do you want to say one is real and the other isn't? They are both unreal phenomenologically speaking in the same way since experience is pure hallucination. (They still might represent something in the material world, but we can only assume that.)

Would you say you perceive a concept the same way you experience what the concept is referring to?

I'm just suggesting we conflate - fuse with - these different domains, not necessarily separate. I'm not claim realness for one or the other - but experience does seem to be more grounded and less "burdened" with mental activity.

Quote

When I say "sensual feed" I mean exactly like a data feed input into a computer. Imagine a camera and a cable connected to a computer: The raw data that is transferred that is the feed.

For me they are synonymous. It's just easier sometimes to refer back to the material in order to be more clear within the spiritual. A "sensual feed" is an idea that can only exist within a hypothetical "material 3rd person perspective", because we can't actually look at this process from the "outside" (idea)

When directly experienced this sensual feed is what we are and what we see simultaneously - a pure undefined sensual data from "within" (Idea).

We fucked up - it's probably sensory, not sensual. 

Yeah, we should get clear on what these things are. In your example, they are taken to be the same thing, even though we can see that they are not.

Sounds like your claim is that you are a perception.

Edited June 4 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

We fucked up, it's probably sensory, not sensual.

Yeah, thanks for the correction 

 

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

In your example, they are taken to be the same thing, even though we can see that they're not.

How are they not the same? How do you see the difference? 

 

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Would you say you perceive a concept the same way you experience what the concept is referring to?

Of course not. The one is happening now, and the other is a recollection. Conceptual understanding is happening so seamlessly it seems almost real. That's what is meant when saying one is "building castles in the skies", it starts to feel like ideas are coming alive and feel more real than the senses.

 

9 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Sounds like your claim is that you are a perception.

Yes exactly! Phenomenologically speaking the thing we perceive as "ourselves" is another experience not different from a coffee table, but because of its proximity (a feeling of presence) and the bodily sensations we attach to it, we think it's a different or a more "special" experience than all the rest. There is no "perceiver" inside the simulation, we can't be aware of the True Perceiver which is our brain out there. (Not the idea of a "brain" within the simulation.)

Because of how perception is built it cannot perceive the perceiver, but only experience. The same way the eye can't look at itself directly, but can see everything.

[UnbornTao]

@Anton Rogachevski 

On 6/3/2025 at 3:00 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

Yeah, thanks for the correction 

 

How are they not the same? How do you see the difference? 

That's what we're looking into. You can take your sensory feed example and recognize various activities within it such as perception, experience, and so on, which show up differently for you. You just mushed these together into a one simplistic distinction, painting it with broad strokes. Seeing an apple and experiencing an apple is different; your participation in the encounter may be the differentiating element here. Having a concept about an apple is the least "direct" process.

Quote

Of course not. The one is happening now, and the other is a recollection. Conceptual understanding is happening so seamlessly it seems almost real. That's what is meant when saying one is "building castles in the skies", it starts to feel like ideas are coming alive and feel more real than the senses.

Nice, thanks.

Quote

Yes exactly! Phenomenologically speaking the thing we perceive as "ourselves" is another experience not different from a coffee table, but because of its proximity (a feeling of presence) and the bodily sensations we attach to it, we think it's a different or a more "special" experience than all the rest.

Isn't that interesting? We seem to find ourselves in our identifications and experience, and yet don't seem to find the one that's supposed to be behind these activities - we might call this the self. And then there's who you are as a conscious entity.

Quote

There is no "perceiver" inside the simulation, we can't be aware of the True Perceiver which is our brain out there. (Not the idea of a "brain" within the simulation.)

Because of how perception is built it cannot perceive the perceiver, but only experience. The same way the eye can't look at itself directly, but can see everything.

I suggest you can't be found within perception. Maybe there's isn't a perceiver in the first place - but you are conscious. Who's the one reading this now?

We keep encountering this confusion- fusing (failing to differentiate) perception with experience. 

Edited June 4 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Who's that one reading this now?

Pure Awareness phenomenologically speaking, but presumably an evolved ape like creature that thinks it's a "human".

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

a conscious entity.

You are just finding another synonym or a different way to say the same thing and pretend it's a new and separate phenomenon. It's a mind trick. You want there to be a "self", because it's scary to not exist. 

 

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Seeing an apple and experiencing an apple is different; your participation in the encounter may be the differentiating element here. Having a concept about an apple is the least "direct" process.

Various degrees of consciousness, but the substance is the same.

[UnbornTao]

@Anton Rogachevski We should have stuck with the mu answer from the very beginning

I suggested there's the self, and being. The former is what you take yourself to be; the latter is what you actually are, prior to activity. The "who" question isn't about enlightenment but about getting the person doing the asking. You likely experience yourself right now as someone, so who is that someone? 

If I were to ask you to hand me that pencil over there, you'd grab the object and give it to me. You wouldn't give me your idea of the pencil. This is another simplistic example but I think it gets the point across. 

So, you're saying that concept is the same as experience, not just that it can be experienced. Okay. Again, experientially - without stories or resorting to intellect - you can see that they're not exactly the same, can't you? That's the basic point. 

Edited June 4 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

We should have stuck with the mu answer from the very beginning

Haha yeah, but then we wouldn't have had so much fun playing around with these amazing and fundamental ideas. I feel most alive when I'm in such a conversation and deep contemplation. It's really a pleasure! So thank you again.

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

and being

When had "being" entered the conversation? What is that? How does it relate to experience? 

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

prior to activity

How does activity affect what "I actually am"?

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

The "who" question

Isn't that a noise an owl makes? I don't know what that word signifies actually. It seems that it supposes a world where there are "beings" - when you think you are a "self" you imagine other "selves" too.

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

who is that someone? 

I told you, presumably an ape like creature on a floating rock out in space. What did you not like about that answer?

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If I were to ask you to hand me that pencil over there, you'd grab the object and give it to me. You wouldn't give me your idea of the pencil. This is another simplistic example but I think it gets the point across. 

Of course there are accepted intersubjective ideas we all agree on and understand quickly and easily, that's not the point. We are not talking about being pragmatic here, we are trying to dissect phenomenon, and to see how "reality" is being constructed on the go, and how the brain takes that construction to be "real".

I would give you that pencil in the physical realm, but what actually would occur there phenomenologically speaking would be ineffable.

Think of them as two realities happening simultaneously: The physical occurrence of materials and biological creatures, and what those creatures perceive within their brain simulated experiences and the seamless way in which the brain is labeling all the objects and persons within that simulation. Can you see that in the physical there was an actual object, but inside the mind it's an experience shadow with an idea of a "pencil" attached to it?

From a phenomenological perspective there is no "pencil", just experience: colors, sensations of touching, sounds, idea labels, "self" concept, "other" concept - these are the building blocks of experience. 

 

Edited June 4 by Anton Rogachevski