[FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

But doesn't it mean that, since no experience will ever *fully prove out*, that a fully proved out experience is something we will "never truly grasp"? Doesn't the provisionality imply that *all* experience is illusory? And, then, if there is such a thing as a "fully proved out experience", then you're back to 2 things not fully proved out vs. fully proved out?

Of course, my point goes back to scale ... again ... there's a little proved out, a medium amount of proved out, and a lot proved out. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. 8^)

On 12/6/19 11:49 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> */both equally illusory./*
> 
> I think “illusory” is used here, in your way, not in the way I would use it, but to refer to the world that truly is but which we an never truly grasp.  I.e., dualistically.  For me, an illusion is just an experience that does not prove out.  I arrive at my coffee house three days in a row and there is a “day old” old-fashioned plain donut available for purchase at half price.  I experience that “donut at 4” is something I can count on.  That turns out not to be the case because, another customer starts coming in at 3.59 and commandeering all the donuts.  My experience was illusory.  Or, think flips of a coin.  You flip a coin 7 times heads and you come to the conclusion that the coin is biased.  However, you flip it a thousand times more and its behavior over the 1007 flips is consistent with randomness.  You come to the conclusion that the bias was probably an illusion. 
> 
> My understanding of illusory is probabilistic and provisional. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ