[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[Yoink]

1... The demonstration is not phenomenal, being in itself noumenal, and its effects phenomenal.
The actual process of the non-phenomenal communication is beyond the level or range of phenomenal perception.

"Demonstration" must be phenomenal, by definition. If it is noumenal it would have to be intuited, not demonstrated. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused. The MDC is utterly uninterested in "the actual process"; they are interested solely in what can be phenomenally demonstrated.

2... I agree, proof of a noumenal event lies in the realization itself, beyond phenomenal perception, which I have emphasized all along.

Intuitive certainty is not "proof" in any sense. It is what it is--"intuitive certainty." Proof is what is demonstrated ("look, here, I will prove it to you") and therefore it is a matter of phenomena, not noumena. If you are convinced by intuition that you are receiving "noumenal" communication from your friend, that's nice for you, but is not "proof" either for you or--a fortiori--for anyone else.

 

[maatorc]

"Demonstration" must be phenomenal, by definition. If it is noumenal it would have to be intuited, not demonstrated. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused. The MDC is utterly uninterested in "the actual process"; they are interested solely in what can be phenomenally demonstrated.
Intuitive certainty is not "proof" in any sense. It is what it is--"intuitive certainty." Proof is what is demonstrated ("look, here, I will prove it to you") and therefore it is a matter of phenomena, not noumena. If you are convinced by intuition that you are receiving "noumenal" communication from your friend, that's nice for you, but is not "proof" either for you or--a fortiori--for anyone else.

If you seek to discredit or derail my essential points you will have to do better than that. To assert I am getting confused is not a bad try, but not good enough.

I may here just as easily say your comments signal a certain self serving naivety.

Demonstrate is not restricted to phenomena.
Here I used it as in 'taking part in', in this case noumena, an acceptable use.

Proof is not an exclusively phenomenal process.
Proof is indeed what is demonstrated, as for example the conscious experiential participation in a noumenal event.

The history of the experience of noumenal events is that of conscious experience as distinct from intuitive certainty.

Intuition is no less real than a self conscious phenomenal realization.

 

[nathan]

Demonstrate is not restricted to phenomena.

Please provide an example of a demonstration that does not involve phenomena.

 

[chillzero]

Thread has been set to moderated as previously advised. We continue to go in loops on the definition of a few words, and that argument is irrelevant to the Challenge.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero