I wanted to write about drugs. I decided this was a necessary preface.
Experience (n.):
a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something
source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/experience?s=t
I've had a lot of experiences. Not that I possess some super well lived life - some people have experienced more than me, others have experienced less. Most likely I fit somewhere nicely in the middle of a bell curve as far as 'life lived' goes. Average as I am, like some sort of encryption key, the shmorgasbord and ordering of my experiences helps to make a unique fingerprint but I can't help but wonder: Am I the fingerprint, or the finger?
What makes any two people different are environment and genetics; these affect things like preference and behavior. What I'm curious about is how do genetics, environment, and experience interract. If I had an identical twin that had a reasonably similar upbringing, how much would our experiences overlap? The experiences one encounters are a factor of what they are willing to pursue and what they have no choice but to confront. That is to say, genetics and environment may be better indicators of what a person has experienced rather than who they are or will be. The experiences themselves are better indicators of "who" a person is.
Which fact is more telling: Bob's grandfather had diabetes or Bob fought in Vietnam? If we know Bob's grandfather had diabetes, we can assume there's a decent chance Bob may get diabetes, which comes with it's own slieu of experiences (hospitals, insulin shots, gross food), but if Bob never gets diabetes this fact is no longer applicable to determining who Bob is or how he thinks. If we know Bob fought in the Vietnam war, then there's a good chance he experienced unspeakable atrocities and this is an immutable facet of Bob. There's no chance Bob experienced and simultaneously didn't experience 'nam.
If Bob were my twin and instead grew up as a child in Vietnam during the war he would have wholly different experiences than mine (especially, were he not an American). For one, today I am compelled to HODL the shitcoins whereas Bob, after a childhood of life and death being prominent motifs, may focus on more practical, lucrative, and risk-averse matters in his adulthood. Those kind of experiences change you.
How did this experience affect who these children grew up to be?
Are you a brain in a vat? You are neither the brain, nor the vat. You are the sum of your parts - a human: the pinnacle of evolution, built to cater to the survival experiences (or lack thereof) of your ancestors! Those predecessors that experienced survival for long enough to reproduce, affect us. So what, then, are you on a more ethereal level? Are you the sum of your experiences or are you the experiencer? Surely, I am no more an apple for admiring the beauty of an orchard. Though, by experiencing the taste of an apple, the apple now becomes a part of me. We have no conscious access to the apple's experience of being eaten and conversely, no way to prove it's lack of experience.
It's altogether possible in my ruminations, I am being too one-dimensional. If I am the sum of my experiences, and a product of the sum of the experiences of my forebearers, perhaps even the experiencer is not me. How could we, a species with the capability of studying itself, be so in the dark about our composite nature. Perhaps it's because we live in a simulation and this reality is illusory in nature. Perhaps it is because we 'feel' like cohesive wholes.
Aha, 'feel'! Subjectivity seems to be the muddling factor and the missing key. Let's end with a fun word:
Quale (n., plural qualia):
a quality, as bitterness, regarded as an independent object
source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/qualia?s=t
For example, 'to see red' would be one quale and 'to pet a dog' would be another. Is a quale an experience? Not quite. Qualia are more like ways of characterizing experiences. So 'to be whole', as a quale, may differ from 'to feel whole' and we would be none the wiser. Those born blind don't know the quale 'to see red'. In fact, qualia inherently can not be communicated other than on a shallow, linguistic level that requires past exposure of all parties involved in the communication. We can never truly know if Q for me is Q for you. As if that weren't complicated enough, past experiences will color the perception of future experience. I can experience Q('to see red') and you can experience Q('to see red') but we add our own filter and perception to the whole experience. We are all locked in mental cages. The bars are time and the empty space is experience. All the space inside and outside of the cage is connected. The cage only becomes a prison as long as you stay within the bars. No wonder there's so much strife and derision.
One thing we can probably all agree on; we're alive. Or at least, I am. I don't know about you all. Is to be alive, to have an experiencer or to be an experiencer? Trees are universally considered alive, but do they experience? Maybe this is all too metaphysical...
There have been studies done that address some of the things I have brought up, but the purpose of this post is more to stimulate thought than prove a point. Everything in this article is based off of my opinions, thoughts, and meditations so take it with a grain of salt.
Like this post? Upvote and follow 
Want me to keep writing articles like this?
Tip me btc
1AQsGJ7x5HJ7rAqb589BUypyMuUV4wyUE
My next article will be about: drugs, spirits, and time!