The reality of 'Mind'.

[Lifegazer]

I wanted to give the readers (several did ask me to do this) a more direct understanding of my philosophy - which advocates an ultimate reality of a single Mind - and of how the universe we perceive fits-in, perfectly, with this idea.
Instead of trying to prove that this is the ultimate-reality of 'everything' (which is what I always try to do), this particular post will ask the reader to accept-as-true the premise that Ultimately, there is only a Mind.

1. A Mind exists.
This isn't a difficult concept to understand. By direct experience, the reader can identify this premise via its attributes: reasoning-power; knowledge; emotion; will; desire; purpose; imagination; etc..
I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.
Some readers will complain that nothing can exist within a singularity as a singularity is a place of zero-time & zero-space.
Actually, such a complaint is null & void, since a singularity is a place of whole-time and whole-space. Or rather, a singularity is a 'place' of absolute-time and absolute-space (as opposed to fragmented-time and fragmented-space).

2. The physical-universe was borne of this Mind.
Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The reader has direct experience of fantasising/dreaming about whole realms of existence within his/her own mind.

3. This Mind is omnipresent. I.e., the Mind is all 'things'.
Whatever the mind thinks about is an extension of its own self... an expression of its own self. Each 'thing' can be considered a finite-aspect of the whole.
This may take a little more consideration. But any form residing within the mind is of the mind.
Therefore, I ask the reader to grapple with the idea that all forms of life within The Mind are expressions of that Mind itself, in a finite & relative environment (which has been created by the The Mind).
Therefore, I advocate that ~each individual~ is The Mind itself - seeing itself from many diverse & relative perspectives with regards to the whole.

4. The duality of existence is finally understood.
Here, I of course refer to the duality which exists with regards to classical-physics and Quantum-mechanics.
In remembrance of premise-1, above, where I stated that a singularity is not a place of fragmented time & space; the reader should now realise that any fundamental-energy of the Mind does not reside within such time & space. Such energy emanates from singular-time and singular-space... absolute-time and absolute-space.
It is important that we consider what I mean by these concepts:-
Singular-time is self-explanatory. It speaks of an eternal moment.
Singular-space is a little more complex to consider. It is non-relative space. Non-finite space. But the essential thing to consider is that it is not limited or bounded in any way whatsoever. In fact, a singularity can be considered as an infinitessimal-point inwards OR as an infinite sphere-of-existence outwards (from the mind's eye)... whereby the observer of such a realm is free to move his mind within such an abode, but doesn't seem to get anywhere.
Hence, fundamental-energy of the Mind cannot truly be observed (by the mind) as a point within fragmented-time and fragmented-space, simultaneously... since that's not where it comes from, nor where it truly exists.
And this explains the fundamental indeterminism exhibited by 'fundamental energy'. The closer we look at it in the moment, the more it looks like a particle. The more we try to observe its motion through space, the less-likely are we to observe it. Basically.

5. Relativity explained.
My recent topic about Relativity has been locked. But those that are interested can still browse through it. The bottom-line is that this Mind-hypothesis is fully-compatible with the fundamental-axioms of Einstein's work. I can explain why each observer sees the same universe from a different perspective of time & space. The establishment decided to lock that topic, despite the fact that not a single person showed that my hypothesis was not compatible with Einstein's work. That challenge remained unanswered.

I could discuss many things here. But then it would turn into a mini-book. But here's the bottom-line for your own perception of the universe:-
1. The Mind has created it.
2. It resides at your own point of awareness, and you are its judgements made in relation to the whole. It is not aware of its wholeness here. Its awareness has become fragmented and finite.
Hence the perception of 'you'.

[(Q)]

How did the mind come into existence?

What was there before the mind existed?

How is it possible that the mind exists when the mind must be a function of itself?

Why did the mind not exist with unlimited and ultimate intelligence? Why was the mind ignorant in the past and must continually learn?

Why cannot some part of the mind which are still ignorant learn from the more intelligent parts of the mind if, as you say, the mind is singular?

Why is the mind limited to Earth?

Were dinosaurs once part of the mind? Are all other creatures on Earth part of the mind?

Why can’t the mind stop wars, famine, greed, murder, etc.?

Why does the majority of the mind believe in gods and religions while other parts do not?

Why do some parts of the mind want to kill other parts? Why do some parts kill themselves?

Does the mind exhibit gender separation?

Does the mind act like a colony of ants or a beehive? Is there a “queen” mind?

Why does the majority of the mind view reality for what it is and other parts do not?

Why does the mind exist and reality does not?

I wouldn't be surprised that you ignore answering these simple questions as you did in the other thread. I know you cannot.

[C0mmie]

Lifegazer:
I have trouble wrapping my mind around the singularity of space concept.

Take 3-dimensional space, the entity residing there would be free to move around in 3 dimensions. Now take that and remove one of these dimensions. In the 2 dimensional space the entity would only be able to move about the plane. Similarly, in one dimensional space you would only be able to move along a line. Now remove that one dimension, and you are left with no freedom at all.

infinitessimal-point inwards OR as an infinite sphere-of-existence outwards

no, it would just be a an infinite sphere-of-existence outwards
with all dimensions equal 0.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
I wouldn't be surprised that you ignore answering these simple questions as you did in the other thread. I know you cannot.
I have a reasonable answer to every one of your questions. But one or two at a time please, in future. They may be simple questions, but my answers must be clear.
I'll just answer a few right now...

1. How did the mind come into existence?
- Existence is eternal. The reason for this is quite simple:-
Something cannot emanate from and after a state of absolute nothingness... nor can something reside ~within~ the 'nothing'
that preceded it. Thus, existence is eternal. There has always been Something.
I am in a position to equate The Mind with this absolute-existence (this something), because my philosophy deduces thatThe Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity (please refer to previous post), I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.

2. What was there before the mind existed?
- The question is meaningless. Senseless. For it takes no account of the eternal nature of existence (whatever that existence may be).
I cannot answer the question; except to tell you that there was never a moment prior to an eternal existence.

3. How is it possible that the mind exists when the mind must be a function of itself?
- What do you mean, exactly, when you say "a function of itself."?
Are you asking me what the cause of existence (Mind) was?
If so, then like above, the question is revealed as senseless. For there can be no cause for any entity which is unveiled as 'eternal'. Think about it.

4. Why did the mind not exist with unlimited and ultimate intelligence? Why was the mind ignorant in the past and must continually learn?
- 'The Mind' was not ignorant in the past. Remember, this Mind is an embodiment of The Whole at the eternal moment I spoke of in my previous post. You are forgetting the ~duality of awareness~ which has been advocated here (by myself), as the reality of existence:-
1. The Whole is the Mind which sees all things as itself, in the eternal moment.
2. This Mind has the ability to fragment itself into many different perspectives of itself (life), which all share the same Laws of Physics. Yet within our own individual lives (finite, relative awarenesses), we have a unique perspective of existence. Firstly, we all have different perceptions of time & space when there is only one reality of existence. And secondly, our emotions wreak havoc upon what we are seeing. Love; hate; religion; science; death; life; beauty; ugliness: all play a decisive role in determining what 'reality' we all see. Hence the diversity of human beliefs. Knowledge is unique for each individual.
But the only absolute-certainty in this existence, is that we are all looking at (aware of) a singular reality. The Laws of physics will testify to that. We all have different perspectives of a singular existence of Mind.
Thus, there is a duality of awareness:- That of all things existant, together, at a singular perception of the 'self'. An awareness of that Self. And; there is also an awareness from within the universe itself: 'our' awareness.
It is 'our' minds which have been ignorant in the past. The Mind, as a whole, has not been so.

[Eh]

There is nothing wrong with the "mind ontology" but I would argue there are much simpler ontologies. One can just as easily say physical fields of nature are literally all of of existence. But the question should be, why is one ontology superior to others? In other words, what does the idea of an eternal mind explain that physicalism can't?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by C0mmie
Lifegazer:
I have trouble wrapping my mind around the singularity of space concept.

Take 3-dimensional space, the entity residing there would be free to move around in 3 dimensions. Now take that and remove one of these dimensions.
In the 2 dimensional space the entity would only be able to move about the plane. Similarly, in one dimensional space you would only be able to move along a line. Now remove that one dimension, and you are left with no freedom at all.


Please remember that I'm talking about dimensions of the mind here. Remember also, I did ask the reader to accept this premise as the base of my post: That reality is Mind.
Given that, my response to you is: Whom exists to take away the motion of The Mind? In what sense can we take away the mind's ability to move amongst itself?
The Mind itself is the true dimension of existence. It is.
The dimensions you're talking about, are dimensions of existence which apply to fragmented existence (change/time). If you take those away, you are left with the existence of the Mind itself, which creates those branch-dimensions.

In the 2 dimensional space the entity would only be able to move about the plane. Similarly, in one dimensional space you would only be able to move along a line. Now remove that one dimension, and you are left with no freedom at all.

Yes you are. You're left with the freedom to move within the mind itself (through an infinite yet-singular space of the mind).
Imagine riding a bike as fast as you can. Imagine as though your life depended upon it. Now... was your mind moving through space, or not? What was you looking at? Through which medium? How did you imagine motion without also imagining the experience of space?
It is the ability to move our minds through space which enables us to perceive of motion through the singular whole. Our minds feel complete (singular). But they are not chained and bounded. If you look for something within your mind, then your mind has moved within itself. If you look for an edge to the mind itself, your mind moves through itself, once more.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Why cannot some part of the mind which are still ignorant learn from the more intelligent parts of the mind if, as you say, the mind is singular?

Because there is a duality of awareness, as I mentioned in my last post. The whole is not unaware of its parts. But the parts are unaware of the whole. At the moment, anyway.

Why is the mind limited to Earth?

Why do we have to live on Earth? Because our awareness would see that flesh would freeze or fry elsewhere. Our perceptions of matter are consistent. I know that my body would cease to function if I lived elsewhere. Therefore, I know that 'my' perception (from within my body), would also cease. The Mind of the whole, however, does not cease. It's eternal.

Were dinosaurs once part of the mind? Are all other creatures on Earth part of the mind?

Anything which is thought to exist is part of the Mind. Dinosaur too.

Why can’t the mind stop wars, famine, greed, murder, etc.?

No doubt it can. But do not forget the apparent freedoms of 'our' awareness. 'We' are responsible for what we do. Therefore we are responsible for what we see in the world. It just requires a singular-effort from realisation, by the whole of humanity, and our wars will be no more. We should not fight against ourselves if that self is One.
My philosophy states that this is the case.

Why does the majority of the mind believe in gods and religions while other parts do not?

Freedom of mind. Believe in what you want. Science once offered a reasonable alternative to Gods. Science suggested that it could explain everything, without any mention of a God. However, last I heard, science was looking for a 1-dimensional string in an 11-dimensional swamp, to explain this existence. Is God thus dead?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer

I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.


This is where I start disagreeing with you. You have to prove this premise, or at least make it seem likely.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is where I start disagreeing with you. You have to prove this premise, or at least make it seem likely.
I explicitly asked the reader to accept as true that "reality is Mind", in order to follow the rest of my post(s) here (so that they may better understand my philosophy as a whole). So, bare in mind that when you make comments here, you should be judging such axioms as you mention upon the premise it is built opon: The Mind.
You should be judging my proceeding logic upon this premise itself.

... When the only reality is that of an omnipresent singular-mind, then the conclusion "I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.", is seen to be an absolute-certainty.

What you're basically asking me to do here, is prove that my initial premise is correct. I've been trying that for over 18 months. I'm hoping this topic will shed a little light upon those past topics/threads.

[wuliheron]

There is nothing wrong with the "mind ontology" but I would argue there are much simpler ontologies. One can just as easily say physical fields of nature are literally all of of existence. But the question should be, why is one ontology superior to others? In other words, what does the idea of an eternal mind explain that physicalism can't?

I have to agree, not only does it provide a simpler explanation, but a more broadly useful one from a scientific perspective. However, this does not discount the enormous utility of such philosophies. Heisenburg, for example, had this kind of philosophy and it helped him to formulate the Uncertainty Principle. Likewise, some of the most famous physicists today like John Wheeler have such beliefs and investigate them in their work.

The real difficulty with such philosophies in my opinion, is integrating them with scientific research without sacraficing either the integrity of the philosophy or that of science. Spinoza's Pantheism was culturally unacceptable, for example, and so was neglected for centuries. On the other hand, Hegel's infinity was much more compatable with Christianity and flourished but led to a ressurgance of attempts to use science to prove the existence of God.

This is what I see missing from LG's philosophy. Clear lines or at least guidelines as to what science can and cannot address using his philosophy. Without such rigor it seems a bit hypocritical and anti-scientific to begin quoting scientific evidence to support his philosophy.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
This is what I see missing from LG's philosophy. Clear lines or at least guidelines as to what science can and cannot address using his philosophy.

I've never been asked that question before. Far be it for me to impose Laws and direction upon the establishment of science. However, if we were to accept my premise as true, I would make a few suggestions:-
1. Bare in mind that The Mind is the source of 'fundamental-energy'.
2. Bare in mind that any evolutionary-processes (of time), start with the Mind.
3. Bare in mind that 'thought' starts in 'the Mind', and not in matter.
Other than that, there's not alot wrong with science, even in the light of my philosophy. It just needs to ditch its materialistic bias.
At the end of the day, a fragmented and ordered-universe can be understood, using reason. We see a fragmented and ordered-universe. Therefore, we can try to understand how it works. The Laws of physics don't become null & void, just because our understanding of Reality might.
But perhaps the future direction of science is affected. Only science can answer that.

Without such rigor it seems a bit hypocritical and anti-scientific to begin quoting scientific evidence to support his philosophy.
I've got nothing against science. My grudge is about materialists who use science as the basis for their beliefs.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I wanted to give the readers (several did ask me to do this) a more direct understanding of my philosophy - which advocates an ultimate reality of a single Mind - and of how the universe we perceive fits-in, perfectly, with this idea.
Instead of trying to prove that this is the ultimate-reality of 'everything' (which is what I always try to do), this particular post will ask the reader to accept-as-true the premise that Ultimately, there is only a Mind.

Which is of course a wrong assumption, cause a mind does not exist without it's material formation, thus ultiumately there exists only moving matter, and only secondary a mind.

No mind has ever be accounted for, that exists entirely on it's own, that is without it's material existence.

Take the brain away of a human mind, that is take it's material beingness away, and the mind will cease to be.

There is not one bit of evidence for a concept of 'mind' that is not founded on material bases.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[B]I've never been asked that question before. Far be it for me to impose Laws and direction upon the establishment of science. However, if we were to accept my premise as true, I would make a few suggestions:-
1. Bare in mind that The Mind is the source of 'fundamental-energy'.
2. Bare in mind that any evolutionary-processes (of time), start with the Mind.
3. Bare in mind that 'thought' starts in 'the Mind', and not in matter.[/q]

Three times wrong. Any source is based upon material existence.
Thoughts are material processes that take place in the brain.


Other than that, there's not alot wrong with science, even in the light of my philosophy. It just needs to ditch its materialistic bias.
At the end of the day, a fragmented and ordered-universe can be understood, using reason. We see a fragmented and ordered-universe. Therefore, we can try to understand how it works. The Laws of physics don't become null & void, just because our understanding of Reality might.
But perhaps the future direction of science is affected. Only science can answer that.

I've got nothing against science. My grudge is about materialists who use science as the basis for their beliefs.

Your attack on materialism is an attack on science too, cause science would not have been rooted and developed the way it did, witthout their principal philosophical understanding and foundation on materialism.

Materialism is the foundation of science. Idealism is the foundation of religion.
And these two thing fundamentaly don't go together.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Take the brain away of a human mind, that is take it's material beingness away, and the mind will cease to be.

This only relates to the perception of 'we'. It does not relate to the singular reality of 'Mind'.

There is not one bit of evidence for a concept of 'mind' that is not founded on material bases.
Imagination?
Which particle would be responsible for determining that 'you' imagine realities that cannot be seen via the laws of physics?
You do an injustice to the experiences of your mind.

[wuliheron]

I've got nothing against science. My grudge is about materialists who use science as the basis for their beliefs.

Is yours a philosophy of mind, or a philosophy of anti-materialism? There are countless philosophies claiming scientific proof for their basic assertions, what's so special about materialism? Whatever the case might be, if you are going to fight with materialists over the issue of scientific support for their beliefs you must at least have a well defined philosophical approach to the issue of science.

[Tom Mattson]

I know heusdens already pointed this out, but...

Originally posted by Lifegazer
2. The physical-universe was borne of this Mind.


You've got it totally backwards. The 'mind' that you are using to come up with this is borne of the physical universe. I don't understand how you can keep brushing off the question, "How does a mind exist without a brain?" There is absolutely no reason to think that it can.


5. Relativity explained.
My recent topic about Relativity has been locked.


Do you know what that means? It means that we are finished explaining to you how your hypothesis does not explain relativity. It does not mean for you to pick up that discussion here.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
You've got it totally backwards. The 'mind' that you are using to come up with this is borne of the physical universe. I don't understand how you can keep brushing off the question, "How does a mind exist without a brain?" There is absolutely no reason to think that it can.

My thread here is based upon the reality of Mind, remember. My logic here proceeds that premise.

Do you know what that means? It means that we are finished explaining to you how your hypothesis does not explain relativity. It does not mean for you to pick up that discussion here.
I wasn't aiming to explain Relativity. I was aiming to show how that Law was compatible with my hypothesis (of Mind). For this, you had no rebuttals.
And for that reason, you were wrong to lock the thread. But I wont push it. I know I'm wasting my time with you.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I explicitly asked the reader to accept as true that "reality is Mind", in order to follow the rest of my post(s) here (so that they may better understand my philosophy as a whole). So, bare in mind that when you make comments here, you should be judging such axioms as you mention upon the premise it is built opon: The Mind.
You should be judging my proceeding logic upon this premise itself.

... When the only reality is that of an omnipresent singular-mind, then the conclusion "I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.", is seen to be an absolute-certainty.

What you're basically asking me to do here, is prove that my initial premise is correct. I've been trying that for over 18 months. I'm hoping this topic will shed a little light upon those past topics/threads.

No, you may have started out/intended to prove your premise, but that is not what you ended up doing (in any of your threads). You always seemed to end up just explaining the consecuences of such a reality. I presented the Hurdles thread in order to counter the very premise. Until there is proof that this premise is even valid beyond my counter-arguments, I don't see any reason to pursue it.

Yes I know that you are asking us to accept that premise (finally, s/he admits it!), but I don't want to accept that premise, without some reasoning to back it up.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer I wasn't aiming to explain Relativity. I was aiming to show how that Law was compatible with my hypothesis (of Mind). For this, you had no rebuttals.

By construction, you hypothesis is compatible with every confirmed physical law, relativity included. This does not give any support to your hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable (and hence, scientifically, it is utterly irrelevant).

To make it clearer: your hypothesis was built that way; you start off making it consistent with every physical law, and then claim that such compliance gives support to your ideas. Of course it does not.

[Mentat]

I could make any assumption, and apply it to all known phenomena, that doesn't make it true/practical/good.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I wasn't aiming to explain Relativity.


Puh-leeze.

The heading of the section of your first post is "Relativity Explained". What's more, you have been trying to pass your ideas off as an explanation of relativity for as long as I have been reading them.


I was aiming to show how that Law was compatible with my hypothesis (of Mind).


No, you weren't. You were emphatically trying to show that SR implies The Mind. I can only take this remark as an indication that you are either lying, or have an absolutely terrible memory. I'll assume it's the latter.


For this, you had no rebuttals.


That's because I agree that your ideas could be compatible with SR. As ahrkron said, your ideas are unfalsifiable and are thus compatible with anything, including a universe full of 8-headed chickens with laser beams shooting out of their eyes.

I agree with Mentat. There is no point discussing the consequences of your ideas without a proof of its outlandish premise.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I was aiming to show how that Law was compatible with my hypothesis (of Mind). For this, you had no rebuttals.[/B]

Something else I should point out is that every single time you have tried to extend the use of scientific results as support for your onthological claims, you have incurred into errors of interpretation of the physical law in question.

Apparently, even when you designed your philosophy to be compatible with scientific data, your ideas cannot accomodate a sound interpretation of such data. At the very least, your ideas seem to be in need of twists of such interpretation that are in contradiction with science's interpretation, even much before any hypothesis is formulated about the nature of reality.

[heusdens]

Some of the errors in the 'Mind' hypothese.

Let us start with the most fundamental issue first. Why is there being, existence, why is there "something" instead of "nothing"?

LG responce in his hypthese of Mind is that there is 'unchanging-existence' (in the form of a higher being, or mind) that caused the material existence (matter, motion, time, space) to be.

But cause can not be of any help here, at least not in the meaning of causality. Instead, we could alter it, and just say, the existence of this higher being, this mind, explains that there is material existence. It can be pointed out that this 'bridge' between no-existence and existence, is an unnecassary addition to the reality itself. It might in some cases, and for some minds be helpfull to think that way, and get a reason for existence, but it can be explained there is no necessity whatsoever to assume the existence of this higher being, or Mind.

If we approach the issue from the side of looking for a fact to explain existence, then from the very nature of the issue, it can be clear that there can not be such a factual thing, explaining existence. What then can form an explenation that there is existence, that there is something, rather then nothing?

Let us for instance just assume we could entitle a world with no existence, with lack of anything existing, to be a possible state the world could be in. Some will argue that this is a logical impossibility, cause it would not be an existing state the world can be in.
But let us put this logic aside for a while, and consider this 'state of the world', a state in which there is no existence.
First thing we may acknowledge is that this state of the world, is a timeless state, there isn't change either.

Even if we could consider it a possible state the world could be in, it would mean that everything in existence, would in fact never be, never formed. The very fact that this is not the case, therefore explains that even if a state of the world in which there was not anything in existence could be a possible state the world could be in, it is not the case.
So the existence of the world, it positively being there and stating itself, explains the fact that it is not the case, that the world isn't there. [it is NOT the case that there is NOT a world, because there IS a world ]

Hence we can conclude that, whatever can, has been, or will be the case in the world as it exists, there is material existence. Matter, neither as motion/change, can arise out of nothing, therefore material existence exists in an ever moving/changing way, without begin or end, and material existence requires there to be time and space, which extend infinitely. [ There is no time, in which the world was not, there is no place, where the world is not ]

It follows for this, that the necessary premise we should use, is the assumption that there is a material world, in everlasting motion/change, and hence there is time and space.
We don't need any foreign admixtures or thought constructs, not even the most tiny 'thought bridge' to acknowledge the truth of this assumption. And lastly we can therefore negate the hypothesis of the Mind as an unnecessary though construct, built around an unprovable premise.

So, the situation between these two assumptions, the Materialist (in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary mind) assumption on one side, and the Idealist assumption (in first instance there is mind, and only secondary material existence) on the other side, can be described as follows:
1) The world, and anything that is existing, proofs the truth of the materialist premise. The world positively proofs it 'is there'. Material existing is stating itself. The human mind can know about the existing world, and this knowledge about the world, is progressing.
2) There can not be found any direct proof, nor any indirect proof, of the existence of Mind / Higher Being (whatever you call it), and from the point of logic, there is nothing that necessitates us in postulating it's existence. It can not help us explain anything, that can not be (better) explained otherwise.

Which is the reason why I reject the premise of Idealism, and acknowledge the premise Materialism puts forward.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I have to agree, not only does it provide a simpler explanation, but a more broadly useful one from a scientific perspective. However, this does not discount the enormous utility of such philosophies. Heisenburg, for example, had this kind of philosophy and it helped him to formulate the Uncertainty Principle. Likewise, some of the most famous physicists today like John Wheeler have such beliefs and investigate them in their work.

I wasn't aware Heisenburg such a philosophy. Do you have any links with information on that? Likewise with Wheeler.

[wuliheron]

Sorry, I don't have any links, its just not my thing. However, if you look up Complimentarity you'll discover Heisenburg also had a hand in helping to develop that which also focuses on the idea that the observer plays a role in creating reality.

Wheeler has done a great amount of collaboration with Rodger Penrose who also shares this kind of philosophy of consensual reality with all the psychic powers it implies. However, I would also add that Wheeler is a staunch skeptic as well. As you can imagine, these are serious people with little patience for outrageous claims. Understandably, it is a delicate topic in many respects.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, you may have started out/intended to prove your premise,
but that is not what you ended up doing (in any of your threads). You always seemed to end up just explaining the consecuences of such a reality. I presented the Hurdles thread in order to counter the very premise. Until there is proof that this premise is even valid beyond my counter-arguments, I don't see any reason to pursue it.

Your counter-arguments were terribly naive. It got to the point where I had to ask Tom to put you straight on a couple of points... and he even obliged! - So you must have been all over the place.
You're too sure of yourself, which is a bad thing when you make so many bad mistakes of reasoning and you're still so young. It indicates that you're not too keen in pursuing any idea unless it matches your preconceived idea of reality.
Like 90% of the people in here, you'll evade and ignore and berate any ideas about God; but you will never berate your own belief in materialism.
Your mind has already set, like theirs. You shall evade, ignore and berate me. But you will not talk with me sincerely.
Do you want to be a good philosopher? Or do you want to be a good servant of materialism? You cannot be both. Philosophy built upon intuition is not philosophy.

Yes I know that you are asking us to accept that premise (finally, s/he admits it!),

Do you ever read what I write? I asked the reader to accept my premise so that he may better his understanding of my philosophy.
My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe. However; in this specific thread, I thought I'd show you why the conclusion (about God) can actually be shown to build to an explanation of why the universe works the way it does, in relation to this premise.
I have shown how the Laws of physics would be expected to be like they are (Relativity, and QM), since those laws are compatible with my hypothesis. When was the last time you heard someone present a logical argument to show how the Laws of physics are compatible with an external realty?
... It becomes farcical. Intelligent science-types start resorting to wording such as "Logic might be different in an external reality.", thus avoiding my reason to show that external 4-d reality makes no sense. Remember that Tom?
And yet, it is OUR reason which has deciphered the reality we can see, scientifically. Hence if 'our' reason is good enough to scientifically identify what it is seeing, then 'our' reason is certainly good enough to talk about the reality of these 'Laws'.
Most of you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Least of all myself. And it stands-out like a sore-thumb. I might as well be talking amongst a congregation of Christians. But I plod-on. I've noticed one-or-two with an open mind.

And before you accuse me of the same thing, then remember this: "My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe.".
Not one person in this forum will tell you otherwise, unless they lie.
My philosophy is built upon knowledge. Materialism is built upon an assumption... an intuitive guess.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
By construction, you hypothesis is compatible with every confirmed physical law, relativity included.

EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
... Pardon me, but I do find your statement significant, even if you do brush-over it yourself.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!

This does not give any support to your hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable (and hence, scientifically, it is utterly irrelevant).

Since my hypothesis is founded upon scientific-law, then my hypothesis is proved via the experiments which have confirmed these laws. If my hypothesis is irrelevant, then so is Einstein's work. My posts here are not just philosophical, as they build upon scientific knowledge. My posts are relevant to science. For they show that science should be concentrating its future research in-line with a completely-radical working-theory (if I am correct). And so; what if I am correct? Are there any scientists who might be actively-working to connect the mind to our physical perceptions?
The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself? Seriously.
You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Like 90% of the people in here, you'll evade and ignore and berate any ideas about God; but you will never berate your own belief in materialism.

Materialism is not to be understood as a belief system, like religion is.


My philosophy is built upon knowledge. Materialism is built upon an assumption... an intuitive guess.

The only thing we have seen here, is that you put forward a central thesis, namely the opposite of that of materialism, that in first instance there is some Higher Being or Mind, and only secondary there is material existence.

This premise is not supported, because it lacks proof.
There is not realy a rational reason to put it forward, although the very nature of the underlying issue (See: The Fundamental Question) makes it hard to understand in a rational way. But there is no necessity from logic to assume the existence of a "higher being".
So it is an unsupported assumption. In fact, the very nature of this kind of assumption, is that one has to believe in it. The assumption does not, out of itself, poses itself.

Materialism is more as "just an assumption", and more profound as "just intuitive". Material existence positively states itself.

As far as I can see it, there is a world that itself proofs it's existence. One must be very stubborn not to see this proof of material existence.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe

There is only one way to put God in, namely when there is lack of knowledge. Although we do have knowledge about the universe, the underlying theories are not that well established, and there is obviously lack of knowledge in that terrain. In other words, still we miss the complete picture, in which everything fit together. The position migh even be, that we will never get a complete picture of the universe.
What we know of religion is, is that it comes up with the thesis that 'God did it', when we essentially miss knowledge about some thing.
Formerly this was the case in explaining life itself, and how it had formed and was shaped. But in increasing manner, we are certain that natural processes have caused life to evolve, and have erased the religious explenations in that field. Our knowledge is increasing, and we now are struggeling with the larger issues, about the origin and fate of the universe and the building blocks of matter. We have increased our knowledge on that terrain too, but the field is that immense (infinitely large, supposedly) that at this moment in time, we do not yet have a satisfactory explenation for explaining the universe in all it's details. That means: there are a lot of places where our knowledge is simply missing, and therefore on occasions an explenation as 'God dit it' can be put forward. Which is not to be understood otherwise then that we have gaps in knowledge, but which can and ultimately will be filled with real knowledge.

The point I'd like to make here that any explenation involving 'God' is not increasing our knowledge, but is just a sign that we have missing knowledge.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
... Pardon me, but I do find your statement significant, even if you do brush-over it yourself.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!


The problem however with your "Theory of Everything" is that it explains everything, yet nothing. It is not even an explenation, cause to explain something, means we can explain it in terms of things already understood. So, if you want to explain things in terms of 'God', then please go ahead, but firstly explain us 'God'.
So, in other words, every single things can be explained in such a way, wich leaves us just with one crucial question: How to explain God? The point is, of course, that to explain God, the task to be fullfilled is at least as hard, as the explenation for which the existence of such an entity was first used for.
In other words, the process of explaining end up in a circular fashion, in which we meet again the complexity of the issue, we first wanted to understand.
So, instead of having an increase in knowledge, we end up having precesisly as much knowledge as we had without the explenation involving God. Which, obviously, is not very usefull.

It is for this reason that real science keeps a healthy distance from this, and establishes itself on the only feasable grounds of Materialism instead.

[(Q)]

Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.

Don't you think this is a bit too straight forwarded?

The only thing LG asks you to do, is just *believe* his hypothesis.

[Eh]

The mind hypothesis does not explain quantum gravity at all. So comparing it to failed TOE's is silly, since the claim that the mind is all does not really attempt to explain anything.

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, I don't have any links, its just not my thing. However, if you look up Complimentarity you'll discover Heisenburg also had a hand in helping to develop that which also focuses on the idea that the observer plays a role in creating reality.

Wheeler has done a great amount of collaboration with Rodger Penrose who also shares this kind of philosophy of consensual reality with all the psychic powers it implies. However, I would also add that Wheeler is a staunch skeptic as well. As you can imagine, these are serious people with little patience for outrageous claims. Understandably, it is a delicate topic in many respects.

That would surprise me, since the term "observer" does not mean conscious being at all. Anything that interacts with a wave will do, be it a rock, planet or person. As such, I don't see how it supports the notion of psychic powers in any way.

I'll see if I can find more about the philosophies of the individuals mentioned above.

[wuliheron]

That would surprise me, since the term "observer" does not mean conscious being at all. Anything that interacts with a wave will do, be it a rock, planet or person. As such, I don't see how it supports the notion of psychic powers in any way.

I'll see if I can find more about the philosophies of the individuals mentioned above.

The question is one of epistomology and ontology. Is the observer merely observing or creating reality? Are photons really conscious? Because QM can be viewed from dramatically distinct perspectives like these its interpretation takes on completely new contexts depending upon who you ask.

Penrose wrote a popular book on the subject focused on his own twistor theory which is still highly regarded. Unfortunately, the title escapes me. Again, I'm just not interested in the details of such things. The only aspect of such theories that interests me is the philosophical connections to my own philosophy.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[B]EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!

All of them HAVE to be.
Examples: The electroweak unification, the loop formulation of quantum gravity, supergravity, string theory. They cannot claim to be the next step if they are not compatible with confirmed experimental results.

[CJames]

Hello LG. Glad you're finally summing up your philosophy, although it's pretty much what I understood it to be. What I'm really looking forward to is proof...but that can wait I suppose, if you have it.

I wanted to give the readers (several did ask me to do this) a more direct understanding of my philosophy - which advocates an ultimate reality of a single Mind - and of how the universe we perceive fits-in, perfectly, with this idea.
Instead of trying to prove that this is the ultimate-reality of 'everything' (which is what I always try to do), this particular post will ask the reader to accept-as-true the premise that Ultimately, there is only a Mind.Am I correct in assuming that this means you intend to explain your philosophy, rather than prove its validity? That being the case, why are you asking us to concure that all physicists should now attempt to unite your philosophy with physics? Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.


1. A Mind exists.
This isn't a difficult concept to understand. By direct experience, the reader can identify this premise via its attributes: reasoning-power; knowledge; emotion; will; desire; purpose; imagination; etc..
I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.
Some readers will complain that nothing can exist within a singularity as a singularity is a place of zero-time & zero-space.
Actually, such a complaint is null & void, since a singularity is a place of whole-time and whole-space. Or rather, a singularity is a 'place' of absolute-time and absolute-space (as opposed to fragmented-time and fragmented-space).Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.


2. The physical-universe was borne of this Mind.
Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The reader has direct experience of fantasising/dreaming about whole realms of existence within his/her own mind.If you are indeed simply trying to explain what you philosophy is, nothing is self-contradictory here. However, if you're trying to prove something, you haven't.


3. This Mind is omnipresent. I.e., the Mind is all 'things'.
Whatever the mind thinks about is an extension of its own self... an expression of its own self. Each 'thing' can be considered a finite-aspect of the whole.
This may take a little more consideration. But any form residing within the mind is of the mind.
Therefore, I ask the reader to grapple with the idea that all forms of life within The Mind are expressions of that Mind itself, in a finite & relative environment (which has been created by the The Mind).
Therefore, I advocate that ~each individual~ is The Mind itself - seeing itself from many diverse & relative perspectives with regards to the whole.A Mind that exists at a single point in spacetime cannot, by definition, occupy all points in spacetime. The Mind is either omnipresent, or it is a singularity. To be both is an imposibility.

Point 4 is incompatible with the definition of a singularity. You can't go around making your own definitions for words, you have to use the same ones the rest of us do. If you wish to create a new concept, you should give it a new word. A singularity is a point is spacetime that can be approached but not occupied. It is not a place where space and time are absolute and whatever else it was you said.


5. Relativity explained.
My recent topic about Relativity has been locked. But those that are interested can still browse through it. The bottom-line is that this Mind-hypothesis is fully-compatible with the fundamental-axioms of Einstein's work. I can explain why each observer sees the same universe from a different perspective of time & space. The establishment decided to lock that topic, despite the fact that not a single person showed that my hypothesis was not compatible with Einstein's work. That challenge remained unanswered.The Mind Hypothesis was compatible with relativity, since it is built to accomodate any science. SR, however, in no way implied the Mind.


I could discuss many things here. But then it would turn into a mini-book. But here's the bottom-line for your own perception of the universe:-
1. The Mind has created it.
2. It resides at your own point of awareness, and you are its judgements made in relation to the whole. It is not aware of its wholeness here. Its awareness has become fragmented and finite.
Hence the perception of 'you'.I fail to completely grasp what you're trying to say. That I am a thought of The Mind? That I am a fragment of The Mind?

Before you continue, I think a definition of Mind is in order. What is a mind, when you truly think about it? Something capable of reason. Explain, lifegazer, what is reason?

Take care everybody. --Carter

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Hello LG. Glad you're finally summing up your philosophy, although it's pretty much what I understood it to be. What I'm really looking forward to is proof...but that can wait I suppose, if you have it.

Am I correct in assuming that this means you intend to explain your philosophy, rather than prove its validity? That being the case, why are you asking us to concure that all physicists should now attempt to unite your philosophy with physics? Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

If you are indeed simply trying to explain what you philosophy is, nothing is self-contradictory here. However, if you're trying to prove something, you haven't.

A Mind that exists at a single point in spacetime cannot, by definition, occupy all points in spacetime. The Mind is either omnipresent, or it is a singularity. To be both is an imposibility.

Point 4 is incompatible with the definition of a singularity. You can't go around making your own definitions for words, you have to use the same ones the rest of us do. If you wish to create a new concept, you should give it a new word. A singularity is a point is spacetime that can be approached but not occupied. It is not a place where space and time are absolute and whatever else it was you said.

The Mind Hypothesis was compatible with relativity, since it is built to accomodate any science. SR, however, in no way implied the Mind.

I fail to completely grasp what you're trying to say. That I am a thought of The Mind? That I am a fragment of The Mind?

Before you continue, I think a definition of Mind is in order. What is a mind, when you truly think about it? Something capable of reason. Explain, lifegazer, what is reason?

Take care everybody. --Carter

'The Mind' is neither a cause nor an effect of anything, since it is postulated in such a way that it is inexistent (unchanging-existence = no-existence), it lacks any existence, and there fore there is no proof of it's existence.

There is no reason either for the existence of 'The Mind', since it cannot contribute anything to explain there is an existing world, which is eternal changing existence in time and space, and which does not need a reason to exist, and proofs it's own existence because we can interact with anything that exists.

Anyway, the source of the confusion which leads to misinterpretations like LG shows us here, is well known, and is better understood as 'The Fundamental Question' (see the thread with that name).
The peculiarity of the issue involved is that from the context of the issue on hand, we know that there can be no reason (not in the ordinary sense) for the existence of the world. The fact that such a reason can not exists is clear from our ordinary use of reason. We say that A is the case because B is the case. But if we interpret A as being 'the existing world', we come across the fact that there can not be any B to explain that fact.
In an unordinary sense, we may stretch our reasoning beyond the ordinary, and call the reason for the world 'God' or give it any other name, but this ain't helpfull in that it does not increase any real knowledge about the world, nor replaces it.
We end up in circular reasoning. The reason for the world would be God, and the reason for God would be the world. And there is nothing to lift that circularity.
In our ordinary sense, we go about reasoning that the world is an entity on itself, which exists in a spatio temporal way, without begin or end. The world is an enroling process in time and space, which does not have any limit in time and or space. Any form of causality are stricly beyong within that world, and also all reasoning is bound to within the existing world. There is nothing beyond the existing world.

A 'reason' for existing, might however be found from within the perception of the individual mind, who wonders about the real existing world, and how it enfolds. We, living humans, are the only minds that we know of, that do wonder about this, and ask questions about it, but any reasoning that can be implied, is only applicable to the individual mind, or collective mind of humans. The world is what it means to us, the world has no meaning to itself.

[wuliheron]

Hi ya CJames, long time no see (ahhh, I've never seen you come to think of it....duh!) I'm gonna but in here if it doesn't drive ya nuts, if it does, just ignore me. :0)

Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

This is not quite true. Part of what retarded progress in modern physics was the fact that most physicists at the turn of the last century had narrow minded mechanistic philosophies based on Aristotlian logic. Since then more open ended philosophies have florished that contribute little to the debate as you say. It is by then applying the limits of experimental results to these philosophies that they begin to contribute to the debate as I'll explain in a minute.

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

That's modern physics for ya, crazy ain't it. String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.

Rodger Penrose's Twistor theory I know less about, but I do know he has speculated the neurons in our brain contain structures that are small enough to interact with quanta. It is through these interactions that he believes we "commune" with the overmind or whatever and researchers have been investigating the possibility. Whether these researchers actually believe Penrose's theory or not, the possibility of at least a serious random number generator for the human mind poses interesting possibilities for AI research.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's modern physics for ya, crazy ain't it. String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.

AFAIK, it doesn't. String theory should be compatible with some general theorems about black hole entropy and Hawking radiation, according to which microscopic black holes would decay extremely fast into "regular" particles. They may be produced in accelerators, but they are not the usual constituents of matter.

Rodger Penrose's Twistor theory I know less about, but I do know he has speculated the neurons in our brain contain structures that are small enough to interact with quanta.

He has hypothesised that some of the structures in neurons do collapse the wavefunction via gravitational interaction. Many people think it is too far-fetched.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
The heading of the section of your first post is "Relativity Explained". What's more, you have been trying to pass your ideas off as an explanation of relativity for as long as I have been reading them.

I may have worded that thread wrongly. I can promise you that my intention in discussing Relativity has always been to show how that Law is compatible with my hypothesis, whilst simultaneously trying to show that it is not compatible with the materialist's view that there is a singular external reality. It is not my intention to teach people how the axioms of Relativity were formulated or how the math works. I will always advise anyone who wants to discuss those things to talk to guys such as yourself, Janus, or Arhkron.

No, you weren't. You were emphatically trying to show that SR implies The Mind. I can only take this remark as an indication that you are either lying, or have an absolutely terrible memory. I'll assume it's the latter.

There's some confusion somewhere. If that's my fault, then I apologise.

That's because I agree that your ideas could be compatible with SR.

Then why were you intent on locking the thread? If my point is valid, you should allow the discussion to proceed. Plenty of people seemed interested.

As ahrkron said, your ideas are unfalsifiable

My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.

and are thus compatible with anything, including a universe full of 8-headed chickens with laser beams shooting out of their eyes.

LOL.
Look; if my idea was a total crock, then why does it make sense of everything we already know, including the classical:quantum duality of reality? I don't think you give my ideas the respect they deserve.
Honestly, I don't.

[Eh]

Oh? Does the mind idea explain quantum gravity? Does it tell us anything we don't already know?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Oh? Does the mind idea explain quantum gravity? Does it tell us anything we don't already know?
What, specifically, needs explaining about quantum gravity?
Your second question seems to imply that you've always known that existence was occuring in a singular Mind.

[Eh]

You've missed the point. The idea that all existence is just a product of the mind doesn't really explain anything new about that existence. You can make an ontological claim like that, but it won't actually make any predictions about the world itself. For example, how does quantum gravity work in the first place? I say it does not matter, for whatever physical conditions that govern space on quantum scales is found to be correct, you would simply claim the conditions to be a product of the mind.

Unless of course, you know of some theories could be advanced by your hypothesis.

[wuliheron]

AFAIK, it doesn't. String theory should be compatible with some general theorems about black hole entropy and Hawking radiation, according to which microscopic black holes would decay extremely fast into "regular" particles. They may be produced in accelerators, but they are not the usual constituents of matter.


Sorry, but you're wrong. There are several ways of interpreting string theory, just as there are several ways of interpreting QM. In both case it is Indetermancy that is the central reason for all the various interpretations. For example, one implication of string theory is that there is really only one electron in the entire universe, it just gets around..... faster than the speed of light to be precise. If you are interested, I got that specific analogy to everything being black holes from a NY Times interview with Edward Witten himself.

One way to think of this is the "mirror world" aspect of M-theory which is a geometric theory. According to this view the forces of nature are accounted for as manifesting themselves in the mirror world. In the mirror world what we see as mass or electrical charge here is manifest as another property of matter like size or momentum. Whatever affects a particle here then also instantaneously affects its mirror world counterpart. In other words, it Quantum Tunnels or is connected via a worm hole to the mirror world.

This is also precisely why string theory is the first theory to postulate serious limitations to black holes that imply they really may not be singularities.

He has hypothesised that some of the structures in neurons do collapse the wavefunction via gravitational interaction. Many people think it is too far-fetched.

I agree, its a bit of a stretch to say the least. However, his twistor theory is dynamite from everything I've heard. One of the very few theories really competitive with String theory.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism is not to be understood as a belief system, like religion is.

Incorrect.
Religious people assume the existence of God. Materialists assume the existence of an external reality. I can promise you that there is not one jot of proof (observed or reasoned) which supports such an assumption. Hence, this assumption is no more credible than the assumption upon which religious people build their own philosophies.

I've told you this before, but you didn't listen: Just because our inner-perceptions are ordered and consistent (and hence, understood by science), does not mean that they exist externally to the mind.
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Since my hypothesis is founded upon scientific-law, then my hypothesis is proved via the experiments which have confirmed these laws.

Absolutely not. This is not how "experimental proof" works.

In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.

What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.

If my hypothesis is irrelevant, then so is Einstein's work.

No. Here's the difference:

Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations), reexplained some of it and indicated what experiments would disagree with classical mechanics. His ideas were relevant because they were testable.

Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions. It does not produce anything close to a prediction, so it cannot be tested for validity. The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.

My posts here are not just philosophical, as they build upon scientific knowledge.

You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works. However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results, and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.

My posts are relevant to science. For they show that science should be concentrating its future research in-line with a completely-radical working-theory (if I am correct).

As I said, even if reality was the result of an all encompassing ultracomputer simulation, that does not change how science should be done in the least bit, since such simulation still needs to comply with all known results.

And so; what if I am correct? Are there any scientists who might be actively-working to connect the mind to our physical perceptions?

Not in the way you suggest. You do acknowledge that, as a result of your hypothesis, no experimental result would differ in the least bit from what "realist science" (as you may want to call it) would say. Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?


The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

Frankly, not.


You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why?? [/B]

I think it is trivially compatible with what we experience (I definitely wouldn't qualify it as "credible"), but absolutely irrelevant for the description and study of our experiences.

[CJames]

I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

I did not write this to mock you lifegazer, I did it to show you what you are doing. This is essentially the same. Just because something doesn't contradict the laws of physics, does not mean it is automatically a truth of the universe.

Wuliheron,
Hi ya CJames, long time no see Haven't "seen" you for a while either. 'sup?

Since then more open ended philosophies have florished that contribute little to the debate as you say.The thing is, contribuing little and contributing nothing aren't the same thing. LG's hypothesis makes no predictions of any kind about any discrepancies with present theory once so ever. Not even in the extremes. It is built to accept any physical theory ever discovered, including future ones.

String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes. Are you sure about that? I think it actually postulates that black holes can be treated like elementary particles. I think it does say something about being able to transform elementary particles into black holes and visa versa, but I don't think it ever says that elementary particles are black holes, just that there is some kind of fundamental link between them.

[wuliheron]

I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......... make mine extra hot!

Haven't "seen" you for a while either. 'sup?

I need to figure out how to convert my avatar to a jpeg or giff.

The thing is, contribuing little and contributing nothing aren't the same thing. LG's hypothesis makes no predictions of any kind about any discrepancies with present theory once so ever. Not even in the extremes. It is built to accept any physical theory ever discovered, including future ones.


That's true of any of the leading theories attempting to explain QM. It's just par for the course due to the fact that, as Stephen Hawking put it, "Quantum Mechanics is basically a theory about what we don't know." Indeterminacy is slippery and all encompassing like paradox, but its still proven incredibly useful. If the theory everything is consciousness is ever shown experimentally to be statistically unlikely to bear fruit it'll be largely ignored. In the meantime it at least shares the illustrious company of Zeno's paradoxes which still provide mathematical inspiration if nothing else.

Are you sure about that? I think it actually postulates that black holes can be treated like elementary particles. I think it does say something about being able to transform elementary particles into black holes and visa versa, but I don't think it ever says that elementary particles are black holes, just that there is some kind of fundamental link between them.

The NY Times science section does get things wrong every now and then, but they quoted Witten himself as I said and it just makes sense from the point of view of the mirror world scenario. What else could inhabit two universes simultaneously?

[Mentat]

Witten's referal to everything being BHs is probably just an analogy. If you took all of Witten's analogies literally, you'd think that M-theory is the blind men's discovery that there is one elephant.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.

Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".
That's what I do. Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical. I have not (directly) proposed a new scientific theory here. I make no predictions about physical reality (though I do like to dabble occaisionally; for example my idea in the theory-room). Therefore, my idea/theory here does not even require experimental verification. It requires reasoned analysis for verification. That's how philosophy works. That's why I present my arguments in the philsophy forum.

What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.

My arguments bring all points (everything) to One point.
Not just one or two points.

Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions.

Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.

It does not produce anything close to a prediction

This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.
Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.

so it cannot be tested for validity.

It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?

The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.

I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.
I fail to see why you would make such a remark.

You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works.

Correct. However, it only 'works' within the confines of what we are actually certain of... of what we already know. The rest of the time, during research into specific phenomena, science is forced to make reasoned-guesses from the knowledge it already possesses. The same as me. But science is looking for a material-cause for everything. Therefore, physical-verification is necessary, to confirm that cause.
I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.

However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results

You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.

and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.

Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself. The spacetwin can leave Earth at a specific moment. The moment he gets back, we can see that he has experienced 20/30 years less time than his brother (a wrinkle comparison). At least, this is what the Lorentz-transformations predict.
As you can see, my idea is dependent upon this scientific presentation of the facts. Why would I try to prove that these things are wrong? I believe them. I need them to be right.

Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?

It affects the future of science (if correct). Not the past. But my philosophy reaches beyond the parameters of scientific consideration. It reaches to life itself. That's why people should listen.

Frankly, not.

Frankly, I don't think you can justify that comment with reason and without exhibiting a specific philosophical bias. Namely, materialism.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?

[CJames]

Okay Wuliheron, I looked through The Elegant Universe and got my answer. (Note that the book is, of course, a popular text and not a detailed mathematical paper.)

String theory has shown that a brane wrapped around a collapsing fragment of a Calabi-Yau form is mathematically equivalent to a black hole. Because in string theory the mass of a string or brane is dependant on the tension it is going through, as the fragment collapses, the tension drops, and the mass drops. What they found was that when the tension reaches zero and the black hole has no mass, it goes though a conifold transition and "melts" into a normal string, a massless one, such as a photon. So what they had actually shown was that black holes and elementary particles are composed of the same "stuff." They can phase change between each other. Therefore elementary particles and black holes have now been shown to have a lot in common and can at many times be treated in the same way. But they aren't actually the same thing, rather expressions of the same thing. Make sense?

Thanks for making me look this up, I feel smart again. LOL.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

I did not write this to mock you lifegazer, I did it to show you what you are doing.

Then you've made a fool of yourself. I'll show why...
Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics (as mirroring our perceptions), to show how you made that conclusion.
Have you got any such argument?
I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion. I did not just present a theory/idea which had not considered the knowledge which we have.
Your belief in 'nachos' is admirable. But unreasonably foolish. You have made no dent in my philosophy with your plate of nachos. Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then you've made a fool of yourself. I'll show why...
Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics (as mirroring our perceptions), to show how you made that conclusion.
Have you got any such argument?
I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion. I did not just present a theory/idea which had not considered the knowledge which we have.
Your belief in 'nachos' is admirable. But unreasonably foolish. You have made no dent in my philosophy with your plate of nachos. Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

He presented the logical reason why you can't prove him wrong, and that's good enough, isn't it.

Sure, he didn't attempt to describe popular theories, through use of his Nachos hypothesis, but he's just trying to make a point.

[CJames]

How's it hangin' LG.

I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical.LG, if this is truly what you did, then I would agree with you. If you logically proved your argument, proved that it was compatible with physical laws, and proved it was entirely consistent, then it would be philosophically correct. However, I don't believe you have ever logically proven why your argument is the case, and you haven't proven that it is logically consistent with itself, given some of the contradictions I and others found in your first post in this thread. With that in mind, no, your hypothesis doesn't contradict any physical law. But that is only because your hypothesis requires that all laws are consistent and that they always be as such, but generated by A Mind.

Get rid of the inconsistencies in your argument, and then logically prove that your argument naturally arises from some sound premise. Otherwise, it's just a crackpot theory, and that is all it will ever be.

It can be tested by reason.Then that is what you must do. The premise that the outside world does not exist has never been backed up with anything other than that it seems unlikely to you that an outside world exists. The fact that we cannot prove an outside world exists is not proof that it doesn't exist.

It affects the future of scienceNo, it does not. As you have said, "I don't build a scientific-theory." You build a philosophy. And if it is correct, which you haven't proven, then it will not alter or challenge any scientific theory, as you so often say. It makes no predictions about the laws of the universe, and science is about the laws of the universe.

Best wishes.

[wuliheron]

But they aren't actually the same thing, rather expressions of the same thing. Make sense?

Thanks for making me look this up, I feel smart again. LOL.


That makes some sense, but also raises the issue of what that same "stuff" is and how it can connect two distinct universes without being a black hole or worm hole or whatever. Nor does it explain how a solitary electron gets around at faster than the speed of light. Some theories still assert that the entire universe is a singularity, and this version sounds like a step in that direction.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That makes some sense, but also raises the issue of what that same "stuff" is and how it can connect two distinct universes without being a black hole or worm hole or whatever. Nor does it explain how a solitary electron gets around at faster than the speed of light. Some theories still assert that the entire universe is a singularity, and this version sounds like a step in that direction.

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on one (or all) of these topics that you mention, in the Theoretical Physics Forum. These are very interesting topics, and I'd like to hear the other members' feedback on this.

[CJames]

Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics...The premise that the Mind is all that exists is in no way derived from the known laws of physics, despite what you said in the relativity thread.

I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion.No, you've had dozens of topics where you demonstrated that your hypothesis violates no law of physics, and you've had dozens of topics that made reasoned predictions based on unbacked premises all the while avoiding using logic that necessarily implies the conclusion.

Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.Damn, wrong plate of food. Wy do I always have to mess things up? (sob)

My point was that in this thread, you are asking us to assume that the Mind hypothesis has been logically proven, and are simply asking us whether or not it is compatible with the laws of physics. So I'm asking you to assume the Nachos hypothesis has been logically proven, and am asking you whether it is compatible with the laws of physics. It is. So is yours. Can we move on? I know you think you've provided proof, but I don't see it anywhere. Direct me to a logical proof if you have one. A link? Anything? Pages and pages of explaining how your theory works, yes, but no logic necessarily implying the conclusion. Not that I know of anyway. (And of course, no, I have no logical proof of the Nachos hypothesis.)

Goodbye, ttyl, [:)], [;)].

[CJames]

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on one (or all) of these topics that you mention, in the Theoretical Physics Forum. These are very interesting topics, and I'd like to hear the other members' feedback on this. I agree. It's a very interesting topic that's kinda lost in here. [:(]

Let's see...WuLi, if you've got PC paint or photoshop I think you can open your avatar and save it as jpg. My version will anyway.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up Mentat.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
I agree. It's a very interesting topic that's kinda lost in here. [:(]

Let's see...WuLi, if you've got PC paint or photoshop I think you can open your avatar and save it as jpg. My version will anyway.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up Mentat.

Your welcome, I think you were right.

If you had chose something a little less "off", I might have played Devil's Advocate, and presented an entire case for it. That's just how I am, I guess.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Nice damnation Q. As usual, no justified reason.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.
Nice damnation Q. As usual, no justified reason.

"No reason". Man's downfall.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
He presented the logical reason why you can't prove him wrong, and that's good enough, isn't it.

To be brutally-honest, he presented 'jack'. There's no argument which can use the laws-of-physics to show that a plate-of-'nachos' is the source of all reality. There is only imagination.
I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.
So; he hasn't presented any logical reason. And that's why I don't have to prove that he is wrong. If his logic is nonsense, then what else do I need to prove?

Sure, he didn't attempt to describe popular theories, through use of his Nachos hypothesis, but he's just trying to make a point.
The only point to be gleaned from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.
I was right about you. And it is a shame for one so young (yet intelligent) to have been brainwashed like this, already. A real shame. I mean it.

[CJames]

Hey, feel sorry for me too. I'm only a high school senior. What about my fragile mind? [:)] Alright, I'll have a go at this.
The only point to be gleamed from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'. Ugh. As I said I can't logically prove my Nachos hypothesis. My point is that you can't logically prove it goes against the laws of physics.

LOGIC must inevitably imply the conclusions. I suppose much of your hypothesis is logical, but only when based on the premise that all of reality is the creation of the mind. You have never backed this premise, and I would really enjoy it if you started a thread logically proving this is the case, or at least presenting why it is sound.

Incidentally, I would like to say that despite you accusing me of it before, I am not a materialist. Sometimes I end up behaving like one, sometimes I forget I'm not. LOL. But my point is not that the material universe certainly exists. My point is that you assume it does not, and there is no reason for that. Not that you have given, anyway.

Take care.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
Hey, feel sorry for me too. I'm only a high school senior. What about my fragile mind? [:)] Alright, I'll have a go at this.

You're alright CJ. You're still unsure of yourself. That means you're still 'open' - to some degree, anyway. [;)]

Ugh. As I said I can't logically prove my Nachos hypothesis. My point is that you can't logically prove it goes against the laws of physics.

No I cannot. But since it was not founded upon those laws of physics, how can I use those laws-of-physics to disprove it?
Within the realm of reasoned causality, your Nachos-theory doesn't get a look-in. You will need unreasoning 'mugs' to fall for it. Only the reasoning-skeptics will question it. They will ask you how you came to your conclusion. And your explanation will be: "Imagination.".
You're forgeting the all-important point - my argument is founded upon the laws of physics. Not imagination.

I suppose much of your hypothesis is logical, but only when based on the premise that all of reality is the creation of the mind. You have never backed this premise, and I would really enjoy it if you started a thread logically proving this is the case, or at least presenting why it is sound.

Gimme a break... I've been posting here for 18 months... and this is the first topic where I've ever asked the reader to follow-through my conclusions upon the back of an assumption (reality is Mind). The rest of the time, I've asked the reader to follow-through our knowledge to the conclusion which I actually make.
Neither you nor Mentat seem capable of making this distinction. At least, you haven't done so to-date.

My point is that you assume it does not

I don't assume that external-reality does not exist. I try to show that the laws of physics can only apply to a reality that is mindful.
I'm not happy with this response of yours. You accuse me of 'assumption'. Yet the basis of my philosophy is that I don't assume anything that is not 'absolute'. That's why I concentrate my philosophy upon science.

Take care.
You too. Do not think that I despise or hate you because you do not see my philosophy. Far from it. I can sense that you're a ~good guy~.

[RuroumiKenshin]

I try to show that the laws of physics can only apply to a reality that is mindful.


how about metaphysics? (it isn't reality).

I would define reality as your conscious surroundings. Physics describes it all for you in extreme detail.

[CJames]

I can sense that you're a ~good guy~.Thankyou kindly.

Within the realm of reasoned causality, your Nachos-theory doesn't get a look-in.But I just don't see where the Mind hypothesis is reasoned, not from the beginning anyway. Much of it does follow fairly logically, but I have seen a lot of your posts and none of them really seemed to try to give a real strong sense of why the premise is correct.

You have said that from birth, humans have the potential to reason, and therefore reason isn't based on external data. You argue that this proves mind transcends material phenomina. But in what way? It proves, if it's true, that the mind is capable of thought without knowledge of material. But no knowledge of material certainly does not imply no material.

You have argued that our perceptions of the outside world are built by our minds. But this does nothing to prove that the outside world does not exist, that our perceptions are not based on external phenomina, or that the tangible world is completely and utterly our creation. All it proves is that we can never know. We cannot percieve that which is outside our perception.

You have argued that because every observer has his own unique perception of space and time, he therefore generates that perception unto himself, while ignoring the fact that this can be explained purely in terms of physical laws.

I have been listening lifegazer. I've been listening, and I've been hearing a great deal of creativity and a lot of evidence that the Mind hypothesis can work in conjunction with the laws of physics. But I have not heard a logical proof absolutely proving its truth.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Incorrect.
Religious people assume the existence of God. Materialists assume the existence of an external reality. I can promise you that there is not one jot of proof (observed or reasoned) which supports such an assumption. Hence, this assumption is no more credible than the assumption upon which religious people build their own philosophies.

I've told you this before, but you didn't listen: Just because our inner-perceptions are ordered and consistent (and hence, understood by science), does not mean that they exist externally to the mind.
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

I regard your statements as nonsense. You can not treat religion and materialism on equal grounds. Religion is a belief in something which can not be directly witnessed, which in fact is not there.

There is an outside reality, we are part of it, and also our mind is part of that reality. I do not 'assume' my own existence and that what I perceive, I know it is there.

There is not one jot of evidence for something 'outside' that reality, and/or for some 'cause' for that reality. In fact there can't be a cause to reality, it would mean something would 'exist' outside 'reality' itself. Which is a simple truth, cause everything that exists is part of the reality.

Your hypothesis about a 'Mind' that 'creates' the universe and all there is, is just nonsense. Since, it does not explain ANYTHING.
To explain something, means you explain unknown phenomena in terms of phenomena which are already well understood.
But your hypothesis about 'Mind' is totally dazzling and confusing, in fact the 'Mind' itself is uncomprehensible, we are not advancing one bit in knowledge whatsoever.

Further, this 'Mind' hyopthesis contrasts everything we know of the existing world, which is a form of existence which is in eternal motion, and takes place in space and time. There is nothing beyond that. That is an absolute proof of why your hypothesis does not work.
From nothing comes nothing. The world does not arise out of 'Mind'.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I regard your statements as nonsense. You can not treat religion and materialism on equal grounds. Religion is a belief in something which can not be directly witnessed, which in fact is not there.

Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind. Hence, when you insist on stating that there is an external reality, you do so via pure belief. You are not a witness to such a reality.
There is no more justification for believing in an external reality, than there is for just believing in a God.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind. Hence, when you insist on stating that there is an external reality, you do so via pure belief. You are not a witness to such a reality.
There is no more justification for believing in an external reality, than there is for just believing in a God.

First, explain me what 'God' is or is not, only then I can answer that question. You state that we cannot have knowledge of things outside of our mind. Complete and absolute knowledge is impossible, but this does not contradict the fact that we can know about the world, and do have knowledge about the world.

What I know about the world, is that it is a seperate entity, not in any way dependend on my mind, and that the world has an existence on it's own. I know that a tree exists, and has existence on it's own, wether that tree is observed by me, or not. There has not been any proof that has falsified that assumption, so why should I doubt that assumption? For God on the other hand, we have not found any direct evidence, and some ways in which God is defined (f.i. your definition) exclude also the theoretical possibility for ever directly witness God. So, that stricly prohibits this concept of 'God' to ever be part of the reality, it is strictly bound to an abstract category of the mind.

Apart from these fact, people can have their own opinions and beliefs, that have personal value to them, not withstanding the fact that this belief might contrast scientific knowledge and materialistic understanding of the world.

I do not doubt people believe in a God. It does not surprise me that people on some level are tend to believe there is a God. The tendency for people to belief in something that by rational norms and values is absurd, is what makes people human.
But nobody knows if that belief is justified, or if that belief can ever be tested or falsified. That is why it is a belief. And please note, that it is not my opinion that I am against belief. Everyone is entitled to believe in anything they seem fit for them, as long as this occurs on a strictly private level. For all practical purposes we state that 1 and 1 equals 2, wether you belief that to be the case or not. And for all practical purposes, there is an objective reality, which is independend of your mind. Wether your believe that to be the case or not.

What you are trying to do is mix up observed facts about the world as a seperate entity independend of the mind, and belief. Those two things are not standing on same grounds. They aren't comparable assumptions. Firstly because all our knowledge about the world is based on the assumption that there is an outside world, which is independend of our mind. You state that this structured way in which we see the world, could as well be caused by 'Mind'. What does that explain? In my mind you explain nothing, cause in stead of explaing the subject to be explained, you direct the issue to explain 'Mind'.
Well, the only way we can know of the 'ways of the Mind', is by explaining reality as we see and can observe, and by doing that, we in fact take into account the fact that we assume there is an objetive reality to be observed in the first place.

Also I have told you many times that the artificial construct of 'Mind' as an entity that accounts for the existence of all of reality, is in fact an absurd thought construct. The 'Mind' entity can not be accounted for anything that happens in the real world, cause by your definition, 'Mind' is not part of that reality.
Your reasoning comes about reasoning in empty space, outside of time, and dealing with abstract categories of the mind, rather then reality.

Let me state it like this. Without any material existence, without the existence of space and time, there is not much reason one can find.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're forgeting the all-important point - my argument is founded upon the laws of physics. Not imagination.



Wrong. It contradicts what you said at the beginning of this thread, and what I have suspected from the beginning. In the first post, you ask us to first accept the idea that all reality eminates from the Mind (the Nacho of your hypothesis (no offense)), and then you attempt to show how it fits the laws of physics. This is how all of your threads on this topic - that I have ever seen (and I did a lot of research on them, on the old PFs) - have worked.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
To be brutally-honest, he presented 'jack'. There's no argument which can use the laws-of-physics to show that a plate-of-'nachos' is the source of all reality. There is only imagination.


But you can't disprove it. Besides, I think CJames is bright enough to make his idea fit the laws of physics. And you'd never be able to prove him wrong, because all of his arguments would require that this first premise (which you can't prove wrong) is true. Sound familiar?


I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.


I did, don't you remember the "Hurdles" thread - which you never did give a good enough reply to, by the way?

Alexander had his causal mathematics hypothesis, I made a "Hurdles" thread, I stopped seeing posts that required the Causal Mathematics premise. This may mean that alexander saw the reasoning in my post - and that of other members, who posted on my thread - and that he couldn't reason past it, (and that Kerrie was locking his threads, because they were leading nowhere - sound familiar?) and just stopped religiously holding to his idea.

I'm not asking that you give up your idea. I'm asking you to prove it past me, not just make it fit the known laws of physics when taken as the original premise to an argument.


So; he hasn't presented any logical reason. And that's why I don't have to prove that he is wrong. If his logic is nonsense, then what else do I need to prove?


What if someone were to walk into one of your threads, declare it nonsensical, and believe themselves to have won? As a matter of fact, a few have done that, but they had never really proved you wrong. They had just proved themselves unreasonable.


The only point to be gleaned from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.
I was right about you. And it is a shame for one so young (yet intelligent) to have been brainwashed like this, already. A real shame. I mean it.

I appreciate your concern, but I haven't been brainwashed as badly as you've brainwashed yourself. You religiously hold to an idea, and wont let go. I, OTOH, would let go of my current stance, and agree with you, if I saw one good reason to do so.

[CJames]

Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

I'd like to add the fact that the assumption of there being an external reality is based on scientific reasoning - even if the Nacho hypothesis is not.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

There is story relating to this.

Once a scientist was telling to a group of nuns, that there hasn't been any proof of the existence of God, and that as far science is concerned, there is no God.
Then a nun stood up, and asked the scientist: "Can you proof that there is no God?".

The scientist continued by telling a story about the Pope, and that the Pope was involved in all kinds of pleasures of the flesh.

The same nun stood up again and asked: "Can you proof that?"

The scientist responded: "Can you proof the contrary?"

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then why were you intent on locking the thread? If my point is valid, you should allow the discussion to proceed. Plenty of people seemed interested.


1. I can only lock threads in Homework Help.
2. Your point was not valid, as usual.

In my first post in that thread, I told you that we expected you to accept correction and not fight us tooth and nail. You didn't hold up your end of the bargain. Since the thread was wearing on and getting nowhere, I asked for something to be done, and either Kerrie or Greg answered by locking the thread.


My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.


Your ideas are not verifiable in any sense. They make no predictions whatsoever. I don't know how you can think that they do.


Look; if my idea was a total crock, then why does it make sense of everything we already know, including the classical:quantum duality of reality? I don't think you give my ideas the respect they deserve.
Honestly, I don't.

To the contrary, I think your ideas have gotten far more attention than they deserve, from me included. Nothing you write here makes any sense of anything we know.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.


Huge mistake.

This assumption might have some credibility if there were only one person in the world. However, there are other people, and many of them do science and can compare notes. The fact that they all agree that they are studying the same universe lends itself to the interpretation that there is an outside universe that we are all studying.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind.

Here is the same mistake.

That is not a deductive argument in any sense. The fact that we interpret data with our minds does not imply that everything is going on in our minds. That's just silly.

Originally posted by Lifegazer:
I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.


It sure would help matters if you were not so completely ignorant of logic, because your ideas are logically refuted on a daily basis. You aren't rational, you are only stubborn.

[BoulderHead]

LG,
The statement below;
My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.
Have I not seen you write at some time or the other that your ideas/views/philosophy/whateveryouwanttocallit could never be proven by science? I feel quite sure you have and so I am wondering if;
A) You have had a change of mind about this.
B) I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".


He started with Maxwell's equations to derive a new result. Maxwell's equations were verified seperately, and are thus usable as axioms of a new theory.


That's what I do.


Not even close.


Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical.


Your ideas are purely religious. There is no logic, rationality, or philosophy in any of it. Not one of your arguments is even deductively valid, as everyone has been trying to explain to you.


Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.


???

No one except you treats the laws of physics as "malleable". You constantly get it wrong--just wrong enough to support your ideas--and then insist you must be right, because you are, after all, a 'rationalist'.


This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.


This is religion, and you are producing a falsehood from what you don't know. Stop claiming otherwise.


Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.


Your arguments are in direct contradiction to science. You aren't even in a position to assert the contrary, because you have no clue as to what any scientific theory actually says.


It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?


Of course not. What do you think we have been telling you all this time?


I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.

I fail to see why you would make such a remark.


Your philosophy is irrelevant because it has no basis in reality, and because there is no way to verify it. I don't believe you see the significance of those reasons.


I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.


???

This is complete nonsense.

But all you ever do is "assert the nature of reality", and all we ever do is point out that that should not be done.

We cannot assert the nature of reality because it is something we cannot know a priori. That means that 'pure reason' will not yield anything that bears on reality. Reality itself must be referred to, and this is done via experimentation. Experimentation is the only way we can know anything about reality.


You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.


???

More nonsense.

Compatibility does not entail necessary implication. Compatibility only means that both can peacefully coexist. That was CJames' obvious point with his "nacho" example. Your gross confusion about what logic is prompted you to say...

"The only point to be gleamed from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'."

That is proof positive that your bias has completely closed your mind.


Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself.


No, you haven't. You have paid special attention to the twin paradox as you misunderstand it. You have no clue as to how science interprets it. Stop claiming otherwise.


Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of total ignorance of science could benefit your understanding of it? Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of total ignorance of logic could benefit your ability to tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one? Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of bias, closed-mindedness, and egotism could benefit your ability to see why you are so badly mistaken?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
LG,
The statement below;
Have I not seen you write at some time or the other that your ideas/views/philosophy/whateveryouwanttocallit could never be proven by science? I feel quite sure you have and so I am wondering if;
A) You have had a change of mind about this.
B) I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.
Good question. The ambiguity is easily explained.
What I mean is that science shouldn't expect to see my conclusion under a microscope. Yet I am also saying that scientific knowledge can lead to my conclusion via the use of reason.
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.
People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge. But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.
My philosophy actually benefits from arguing with the likes of Tom & Janus and Ahrkron. Ironically, they have helped me better my understanding of key-concepts, whilst Tom has helped me to structure my arguments a little better, and pay more attention to clarification. I've learn alot here, believe it or not. And I'm still learning. Maybe one-day, I'll present an argument which knocks everybodys' socks off. That's why I carry on, despite the criticism.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Good question. The ambiguity is easily explained.
What I mean is that science shouldn't expect to see my conclusion under a microscope. Yet I am also saying that scientific knowledge can lead to my conclusion via the use of reason.
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.
People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge. But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.
My philosophy actually benefits from arguing with the likes of Tom & Janus and Ahrkron. Ironically, they have helped me better my understanding of key-concepts, whilst Tom has helped me to structure my arguments a little better, and pay more attention to clarification. I've learn alot here, believe it or not. And I'm still learning. Maybe one-day, I'll present an argument which knocks everybodys' socks off. That's why I carry on, despite the criticism.

Whatever you yourself claim, it is a fact that your 'philosophy' is nothing new, and has been dealt with innumerable times in the past history of philosophy.

But some people are too stubborn to learn from history....

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.


That's just the problem: You do not start from scientific facts, and you do not deduce anything. This is what everyone keeps explaining to you. A prime example is your argument that you keep repeating:

"Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind."

That's not a deduction! It remains entirely possible that it is a material universe feeding the information into your brain. And when one considers that all scientists agree on the results of experiments, it becomes more plausible that that is the case.


People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge.


You draw flak because you keep getting the science wrong to suit your needs, and then you proceed to use bad reasoning to reach the desired conclusion.


But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.


Of course, that's not how it works.

Philosophers of science are typically highly trained in both philosophy and science. There's a philosophy professor at my school who is concerned with the philosophy of space and time. In addition to his PhD in Philosophy, he as an M.Sc. in Physics. He knows General Relativity better than I do.

Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

If you want to know "how philosophy works", then it would be wise to look at what philosophers do.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Tom
Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.


The Encyclopedia is here (http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#q), and an example of what I am talking about is the entry for Quantum Mechanics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
Philosophers of science are typically highly trained in both philosophy and science. There's a philosophy professor at my school who is concerned with the philosophy of space and time. In addition to his PhD in Philosophy, he as an M.Sc. in Physics. He knows General Relativity better than I do.

Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

If you want to know "how philosophy works", then it would be wise to look at what philosophers do. [/B]

I suspect Mr Lifegazer of not listening to any reason, and not willing to accept any counterarguments that many philosophers in history have made against his 'theory of the Mind'.

There is no reasoning possible against the arguments LG uses. He has made his own 'closed' system, that is immune against logic, reason and knowledge.

If he is happy that way, why not leave hem there, in his self-created world of 'The Mind' ....

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Your ideas are not verifiable in any sense. They make no predictions whatsoever. I don't know how you can think that they do.

I gave everybody my predictions earlier. I suggested that science would have to discard of 'materialism', and take account of the Mind in future-research. The other predictions probably don't concern you, because you're not interested in world-unity.
I haven't presented myself as a materialistic-scientist. I'm not here to make predictions about matter.

Huge mistake.

This assumption might have some credibility if there were only one person in the world. However, there are other people, and many of them do science and can compare notes. The fact that they all agree that they are studying the same universe lends itself to the interpretation that there is an outside universe that we are all studying.

No Tom. The only conclusion which can be derived from your reasoning, is that we all share the perception of a singular-reality. At what point, from this axiom, do you find the bridge which takes your reasoning to an external reality? There is no such bridge of logic.
It is as easy to comprehend that each 'thing' is an espect of a singular-mind, as it is to attribute this understanding to an external reality.
Your reasoning just exhibits material bias. Mine however, acknowledges the possibility of an alternative. That's why I explore it, continually. If you can't drop the absolute-belief in this materialism, then how can you explore the alternative possibility?

Here is the same mistake.

That is not a deductive argument in any sense. The fact that we interpret data with our minds does not imply that everything is going on in our minds. That's just silly.

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion, which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.
These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existant beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each idividual, is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own existence. And our own existence is an inner-existence. A Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Not even close.

Your ideas are purely religious. There is no logic, rationality, or philosophy in any of it. Not one of your arguments is even deductively valid, as everyone has been trying to explain to you.

???

No one except you treats the laws of physics as "malleable". You constantly get it wrong--just wrong enough to support your ideas--and then insist you must be right, because you are, after all, a 'rationalist'.

This is religion, and you are producing a falsehood from what you don't know. Stop claiming otherwise.

You're not even talking to me now. You're talking to yourself. Each one of these responses says nothing about anything I actually said.
You just coldly condemn my statements here.

Your arguments are in direct contradiction to science.

My arguments are in direct contradiction of materialism. When was the last time you saw me say that "therefore, Einstein's laws are incorrect."?
I don't do that. I just try to show that the Laws of science fit the reality of Mind.

You aren't even in a position to assert the contrary, because you have no clue as to what any scientific theory actually says.

I work off base-axioms Tom. Even a kid might understand that all observers will measure the same velocity for light, for example. But he wont have a clue how we know it. Such axioms are understandable without knowing the math. You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science. That's why scientists such as Hawking make an excellent living from their books. People are able to engage in an understanding of the main concepts of science, without being a mathematician. Indeed; if this was not possible, it would be impossible to teach science to anyone, let-alone a mathematician.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion, which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.

How do we know that fire causes pain? Well, at first we don't know that, untill we put our hand into the fire, and feel the pain.
That is the way we have learned, in our childhood, and throughout human history. We have learned from our mistake.
It is because of this learning that we have aquired knowledge about the world, and not only know that fire causes pain, but know of the chemical processes that take place, causing this release of energy, we call fire, and have been able to use it for our benefit.

You should try to re-write all of history, based on your false hypothese. I wonder how the LG version of human history would look like, in the hypthese of 'The Mind'.


These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself.

The sensory-experience are 'created' in the interaction of outside stimuli with the nerve system, which are attached to your brain.
In the brain itself, those signals are then transformed into our senses. The 'mind' does not create those senses, but experiences them.


For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.

Where do you think that perceptions in general have come from?
'Created' from the mind itself? You are completely and totally encarsenated in your own concept of mind. Before the evolution of life (living organisms, that could reproduce) there was no mind, so how could awareness arise out of the mind itself?
The materialist explenation is quite simple. From the way matter interacts, and due to a long historic process of interaction of matter, a new quality was formed, which was not there before, in every stage of evolution. It began with complex organic macromolecules, which evolved out of natural processes, and which had the ability to self-reproduce. Not all copies were exact copies, so slight mutations happened in this copying process. If this was beneficial for the copying process, this new slightly changed copy would win over other mutants, and so began the cycle of life and evolution. Each and every property of our human life, is based on a long historic chain of evolutionary processes.
Our consciousness has been formed out of a process that lasted over 3 billion years, and each layer of our consciousness, is built on top of another layer. At the basis, there are just the physical and chemical processes. It's a very complex job to break our consciousness down to the interactions of chemical and physical substances, and to explain the phenomena on the top on the basis of such physical/chemical reactions. Not that this could not be done, but the amount of layers in between are too numerous, and each has it's own level of complexity, that this would outdue our understanding of how our consciousness works, but in principle this could be done.



And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existant beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each idividual, is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own existence. And our own existence is an inner-existence. A Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason. [/B]

Which of course explains totally nothing of the complexity of our consciousness, and tells nothing of the process that has formed human minds and consiousness in billions of years of evolution, or in other words: these are statements that are based on total ignorance of all the billions and billions of complex processes that took place and are involved therein.

It's the simplistic way of reasoning of the fundamental religious fanats that explain the world and all life to have arisen out of nothing, just by a snap of the finger of a great Deity or so.

But if you insist on this, stay stubborn and ignorant about the real facts of (human) existence, if that suits you better as knowledge.

And of course you can claim that even without understanding how an engine works, one can still learn to drive.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
How do we know that fire causes pain? Well, at first we don't know that, untill we put our hand into the fire, and feel the pain.

"Fire" is known by the sense of sight and the sense of touch. Actually, you can even hear and smell a fire. The knowledge of "a fire" is gleaned from inner sensations. Even a fire which appears to be several feet from you, is actually being seen upon/within your awareness. It's impossible to see something several feet outside of your awareness. You can only see it within your awareness. And so, a visual understanding of there being a fire several feet from you, is actually happening upon your singular awareness of the events (and not several feet outside your awareness). Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

fire causes pain

No doubt. But how do you take this across the bridge to an external reality? In this specific example, you have an inner-sense of "a fire", followed by an inner-sense of pain. I can show for certain that these inner sensations are created by an aspect of the mind itself (subconcious). It's obvious. Like I said, the universe does not know what 'pain' is. Nor does the universe know what any other sensation is like. Not unless that universe is alive itself.
It is clear that our sensations have been created by artistic intelligence, since those sensations are subjective-representations of the order present within reality. I.e., the mind understands that fire will burn the skin even before the experience of 'pain' became apparent. Clearly, the existence of 'pain' was created by the Mind for a purpose (survival). Therefore, the Mind knew the effects of fire ever-before it became aware of pain.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"Fire" is known by the sense of sight and the sense of touch. Actually, you can even hear and smell a fire. The knowledge of "a fire" is gleaned from inner sensations. Even a fire which appears to be several feet from you, is actually being seen upon/within your awareness. It's impossible to see something several feet outside of your awareness. You can only see it within your awareness. And so, a visual understanding of there being a fire several feet from you, is actually happening upon your singular awareness of the events (and not several feet outside your awareness). Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

No doubt. But how do you take this across the bridge to an external reality? In this specific example, you have an inner-sense of "a fire", followed by an inner-sense of pain. I can show for certain that these inner sensations are created by an aspect of the mind itself (subconcious). It's obvious. Like I said, the universe does not know what 'pain' is. Nor does the universe know what any other sensation is like. Not unless that universe is alive itself.
It is clear that our sensations have been created by artistic intelligence, since those sensations are subjective-representations of the order present within reality. I.e., the mind understands that fire will burn the skin even before the experience of 'pain' became apparent. Clearly, the existence of 'pain' was created by the Mind for a purpose (survival). Therefore, the Mind knew the effects of fire ever-before it became aware of pain.

What 'Mind' are you talking about in this context? The human mind?
It's the only sensible mind to talk about anyway.

Well I think your point is wrong. We don't have a-priori knowledge of the pain caused by fire, only by prior experience (wether self-experience, or based on knowledge of others).

Your 'acts of creation' which imply prior knowledge about pain for instance, don't explain anything in my mind. Where should that knowledge reside?

To explain why fire causes pain, requires one to explain how the nerve system and brain work, and both how these organs evolved through the history of evolution.

But it can be brought down to rather simple facts of how the material world works.

How does a stone know it should fall to eart when not upheld by any force? Do you call the stone 'intelligent' cause it knows how to react to forces acting on the stone?

[CJames]

Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.Alright LG, let's talk about it. I can't prove it does exist outside our awarness, since I am unaware of anything that is outside of my awarness. Now, can you prove that the fire does not exist outside of my awarness. Can you prove that there is nothing there other than my own perception? I don't believe that you can, and this is why you never have. Instead, you simply assert that it must be unlikely to actually exists since you can never see it without seeing it. That is not a proof. It is not logic. It is not deductive. It is an assumption, just like the assumption that the fire does exist.

Incidentally, you ignored the post I made on the previous page explaining that I have been listening to your posts since I first heard them, and that they have never proven the fire doesn't exist.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I work off base-axioms Tom. Even a kid might understand that all observers will measure the same velocity for light, for example. But he wont have a clue how we know it. Such axioms are understandable without knowing the math. You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science.

The problem here is the ambiguity of the description.

"You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science"

The truth of this statement depends strongly on what you mean by "understand".

If by "understand" you mean
"have a general idea of what those concepts refer to", it may be ok,

but there is a big difference between such meaning and
"grasp the relations they have with other concepts strongly enough as to be able to do research on their implications to reality"

A kid surely can "understand" in the first sense. A well trained physicist may still be far from understanding in the second sense.

And you have shown repeatedly, clearly, leaving no doubt on all mentors' minds, that you do NOT understand the "axioms" of relativity (as you call them), anywhere close to the second sense.

They are indeed hard to grasp (in this stronger sense). You need to understand many things quite clearly before you can really use relativity correctly, especially if you want to work out its epistemological implications, and its impact on our interpretation of the concept of measurement and reality.

This is a cliche, but it *really* applies to you, LG: just try to walk decently before you try to run.

[Lifegazer]

I know what I know. I certainly don't know everything about anything.
I just get bored of some people who repeatedly tell me that I don't know anything about anything. Can we stick with the discussion at hand please.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I suspect Mr Lifegazer of not listening to any reason, and not willing to accept any counterarguments that many philosophers in history have made against his 'theory of the Mind'.

... There is no reasoning possible against the arguments LG uses.

You need to concentrate more on what you write. [;)]

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
Alright LG, let's talk about it. I can't prove it [a fire] does exist outside our awarness, since I am unaware of anything that is outside of my awarness. Now, can you prove that the fire does not exist outside of my awarness. Can you prove that there is nothing there other than my own perception? I don't believe that you can, and this is why you never have.

To do this, I would have to discuss space & motion in-detail. I might have a crack at it later. Or maybe start a topic about external-reality, later this week.

Incidentally, you ignored the post I made on the previous page...
My apologies. I will respond later, also.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I know what I know. I certainly don't know everything about anything.
I just get bored of some people who repeatedly tell me that I don't know anything about anything. Can we stick with the discussion at hand please.

Sure, as long as, in the discussion at hand, you stop presenting misconceptions as if they were the accepted interpretation of physical theories. This makes a disservice to your position and confuses readers of the forums.

What I am telling you is that in order to "build upon the axioms of science" you need a deep understanding of what those "axioms" mean.

You cannot start from the watered-down versions you use. They are fine to give a general flavor of what relativity says, but are definitely not enough for any serious discussion.

Phrases like "all observers will find the same speed of light" are useful, but they are definitely not the full story; you need to supplement them with Mawell's equations (and hence calculus, algebra and the concept of measurement), geometry, and a detailed discussion of simultaneity in order to get relativity.

Relativity does NOT equal just "two simple axioms plus logic".

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Phrases like "all observers will find the same speed of light" are useful, but they are definitely not the full story; you need to supplement them with Mawell's equations (and hence calculus, algebra and the concept of measurement), geometry, and a detailed discussion of simultaneity in order to get relativity.

Relativity does NOT equal just "two simple axioms plus logic".
You miss the point. Indeed, within 150 posts of my relativity-thread, there wasn't even the need to raise mathematics. No precise detailed mathematical-analysis of anything (including the radial-orbit example I presented), was ever required to discuss the issues I had presented.

I was specifically interested in linking the mind of the observer to the fact that his space & time were distorted by his own velocity (which I think is gleaned wrt Earth itself, since man's understanding of velocity is gleaned wrt the dirt which he stands upon). I also tried to show that such distortion is not yielded from any external stimulae (since lightspeed is constant). This was the ground-basis of my discussion. There were details.
There is merit in such a discussion. And I don't need to be a math-genius to have that discussion.
If you ever acknowledge the real intent of that thread (to oppose materialism by announcing the reality of 'Mind'), and if you can come to understand that math aren't needed to have that discussion, then you might recognise that the discussion should be had without all this "challenge to scientific-law" politics. For at the end of the day, half of my posts deal with such politics, and of the berating of my credentials.

I have no regrets about my philosophy. I think that my underlying conclusions about many things have strong-merit. I just regret that I feel as though I'm in a boxing-ring every time I start a thread, as people want to box my ears off because I wont listen to them.
Maybe they should realise that I too was once a materialist and that my philosophy is relatively-new. I totally understand the attitudes and beliefs of a materialist. I've had the same beliefs. I have that t-shirt. But now, I want to show people why these beliefs are questionable, and ultimately incorrect.
But it's not easy speaking to an audience who are boxing your ears off all the time...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Maybe they should realise that I too was once a materialist and that my philosophy is relatively-new. I totally understand the attitudes and beliefs of a materialist. I've had the same beliefs. I have that t-shirt. But now, I want to show people why these beliefs are questionable, and ultimately incorrect.
But it's not easy speaking to an audience who are boxing your ears off all the time...

Your philosophy relatively new??? In what way? What have you added to the philosophy of Idealism that is new?

I showed you before, that part of your statements have been put forward long times ago by other philosophers.

And for my understanding, you never showed that the assumptions of materialists are incorrect. You just question the premises put forward by materialism, and replaced them with another premise (Mind).

But I never found any reasonable arguments in what way the materialist assumptions were incorrect. You just state that the premise is unprovable, and then replaced that premise with an even (or more) unprovable premise.

If you are just talking about the initital premise of materialism, which is the assumption that there is in primary instance a material world, and we (our mind) is part of that and has arisen out of the material world, then I am just wondering what your argument are against it. And if not the premise, what conclusion based on the premise you find inconvincing?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
But I just don't see where the Mind hypothesis is reasoned, not from the beginning anyway. Much of it does follow fairly logically, but I have seen a lot of your posts and none of them really seemed to try to give a real strong sense of why the premise is correct.

What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it. And since you give me no examples of what you mean, there is nothing here for me to address. You're just passing-on your feelings here.

You have said that from birth, humans have the potential to reason, and therefore reason isn't based on external data.

My reason thread was good. Maybe I'll start another. Are you refering to that? Or are you refering to the stuff I said to Tom?
I'm saying that 'Mind' exists, and that it has an awareness of itself (God), and an awareness of many (perhaps countless) finite awarenesses (observers). There is a duality of awareness (of the mind itself; and of what the mind is perceiving). 'You' are an individual aspect/perception within that Mind. Your ability to reason comes from the Mind. What you have reasoned, is related to what you perceive.

You argue that this proves mind transcends material phenomina. But in what way? It proves, if it's true, that the mind is capable of thought without knowledge of material. But no knowledge of material certainly does not imply no material.

If this relates to the post about 'pain'...
It is possible to show that 'Mind' creates its own subjective-representations in its own senses (mind senses). All sensation happens upon your awareness (of Mind). And it is also created by that Mind. Read that post again, to see how I show this.
But from this, we can proceed further. We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent. Remember, our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course). Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, our minds possessed universal-knowledge before that mind could ever come to 'sense' the universe.

You have argued that our perceptions of the outside world are built by our minds. But this does nothing to prove that the outside world does not exist,

Aside from the fact that existence is reduced to singularity (see first post), and aside from the fact that my philosophy advocates the existence of an all-knowing mind (prior to having 'awareness'); what other proof do you want?

You have argued that because every observer has his own unique perception of space and time, he therefore generates that perception unto himself, while ignoring the fact that this can be explained purely in terms of physical laws.

But why do you insist that the physical-laws apply to a reality beyond perception? And if you don't, then why do you not see that the physical-laws can exist - as laws of perception.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it. And since you give me no examples of what you mean, there is nothing here for me to address. You're just passing-on your feelings here.

In other words, if you don't see it, you have to believe it. That is the fundamental doctrine.

And THAT is what the premise of materialism is asked to be replaced with. If you and I both see a chair, we can feel, see, hear and maybe even smell, then this kind of knowledge about this real object, which is there independend of our mind, is asked to be replaced with a premise that says the chair is not even realy there, but just an image that exists in our head. And because the image is in both our heads, that explains God, who creates the images in both our head simultaniously...

It would for this 'Mind' philosophy be life threatening to conclude from this simple experiment, that the cause for both of us, having a similar perceptory image of the chair, was the real existing chair itself. Because how can such a simple solution be true, and not even mentioning God as a cause for this happening?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
In other words, if you don't see it, you have to believe it. That is the fundamental doctrine.

No. If he doesn't see it then he doesn't see it. That's it. But I can only adress direct statements. I cannot address his feelings. If he wants me to address specific points of the things he doesn't 'see', then he should give examples.

And THAT is what the premise of materialism is asked to be replaced with.

The premise of materialism is asked to be replaced by an understanding of my philosophy. Not by a non-understanding.

If you and I both see a chair, we can feel, see, hear and maybe even smell, then this kind of knowledge about this real object, which is there independend of our mind

That's the point. An image (and feel, and smell) of a chair is something that can only happen within the mind. Firstly, sensation is given by the mind, and then felt by 'awareness'. Secondly, the judgement that "This is a chair." is formulated via reason, which like emotion, is just another facet of the mind.
So; the experience of 'a chair' is a completely-mindful experience; since it is given by the mind, and reasoned by the mind.

is asked to be replaced with a premise that says the chair is not even realy there,

It exists as a real perception. That is a fact.

but just an image that exists in our head. And because the image is in both our heads, that explains God, who creates the images in both our head simultaniously...

More-or-less.

It would for this 'Mind' philosophy be life threatening to conclude from this simple experiment, that the cause for both of us, having a similar perceptory image of the chair, was the real existing chair itself. Because how can such a simple solution be true, and not even mentioning God as a cause for this happening?
A Mind which has universal-knowledge before it senses anything, is indeed the mind of God.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's the point. An image (and feel, and smell) of a chair is something that can only happen within the mind. Firstly, sensation is given by the mind, and then felt by 'awareness'. Secondly, the judgement that "This is a chair." is formulated via reason, which like emotion, is just another facet of the mind.
So; the experience of 'a chair' is a completely-mindful experience; since it is given by the mind, and reasoned by the mind.

It exists as a real perception. That is a fact.

More-or-less.

A Mind which has universal-knowledge before it senses anything, is indeed the mind of God.

If you don't mind, in my mind I still adress the cause of why I and someone else see and experience the same image of the chair, the chair itself, and not God.

But this shows in most simple terms in what ways the explaining of these opposing philosophies work out in real life experiences.

I hope you don't mind that I call the chair I am sitting on, a real chair, which exists independend of my mind and of my experience of the chair, and that my explenation of this real chair, does not involve or need the existence of an entity named God for which there is not and can not be any direct evidence.

[CJames]

Thank you for replying to my post lifegazer.

And since you give me no examples of what you mean...??? That's what the rest of the post was, wasn't it? I thought it was.

'You' are an individual aspect/perception within that Mind. Your ability to reason comes from the Mind. What you have reasoned, is related to what you perceive.Yes, that is undoubtedly what your hypothesis says. But why? How can you prove that my ability to reason comes from "The Mind" (God) rather than simply my own mind. And how can you prove that my mind is not a function of the brain?

We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent.Yes, but you can't prove the knowledge knowledge does not come from prior trial and error. Computers now built to learn operate in this manner. They need no knowledge of how the world works to be able to learn how it does. They start as a plain slate, and evolve from there.

Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe.You cannot prove that the mind had an awarness of the universe before it sensed it. An infant has no idea what is going on when it is born. It doesn't even seem capable of understanding space and time.

A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, our minds possessed universal-knowledge before that mind could ever come to 'sense' the universe.Even if the conclusion was correct, you cannot disprove that this is due to the genetic information we are born with, unless you assume or prove that material doesn't exist first.

Aside from the fact that existence is reduced to singularity On of my responses added that a singularity is by definition a point in spacetime. The universe contains a nonzero amount of spacetime, and therefore is not a singularity.

But why do you insist that the physical-laws apply to a reality beyond perception?I do not. I insist that relativity is entirely consistent and does not require the statement that:

each observer distorts spacetime with his mind.

Nor does it imply that this is the case, unless you again assume or prove that the mind creates it in the first place.

And if you don't, then why do you not see that the physical-laws can exist - as laws of perception.I never said they couldn't. That's not the point. The point is, special relativity does not in any way imply your hypothesis. You have only shown that your hypothesis can be consistent with the laws of special relativity. That's fine for somebody who wants to know if their ideas fit with reality, but not for somebody who wants to prove their idea is a necessary part of reality.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Thank you for replying to my post lifegazer.

??? That's what the rest of the post was, wasn't it? I thought it was.

Yes, that is undoubtedly what your hypothesis says. But why? How can you prove that my ability to reason comes from "The Mind" (God) rather than simply my own mind. And how can you prove that my mind is not a function of the brain?

Yes, but you can't prove the knowledge knowledge does not come from prior trial and error. Computers now built to learn operate in this manner. They need no knowledge of how the world works to be able to learn how it does. They start as a plain slate, and evolve from there.

[b][quote]
You cannot prove that the mind had an awarness of the universe before it sensed it. An infant has no idea what is going on when it is born. It doesn't even seem capable of understanding space and time.

The statement of LG in sentences as "Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe." just sound utterly blasphemic and non-sensical to me, but in trying to remove the blasphemic and non-sensical part, I think he wants to make the point that a new born individual, or even before it is born, has as first experience of his/her mind that "he/she is there", and that experience might reside before any actual experience with the sensory system.
In that way the self-epxerience of mind comes before the experience of the outer world.
Wether or not this is correct, is something that perhaps never can be tested directly, because we don't know what goes on in the minds of babies before they are even born.
But in some ways it is likely that the growing foetus, which has grown from one cell, in it's formation and becoming a fully equipped human being, at some point of it's evolution starts to be aware of itself, and of it's surrounding environment. And it could well be that the awareness starts with self-awareness "me being there" before awareness of the sensory system.

Nevertheless it is utterly non-sense what he claims about universal-knowledge (where would that 'knowledge' reside then, other then in the matter itself?) being there, before it 'creates' (does he mean the evolutionary development of sensory perceptions?) it's own sensory-awareness of the universe.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I haven't presented myself as a materialistic-scientist. I'm not here to make predictions about matter.


You said that your ideas are verifiable by the laws of physics. If your ideas make no predictions about or comment on matter or spacetime, then the first statement is not true.


No Tom. The only conclusion which can be derived from your reasoning, is that we all share the perception of a singular-reality. At what point, from this axiom, do you find the bridge which takes your reasoning to an external reality? There is no such bridge of logic.


At that point, one has to make an assumption. I assume that whatever it is that provides the stimulus to my mind is a material entity whose mechanical properties give rise to that stimulus.

You, on the other hand, assume that it is a figment of God's imagination.

I take the first one because I do not have to assume the existence of something for which there is zero evidence.


It is as easy to comprehend that each 'thing' is an espect of a singular-mind, as it is to attribute this understanding to an external reality.


Only if one is completely ignorant of cognitive science. If not, then it is not so easy to conceive of a mind without a material brain.


Your reasoning just exhibits material bias. Mine however, acknowledges the possibility of an alternative. That's why I explore it, continually. If you can't drop the absolute-belief in this materialism, then how can you explore the alternative possibility?


My bias against The Mind, God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all come from the same reason: total lack of evidence. When that changes, then so will I.


Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existant beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~.


You are very subtle about making the transition from the mind (as in my mind) to The Mind (as in god) here.

It is true, I know of things only through my senses. Given only that, I might be able to reasonably reach the conclusion that it is all happening in my own head. However, there are other people who I can talk to, and who can confirm that they, too, have the same experiences. So it most definitely is not all going on in my own head (unless I assume that the other people only exist in my head, which is absurd).

So, I now have two choices:

Assume an external, objective reality of material existence that is consistent with the stimuli I recieve.

or

Assume an external, objective reality of spiritual existence for which there is no evidence.

I choose the first.

[Kerrie]

not sure this thread is going anywhere...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
You said that your ideas are verifiable by the laws of physics. If your ideas make no predictions about or comment on matter or spacetime, then the first statement is not true.

At that point, one has to make an assumption. I assume that whatever it is that provides the stimulus to my mind is a material entity whose mechanical properties give rise to that stimulus.

You, on the other hand, assume that it is a figment of God's imagination.

I take the first one because I do not have to assume the existence of something for which there is zero evidence.

Only if one is completely ignorant of cognitive science. If not, then it is not so easy to conceive of a mind without a material brain.

My bias against The Mind, God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all come from the same reason: total lack of evidence. When that changes, then so will I.

You are very subtle about making the transition from the mind (as in my mind) to The Mind (as in god) here.

It is true, I know of things only through my senses. Given only that, I might be able to reasonably reach the conclusion that it is all happening in my own head. However, there are other people who I can talk to, and who can confirm that they, too, have the same experiences. So it most definitely is not all going on in my own head (unless I assume that the other people only exist in my head, which is absurd).

So, I now have two choices:

Assume an external, objective reality of material existence that is consistent with the stimuli I recieve.

or

Assume an external, objective reality of spiritual existence for which there is no evidence.

I choose the first.

Very excellent post!