A proof for the existence of God?

[Lifegazer]

This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

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 individual 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 whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.
Additionally:-
We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it. Note too that 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, minds possessed universal-knowledge before those minds could ever come to 'sense' the order of the universe.

Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.
Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

[heusdens]

Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind. The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others, compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions, and conclude that the subjective senses we have about the world, must have been caused by an objective material world, that exists independend of our mind.
One obvious conclusion you forget to draw (of course).

And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread Philisophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958).

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, Materialism Versus Idealism (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158) ...


Originally posted by Iachhus32
Which came first? The essence or the form? Doesn't form accrete itself around the essence? If so, then there must have been an "essential universe" before a material one.
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Essence and form as equal doesn't make sense because you can obliterate the form and still have the essence, but the opposite isn't true.
You can remove the essence (life) from a human being, and you would still have a form, albeit a "dead form." The question is, where does the essence go almost immediately upon death? Whereas you could "cremate" the corpse later on, but that would be comparable to burning a piece of "dead wood."
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by FZ+
Like different reactions within all their cells, an excess of calcium in the bloodstream, certain parts switched to self destruct mode, lack of breathing, end of coherent synapse signals in brain, end of blood current...

Death is a very physical affair.
But why is it that we're cognitive one moment and gone the next? I don't know, but there's something about being cognitive, that at least to me, suggests that which is eternal. And indeed "the moment" is--by which cognizance manifests--"eternal."
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by heusdens
My statement was that every mind must be based on material grounds.

That statement is falsified if you show me an example of a mind that is not based on material grounds.

Now the only possible way to give a counter example was to show the existence of a mind, that is not based on material grounds.
But from the nature of what has to be proven, it follows, that no such example can be given, at least not in a material sense (since if it is based on material grounds, it would not fit as proof).

Hence it follows that such an example can not be given.

(the spiritual proof, I would not count as proof)
We have the outward appearance of things and we have the inward appearance of things, one of which is the manifestation of the other. Now who's to say the material is not the manifestation of the spiritual? If you say this isn't so only because you can't prove that it's so, then there must be something inherently "lacking" in the way you're going about it.

If we don't understand what that essence is, then we must be willing to dive into it (the subconscious) in order to find out what it means. And yes, I mean the realm of dreams and myths. Are you at all familiar with Jung's work, and the "collective unconscious?"
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by heusdens
Not in detail.
What does this collective unconsciousness contribute to our knowledge?
And how does the collective unconsciousness stand to the collective consciousness?
Jung did a lot of work with dreams, archetypes and synchronistic occurrences, and discovered a lot of "basic patterns" to human behvaior which extend across the globe, irregardless of cultural differences. Meaning there is common ground to all of us which can be ascertained "within." And, whether we care to do the research for ourselves or not is really another matter?

As far "collective consciousness" is concerned what do you mean by that? I don't claim to be up on all these things either, but like Jung (intially anyway), most of my tests are performed with "my self" as a reference.
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, you showed what premises Idealism is working on. They are the direct opposite of Materialism. So, if I have to choose between them, I choose the latter.
If we got wuliheron in on the discussion, he would probably say the two are correlative, and that you really can't have one without the other.
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by Tom
I stick with my first post in this thread: There is evidence of matter, and none of spirit.
I'm sorry, but everything begins with, and ends with, the fact that I'm conscious. Otherwise "nothing" would exist, at least for me anyway.

And what does heusdens mean by, "If he had to choose?" That doesn't sound "very objective" to me? It sounds a lot like faith? Or, at the very least an assumption. Hmm...
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by Tom
Of course it's an assumption. It's more reasonable than assuming it's negative.

You seem to find that questionable. Why?
What it means is that you really don't know anything, except of course by what you gleen through being conscious. So where's the standard to "the without," if it's not contained in "the within?"

Perhaps this is why it's necessary to give to rights individuals in this country? For therein the "parity check" lies ...
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by Tom
Are you reading my posts?

The standard to the without comes from the fact that there are other people who have basically the same experiences as you do. So, either the reality we all agree on is really "without" or all the people you talk to about it are "within".

Since the latter is absurd, I choose the former.
It's very easy to put labels on things. But, to "experience" the soup which is "within" the can, is an entirely different story.
Originally posted by Iachhus32
Originally posted by Tom
What are you talking about?
I'm saying it's really easy to acknowledge what something is from the outside, almost everybody can agree upon that. But, to understand what's going on on the inside, and hence the essence or "experience" of the matter, it goes beyond just getting everybody to agree.

And yet at the same time it's far more personal and meaningful to "understand" things for oneself. Perhaps this is why in the "spiritual sense" understanding corresponds to "one's food." You know, like a "discerning palate?"
I hope this contributes ...

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind.

That's the point of this thread. There's not one jot of evidence (rational or otherwise) which can prove the existence of a reality outside of our sensory-perception.

The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others,

That's not a reason. After all, we can communicate in dreams too. Does that mean our dreams exist outside the mind?
Remember that I'm advocating many relative-perceptions of one existence within one mind. In that case, we would be able to communicate with one another, through that mind.

compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions

There's no difference. Your awareness is your sensory-perceptions.

And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread Philisophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958).
I'm surprised you keep mentioning that, since I have shown that you reject the premise of finite-time merely because it infers God's existence - and not because that premise does not make sense, by itself.
But I'd like to discuss the actual content of my argument, if you don't mind. This thing you mention is another issue altogether.

[heusdens]

And to bring up another argument, why it is to me the most reasonable assumption to state that a material world does exist, and not just in our sensory perception of it, is that ultimately our mind is dependend on this material world. Just try to imagine the world absent of anything that exists, and you know why. See the thread The Fundamental Question (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's no difference. Your awareness is your sensory-perceptions.

I meant of course that you comare YOUR awareness of sensory perceptions with that of SOMEONE ELSE and communicate about this.
If it seems we have the same perception about, let's say, a chair, we conclude that this perceptions is caused by the real existing chair, which exists outside of our perceptions and mind. What can be a more reasonable assumption then that?


I'm surprised you keep mentioning that, since I have shown that you reject the premise of finite-time merely because it infers God's existence - and not because that premise does not make sense, by itself.

That's what I DID show you. You better read again my remarks I made about that. I even argued based on your own premise, that even that doesn't make sense, and comes down to absurdity.


But I'd like to discuss the actual content of my argument, if you don't mind. This thing you mention is another issue altogether.

Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

What use is a debate then?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, you forget to mention that the world we perceive is actually there and not only in our mind. The reason we know that, is because we can communicate with others, compare the awareness we have about the world with our sensory perceptions, and conclude that the subjective senses we have about the world, must have been caused by an objective material world, that exists independend of our mind.
One obvious conclusion you forget to draw (of course).

And the other reasons you mention in other threads for the existence of God, have been proven to be based on flawed reasoning. You stated again and again that time must have had a begin, which was shown to be incorrect. Read the thread Philisophy of Nature. Time and Space. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958).
And yet the only thing that allows us to observe anthing is the fact we're conscious, and that we are "seperate." Otherwise it would be an entirely "collective experience," which it is not. If it was, then we would probably be reading each other's minds and there wouldn't be much of a need to "learn anything," i.e., that we might "mimic" the behavior of others.

It's really a matter of asking which came first. The essence? (or code). Or the form? ...

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

What use is a debate then?
I have presented an argument which analyses sensory-perception. Yet you insist on talking about time (again). Let's continue to have the debate about time in the relevant threads.
If you think that anything I have said in my first post is incorrect, then highlight the part(s) you have a problem with and explain why they are wrong.

[heusdens]

Wether Mr Lifegazer assumes or not assumes there is a God, and wether he actually believes his statements about that or not, is of course of no interest for the discussions itself.

The only thing interesting is to see that he uses wrong reasoning to come up with this Deity. First and foremost he rejects:

1- That there exists a material world, in eternal motion that exists independend of our mind and awareness. That this must be the case follows from the fact that the reality of the material existence can be the only source of our experiences. Because not only we but also others, with which we are able to communicate and compare experiences with, experience the same reality. Based on that, there can only be two conclusions:
a- either the other persons/minds also are a fixation of our own mind (this is the position taken by solipsisms). It would mean I was the only person in the world, all else is entirely within my own mind.
b- or I have to conclude that the obvious reason for perceiving the same reality as anybody else, is that there exists an objetive material reality, independend of our mind and awareness.

Because conclusion a- is obviously unreasonable, we conclude that b- is the right conclusion.

2- The existing material world cannot have a beginning in time. Since this would imply the appearance of matter from nothing, and that motion arises out of no motion. This follows from our daily perceptions, and hundreds of years of scientific research. We don't want to have that thrown out of the window, just for enabling mythical things to have happened. For that (matter arising out of nothing), it can be stated, there is no evidence whatsoever.

3- There is not, can not, never has been or will be an "inexisting" world, there is always something, the universe we live in. That means that the material existing world, doesn't have a begin or end.


And these obvious facts he simply rejects for no other reason then to be able to come up with a Deity.


Suppose however that the arguments above could be rejected based on evidence or based on logical judgements, and we would conclude that a Deity exist. As can be shown, this would not be very much helpfull to explain the world as it is.

Argument 1.

The argument LG uses here, to reject this argument, is to introduce (arbitrarily) a new entity, he calls "The Mind". We are all part of that entity. But apart from the appearent difference in terminology, what would this altogether change our position? Mind would then just denote the same thing as matter.

Argument 2.

The argument LG uses here is that the infinity of time is impossible. The point is of course that the concept of infinity is ultimately contradictionary. Bet let us assume that we would conclude time had a beginning.
Then what was "before" or the cause of this beginning?
We can only state one of the following:
a- Nothing existed before time began. Which means matter and motion arise out of nothing. Which is something which needs explaining of course, since it defeats normal physical laws.
b- A Deity existed before that, and created the world.
This may sound helpful, but is not. The Deity just replaces the concept of nothing.

Other alternatives are of course impossible (based on the premise time had a beginning)
as for instance:
c- The Deity existed for all of eternity, and created the world. This means, the Deity exists in time, which contradicts the fact that time had a beginning. This is just what we inititally refused, the infinite time concept again! Calling matter 'Deity' before a specific time, is not in the least a contribution to solving the issue!

Argument 3.

This argument LG has not even attempted to reject, but instead confirmend, cause he agrees on the fact that a "nothingness" can not and does not have existence, and therefore an existing world must always be the case, which exists in time and space.
Nevertheless LG implicitly uses this concept, when he claims that time had a beginning. Which simply means that in his view, matter and motion came out of nothing.

Therefore we can simply reject the idea of a Deity, cause it would in no way alter our concept of matter, neither solve any contradiction we DO INDEED meet when defining material existence. This contradiction of existence can not be removed, without creating new and more profound contradictions, so it simply needs to be incorporated into out concept of matter and of the world.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually, I think we should not, cause you simply reject all the proof we gave you that your argument is incorrect.

What use is a debate then?
Accourding to some of the things you have said in the other thread, Materialism Versus Idealism (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158), you have done nothing except make "reasonable assumptions." Whereas if you "had to choose" (between materialism or spiritualism) ... That is not proof.

On the other hand, if we all undestood that we derive our identities from God, then that would make each one of us unique individuals and validate this experience of "seperateness."

It's like each plant of it's own cognizance so to speak, must acknowledge "the sun" as the grounds for it's being, or else perish ...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Accourding to some of the things you have said in the other thread, Materialism Versus Idealism (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158), you have done nothing except make "reasonable assumptions." Whereas if you "had to choose" (between materialism or spiritualism) ... That is not proof.

Did I claim it was? What I see as what constitues sufficient proof, is stated in my previous post in this thread.


On the other hand, if we all undestood that we derive our identities from God, then that would make each one of us unique individuals and validate this experience of "seperateness."

It's like each plant of it's own cognizance so to speak, must acknowledge "the sun" as the grounds for it's being, or else perish ...


As I see it, there is no God, and we ultimately derive out of matter in eternal motion. For the rest your statement could be or is applicable to the concept of matter, which is why we don't need the concept of God.

[Mentat]

I hope you don't mind a little skeptical criticism, lifegazer. Here is my argument:

(See the "Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis" thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97&highlight=Hurdles+to+the+Mind+hypothesis) for the meaning of the "Hurdles" that I will mention)


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.


I think you're right, up to here - except perhaps for the "six senses" part, but that's a topic for a different thread.


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.


Now, wait a minute. Something had to impose the pain, didn't it? The mind may be the only thing that knows what pain is (even though that is debatable, given the fact that primitive life-forms can also feel pain), but why would it choose to impose "pain" on itself? If it were imposed from an external source, then it is obvious that the mind didn't choose pain, but your hypothesis doesn't allow for this (commonly held) explanation.


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 individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).


How do you get this past Hurdle's 2, 3, and 4?


we can only conclude that 'The Mind' had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe.


How do you get knowledge, without awareness? How can I say that I know something, if I'm not aware of it's existence? It doesn't seem logical to me.

Yes, I understand that you are refering to an omniscient Mind, that can know all things - and there's nothing wrong with believing in that - however, the Mind that "knows" these things, would have to be aware of these things first. You do not know something, before becoming aware of it's existence.


Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.


This is incorrect. As Hurdle #3 points out, humans have had wrong assumptions about reality. They would never break out of these misconceptions, if one person's perception of reality was not different from everyone else's.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Did I claim it was? What I see as what constitues sufficient proof, is stated in my previous post in this thread.
What do you mean by sufficient proof? Can a woman be "sufficiently pregnant?" I don't think so. Thank God for that!
As I see it, there is no God, and we ultimately derive out of matter in eternal motion. For the rest your statement could be or is applicable to the concept of matter, which is why we don't need the concept of God.
As you see it? ...

[Mentat]

There's something else that bothers me, about the way you have worded your explanation of Mind hypothesis, lifegazer - which was otherwise worded very well, if I may say so. And that is that you first say that our minds produce our reality. That we can never prove that there exists anything outside of our own minds. And yet you are speaking of more than one person, when you say "minds". Furthermore, you then posit that reality is all the product of one Mind (God's), which would exist externally of our minds. Isn't that contradictory of saying that we can never prove the existence of something outside of our own minds?

[heusdens]

Ok, LG, let's have one more try then to show your whole assumption is dead wrong.

I see a chair. I can feel it, touch it. etc. My conclusion is: the chair is realy there. Someone else comes in. He or she can also feel, touch and see the chair. After communicating our experiences, we conclude we had identical sensory perceptions about the chair. Now, I can state even more firmly: the chair is realy there.

And this is of course not the only experience of a chair or other physical objects, but throughout the whole history of humaniry, we can come up with a huge amount of evidence for this kind of experiences. Almost uncountable numerous experiences.

Although we know to have only limited abilities to experience the physical world, our normal reasoning concludes, and urges us to conclude (not concluding would, as I have show you in examples, be life threatening!!) that the physical world is realy there, and not just an "inner perception".

Ok. Is that absolute proof? Absolute proof in my mind is impossible. But the proof is overwhelming, I would say. It fits our basic needs for understanding our world, it prevents us from doing things that would endanger our lives, and it enables us to utilize our environment for the benefit of us all.

So far, we can not realy doubt this. If that would not be the case, then I would think the amount of traffic incidents would be enormously much higher, cause if in all honesty and subconsciously our human minds would realy think that there was no outside world, then why do we look around us to avoid incoming cars when crossing the streets, for instance?

Our normal understanding therefore has to be that our inside perceptions reflect an outside world.

Now, your statement is, that we have to fundamentally distrust this position we have in life. Cause, in your opinion, there is no "proof" that that realy is the case. Instead, it could just all be an illusion, a decpetion of our minds, that thinks there to be something, while in fact there isn't anything, just our "images" or "awarenesses" bot no real physical/material things that correspond to and are the source of that awarenesses.

Thus far, however, considering all the facts which I include (all human behaviour over all of history, that is based on the "assumption" the material world is realy there, wether this is expressed as so, or not) I should state, that the "assumption" is stated rather firmly, on sufficient logical and empirical grounds.

So, now you come with an argument that in fact, all my reasoning and conclusions which I drew, and which billions of other peoples drew throughout all of history, are most profoundly and absolutely wrong.

Instead of "believing" in what they see, witness and experience, you ask them to drop that "biased" opinion, and tell them they were all wrong. Instead of the real existing world, they experience every day, and have to some extend knowledge about, you want them to "believe" that no such reality is in fact there. Instead of that, the only "real" thing that exits is this Deity, which no one had ever direct experience on.

In other words, you ask people to give up for everything they are and know and experience, to distrust everything they know so far, and to replace this world view with a religious concept of a Deity.

On the basis of what, Mr Lifegazer, are you entitled to decief so many people, and substitue their worldly views with a fixation of your own mind, you yourself most certainly and profoundly do not even believe in yourself?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
There's something else that bothers me, about the way you have worded your explanation of Mind hypothesis, lifegazer - which was otherwise worded very well, if I may say so. And that is that you first say that our minds produce our reality. That we can never prove that there exists anything outside of our own minds. And yet you are speaking of more than one person, when you say "minds". Furthermore, you then posit that reality is all the product of one Mind (God's), which would exist externally of our minds. Isn't that contradictory of saying that we can never prove the existence of something outside of our own minds?

Of course the reality of Mr Lifegazer does not believe the fixations of his own mind, he is just very stubborn in accepting every day life logic, and likes his own ideas so much, he can not help him mentioning them and discussing them over and over again.

Of course the assumption of an outside, objective reality, that is independend of our mind, is an unavoidable conclusion, but one that Mr Lifegazer hesitates to conform direclty, cause that would kill his concept of a Deity, which he likes so much. A Deity however, when consequently reasoned on the basis of his arguments, is not substantially different then the all day material reality we witness every day, and can't be of course.

If we accept the material assumptions, then it can be concluded that the concept of a Deity is an unnecessary addition to reality, or in other words pure nonsense.
His disacceptence of the basic premises, enables him to put forward his own premises (which he denies to proof on their own terms, for obvious reasons) but which ultimately lead to conclusions, that he previously rejected.

So, in an indirect way, he puts forwards the proof (when toroughly and rigourlously reasoned about) of the assumptions, he wanted to disproof.

[FZ+]

That's the point of this thread. There's not one jot of evidence (rational or otherwise) which can prove the existence of a reality outside of our sensory-perception.
And there is not one jot of evidence otherwise. The fact you are posting shows that you do not believe in this particular conclusion. Rather, your life, our lives, are based on the assumption, however irrational, that this is not true. So, are you hypocritical? It seems you are.

Well, I'll just fade into non-existence and leave you to your dreams.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Ok, LG, let's have one more try then to show your whole assumption is dead wrong.

I see a chair. I can feel it, touch it. etc. My conclusion is: the chair is realy there. Someone else comes in. He or she can also feel, touch and see the chair. After communicating our experiences, we conclude we had identical sensory perceptions about the chair. Now, I can state even more firmly: the chair is realy there.
If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.

I can agree on that, but the opponent in this debate, Mr Lifegazer most profoundly rejects my conclusion.

The "use" of the other observer, is to then conclude, based on the rejection of Mr Lifegaser, that this leads to the absurd viewpoint/ position of solipsism, which claims that only my own mind realy exists, and all other things, including the minds of others, are figments of my own mind.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact you can experience the chair for yourself, why do need somebody else to validate it? The "ultimate validation," and hence the "ultimate reality," rests with you. If "you" don't acknowledge for it yourself, then "you" are incapable of learning it.

Heusdens is refering to the postulation (of lifegazer's) that the "chair" is really just a product of my mind; when I touch it, my mind is imposing a reality on my awareness, and the "chair" is not externally "there". Heusdens believes that the fact that someone else can validate the existence of the same "chair", proves that it must externally exist. I could (and lifegazer probably will) of course, argue that there may not really be another person, and you are really just asking your mind to re-validate the existence of that which it has already made you believe exists.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

All you ever did was turning around in circles based on flawed reasoning. But what you never provided was any substantial evidence for this 'Deity'. Not one bit. Neither you or anyone else ever can provide real evidence.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
And there is not one jot of evidence otherwise. The fact you are posting shows that you do not believe in this particular conclusion. Rather, your life, our lives, are based on the assumption, however irrational, that this is not true. So, are you hypocritical? It seems you are.

Well, I'll just fade into non-existence and leave you to your dreams.

Good point.

[Mentat]

Alright, people, let's keep the sarcastic/contemptous remarks to a minimum, please.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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.

Wrong, and I will proof this with one counter example.
I and everyone else, have the awareness of "being there" that is self-awareness or self-consciousness. Even when people have a deficit in all their senses (can't hear, can't see, can't smell, can't touch, etc), still they know they are there. And not only that, also they know that they know that they are there. And they know that they know that they know they are there. Etc.

And the other, more important thing is. You can "say" and "make believe" to others, in a rational way, that there isn't a proof for this "external reality" as you call it, but I am very sure that within your consciousness and being, you are in fact not believing one bit of that. Cause all of your being, both consciousnessly and unconsciousnessly, reflects to the outer world as if it is realy there.

Put it to the test, and decide for yourself one time. Do the experiment, and try to realy assume that nothing that comes to your senses, is realy existing. Try realy hard to imagine that anything that exist, in facts does not exist. If you pursue hard enough, you will then know what your own mind will state to yourself.
Just try it, it can't harm or endanger your life, it's just a thought experiment. The answer that comes up, is realy very simple.

(See also: The Fundamental Question. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876))

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens is refering to the postulation (of lifegazer's) that the "chair" is really just a product of my mind; when I touch it, my mind is imposing a reality on my awareness, and the "chair" is not externally "there". Heusdens believes that the fact that someone else can validate the existence of the same "chair", proves that it must externally exist. I could (and lifegazer probably will) of course, argue that there may not really be another person, and you are really just asking your mind to re-validate the existence of that which it has already made you believe exists.
Heusdens tried saying the same thing to me, but this was my way of countering it. The only problem with Lifegazer is that he needs to learn to merge the idea with the experience--i.e., in the here and now.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Heusdens tried saying the same thing to me, but this was my way of countering it. The only problem with Lifegazer is that he needs to learn to merge the idea with the experience--i.e., in the here and now.

Have you even read Lifegazer's hypothesis. Believe me, that is not his only problem.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Have you even read Lifegazer's hypothesis. Believe me, that is not his only problem.
No, but I have discussed a couple of ideas with him. He seems to be on the "other side of the barrier" so to speak. But then again that's kind of where it all begins, with the "initial idea."

[Lifegazer]

I'm pleased about the interest here. But I'm not pleased about the irrelevance of many arguments, nor of the bickering between certain people.
And Fz... what was that post about? Post a few scathing lines and then declare that you're running-off into the distance. Please... either participate fairly, or don't bother. I'm not going to be drawn into the issue of my persona in relation to my philosophy. The distinction between realisation and manifestation, is that alot of hard thinking about the 'self' is required in order to make the transformation. This is a spiritual matter which would have to be discussed in the religious forum, since religion is about ones feelings. And since I most-definitely don't 'feel' like God, you cannot blame my feelings for my philosophy. My philosophy is an act of reason - not feeling.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

Can you proof to me that this concept of "God" is not equivalent to the concept of "nothingeness" (nothingness being the absence of any "something" that has existence).

The important thing here is of course that it might very well be that you have in your mind established for yourself a concept of some sorts, but concepts themselves don't make things move, don't create universes, or cause existence.

Since I assume you can not proof that your concept is in any way different then a concept of nothingness (of which we already concluded that it is not "something that exists" and thus can not form any reasonable explenation that the world exists, let alone "cause" the world to be) it is therefore no counterproof of the premises that were establised on the basis of materialism, which you claim to have disproven.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, but I have discussed a couple of ideas with him. He seems to be on the "other side of the barrier" so to speak. But then again that's kind of where it all begins, with the "initial idea."

On the other side of what "barrier"?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
On the other side of what "barrier"?
The barrier between what I sense (in mind) and what you sense (in your mind) and that which we experience "collectively," in the here and now.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm pleased about the interest here. But I'm not pleased about the irrelevance of many arguments, nor of the bickering between certain people.
And Fz... what was that post about? Post a few scathing lines and then declare that you're running-off into the distance. Please... either participate fairly, or don't bother. I'm not going to be drawn into the issue of my persona in relation to my philosophy. The distinction between realisation and manifestation, is that alot of hard thinking about the 'self' is required in order to make the transformation. This is a spiritual matter which would have to be discussed in the religious forum, since religion is about ones feelings. And since I most-definitely don't 'feel' like God, you cannot blame my feelings for my philosophy. My philosophy is an act of reason - not feeling.
The post was to point out your philosophy... doesn't work. By your argument, we can at best note that there is a 50% probability either way to the existence of an external reality. Which ever stance you take, it must be an irrational assumption. If you make the assumption that an external reality does not exist, you will get no useful results. You get a view of life that justifies no action. Why do you reply to me? Because you assume I exist. By your argument, there is no reason for you to believe I do exist, so indeed you talk to yourself. And the moment I stop posting, I cease to exist. So why do you reply at all? It means on one level, you have automatically made the assumption that an external reality does exist, and an externally conscious FZ+ is therein. Hence, by communicating itself, you have assumed that the act of communication is an unreasonable action. Because that implies that there is something I know that you don't, that there is external value outside your perception, which is disallowed by your decision. Either that or your assumption itself is unreasonable.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The distinction between realisation and manifestation, is that alot of hard thinking about the 'self' is required in order to make the transformation. This is a spiritual matter which would have to be discussed in the religious forum, since religion is about ones feelings. And since I most-definitely don't 'feel' like God, you cannot blame my feelings for my philosophy. My philosophy is an act of reason - not feeling.
Are you speaking of realization then or manifestation? Feelings can also be construed as gut instinct, and if you could provide something on that level, then perhaps you could provide something that's easier for everyone to relate to?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm pleased about the interest here. But I'm not pleased about the irrelevance of many arguments, nor of the bickering between certain people.


Then will you respond to my counter-arguments?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
The post was to point out your philosophy... doesn't work. By your argument, we can at best note that there is a 50% probability either way to the existence of an external reality. Which ever stance you take, it must be an irrational assumption. If you make the assumption that an external reality does not exist, you will get no useful results. You get a view of life that justifies no action. Why do you reply to me? Because you assume I exist. By your argument, there is no reason for you to believe I do exist, so indeed you talk to yourself. And the moment I stop posting, I cease to exist. So why do you reply at all? It means on one level, you have automatically made the assumption that an external reality does exist, and an externally conscious FZ+ is therein. Hence, by communicating itself, you have assumed that the act of communication is an unreasonable action. Because that implies that there is something I know that you don't, that there is external value outside your perception, which is disallowed by your decision. Either that or your assumption itself is unreasonable.

The question is this. Wether or not Mr Lifegazer says and "thinks" (or thinks that he thinks, or thinks that he thinks that he thinks, etc) that no outside world can be assumed, Mr Lifegazer as a complete human mind system, is practicaly at all levels of his (conscious and unconsciouss) existence, "aware" of this outside world (not just assuming it exists as an outside entity, but reacting accordingly).
Like the fact that gravity puts him in place on his chair, while he writes his posts, without one single atom of his body consciously being aware of that, but just reacting accordingly to the laws of gravity, his stomach digesting the food he had just taken in, and his longues inspiring the air in, needed for his body and mind system to work, etc. The whole of his existence of Mr Lifegazer, is a proof that his theorems make no sense, since else in fact, Mr Lifegazer would not be there.
Minds are strange things, in that anyone is able of making false claims. I can say "I do not exist". I can say "I have shoes on" while in fact going with naked foots. Etc. This is a property of his system, that at no lower level of his existence exists. The atoms and molecules are not able of claiming that there is no gravity. He can not force his stomach to no digest the food he just ate. Etc.
Everything of the system of Mr Lifegazer have to obey the natural laws, which are ultimately based on the "doctrine" of existence.
So all of his whole system, in fact is not much more then a machine, just processing output simuli according to the laws that govern matter. Seen in this perspective, the individual person of Mr Lifegazer does not exists at all, it is just an entity, a very sophisticated one, but just conforms to the laws governing matter.
There is only one exception, he thinks. He can form in his minds concepts of things, or even complete worldviews, that are totally and radically different from reality itself. This is where he thinks, his freedom of mind has a place to be. And all he asks us, is to grant him that freedom, to diametrically oppose common views, knowledge, and proven facts. It's not that he doesn't know those things, or actually believes the things he says, it is just that he shows us that he has the freedom to express them. For no other appearant reasons then to express his freedom (or what he thinks freedom is) to us.

[Iacchus32]

Not to make you feel any more exasperated ... but what if God really does exist?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Wether Mr Lifegazer assumes or not assumes there is a God, and wether he actually believes his statements about that or not, is of course of no interest for the discussions itself.

Really? Don't you think it's important?

The only thing interesting is to see that he uses wrong reasoning to come up with this Deity. First and foremost he rejects:

1- That there exists a material world,

I am saying that my reason rejects a material world because
my reason has shown that reality is completely Mindful.
Our perceptions/senses/thoughts/feelings are real. I'm not saying that none of you exist. I'm saying that none of you are what you think you are. 'You' are an aspect of The Mind itself.

2- The existing material world cannot have a beginning in time.

Of course it can. The Mind just has to start thinking about it.

Since this would imply the appearance of matter from nothing

No it wouldn't. It would imply the appearance of thoughts and images (senses), within the Mind.

and that motion arises out of no motion.

Close your eyes and imagine a scene where you are driving through the country. The space you are moving through is the space-of-the-mind.
Somehow, it is a fact that the mind has the capacity to move through itself. Dreams and fantasies confirm this. Like I said in my first post, we have a sense of motion and balance. Perhaps you can relate it to the sense of 'touch'. But anyway, we feel motion and gravity, nevertheless - to such an extent that we can use these feelings to fuel our imaginations and dreams.
The Mind can move through its own space, even though the Mind doesn't have to travel through real 4-dimensional space.

This follows from our daily perceptions, and hundreds of years of scientific research. We don't want to have that thrown out of the window, just for enabling mythical things to have happened.

I'm not throwing anything out of the window. Everything which we know has its own value. That value doesn't fade. Only feelings change. And attitudes.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not to make you feel any more exasperated ... but what if God really does exist?

I'll invite him for a cup of coffee then and a good philosophical debate, and will go on debating untill even God is convinced he does not exist!

But seriously, it does not come to my mind to actually think there is a God, since "God" is only a human made concept, we have "invented" for some or other purpose.

But your reasoning seems to imply that on some level you think you never can know that. While the fact is, we can. At least to the extend which should satisfy our reasoning system (which have a mind of it's own).

All other and lower part of us, never seem to have this kind of trouble. Our stomach digests the food that enters from the "outside" world, and never troubles itself with the question "does this food realy exist, or just the sensation that evolves". The atoms and moleclues we are made of, realy never question gravity.

In fact, your desperateness, expresses what being human is all about. We all have fears, and we all have limited knowledge, and we all are in any or more ways dependend on others, on nature, etc.

We have to understand that "God" is a sublimation of these fears, and uncertainties that is involved in human existence, now and in the past. In fact the "believing" part of us, is a necessary part of us. When we have insufficient knowledge, yet need to make a vital decission, we can not go around in circular things, but sometimes the world and our being necessitates us to make the best possible guess, which can not be argues on mere reason.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
I'll invite him for a cup of coffee then!
Well He might just take you up on it!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Really? Don't you think it's important?

Yes and no.

Yes, because this is, and can't help to be, an formal and abstract discussion, in which you, who you are, and what you think, feel or believe, is of no importance.

No. Because no matter how hard and how solid I can present my evidence for materialism and the denial of the existence of a deity, I can of course not deny that a belief in a deity and religion as such do exist, and to explain that fact is in fact a total different, but related, discussion.
But this would involve much more then abstract formal discussions, it could or would involve also other sides of one's being into the discussion, etc. I don't think this medium is the best place to discuss that kind of topics.


I am saying that my reason rejects a material world because
my reason has shown that reality is completely Mindful.
Our perceptions/senses/thoughts/feelings are real. I'm not saying that none of you exist. I'm saying that none of you are what you think you are. 'You' are an aspect of The Mind itself.

The aspect of 'mindfullness' of the world is is not as such disputable, but should be considered an integral part of materialism, and the relation between matter and mind, itself. The way in which is done, is better known as dialectical-materialism.

I am aware of the fact that my numerous layers of existence, that ultimately form me, are partly covered and are unconscious. I don't "think" about digesting my food, my stomach and other involved systems do that on themselves, not interacted (most part) by any consciouss awareness or interruption.

I am aware that I don't look upon myself as any other form of unconscious matter, yet I am of the same matter, only enormously more complex, and with an enormously long hisotry of development.

But sometimes I do try to bring such unconsciouss levels into consciousness (like now). We are nothing more then machines. Very sophistaced and self-aware, but we are part of matter, part of nature.



Of course it can. The Mind just has to start thinking about it.

The fact the we as humans, like most other real entities, have this specific form only temporarily, makes it for us very natural to look upon reality this way. Where have we ever encountered as a real experience infiniteness? We haven't. So what we realy state or assume that this is what material existence is about, is beyond ordinary perception. It's quite natural of course to think that, since everything has a begin and an end (also this discussion), so has the world as such.

But the point I was making was this. Even when we think in our imagination that crocodiles can fly, this does not provide for the real world the ability for crocodiles to fly (unless they in a couple of millions of years mutate into birds again..)



No it wouldn't. It would imply the appearance of thoughts and images (senses), within the Mind.

Yes. But we are talking on totally different grounds here. The (first) appearances of thoughts and senses imply the development of a human being after the conception towards a full grown human being.
That is not the appearenc of the world itself, but your awareness of that world. We are speaking about different things.


Close your eyes and imagine a scene where you are driving through the country. The space you are moving through is the space-of-the-mind.
Somehow, it is a fact that the mind has the capacity to move through itself. Dreams and fantasies confirm this. Like I said in my first post, we have a sense of motion and balance. Perhaps you can relate it to the sense of 'touch'. But anyway, we feel motion and gravity, nevertheless - to such an extent that we can use these feelings to fuel our imaginations and dreams.
The Mind can move through its own space, even though the Mind doesn't have to travel through real 4-dimensional space.

We use sometimes the same words in manner of speach, that have different meaning. If my mind "goes somewhere" this does not imply physical motion of any sorts (involving the movement of my complete body) but to "thoughts processes" (which of course are also ultimately material, and therefore necessary imply "motion" as in chemcial/neural stimuli in the synapses and such).

You are stating things about a situation which already contains lots of motions. All parts of your brain and your body, at all levels, are in constant motion. On the atomic level, the chemical level, the cells, and organs, and so on. So, here just applies the laws that govern the matter on the different levels.
But in no way this has anything to do with a state-of-the world in which there was no motion at all (of which I was talking), that comes into motion.

I think it would benefit the discussion if you try to seperate the different meanings, and not use them out of context.


I'm not throwing anything out of the window. Everything which we know has its own value. That value doesn't fade. Only feelings change. And attitudes.

Do you imply that based on this schism in worlview (materialism<->idealism) there is a significant difference in feelings / attitude?
Is believing in God a better feeling/attitude towards live then non-believers? It think that would be very prejudiced.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
We have to understand that "God" is a sublimation of these fears, and uncertainties that is involved in human existence, now and in the past. In fact the "believing" part of us, is a necessary part of us. When we have insufficient knowledge, yet need to make a vital decission, we can not go around in circular things, but sometimes the world and our being necessitates us to make the best possible guess, which can not be argues on mere reason.
Live and learn! ...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Live and learn! ...

... and feel, and think, and do, and struggle, and make mistakes, and learn from them.... etc,

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Now, wait a minute. Something had to impose the pain, didn't it? The mind may be the only thing that knows what pain is (even though that is debatable, given the fact that primitive life-forms can also feel pain), but why would it choose to impose "pain" on itself?

If 'you' feel that you exist within 'this universe', feeling pain is definitely an advantage for keeping healthy and alive... in the long-run. It's an aid to survival.

If it were imposed from an external source

There can be nothing external to a singularity. Which means that there are no boandaries to the Mind. Nothing cannot be touched or reached.

, then it is obvious that the mind didn't choose pain, but your hypothesis doesn't allow for this (commonly held) explanation.

It is concious-awareness of 'you' which does not like pain. 'you' are the product of the Mind's thoughts. 'you' are the pain... and everything else you feel is what constitutes 'you'. But 'you' had no say in this matter. The decision to create pain belongs to The Mind. And it does serve a purpose.

How do you get this past Hurdle's 2, 3, and 4?

Please print the relevant bits. I want the readers to know what I'm responding to.

How do you get knowledge, without awareness?

You don't. We are reasonably and emotionally aware of the existence
we feel through the senses. Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses.

How can I say that I know something, if I'm not aware of it's existence?

You are aware of its existence - through the 5/6 senses, and the attributes of reason and emotion.

Yes, I understand that you are refering to an omniscient Mind, that can know all things - and there's nothing wrong with believing in that - however, the Mind that "knows" these things, would have to be aware of these things first. You do not know something, before becoming aware of it's existence.

If The Mind creates the sense of time/change, then the Mind must understand the changes that are happening before it creates the sensation(s) of those changes. There's no way around this.
The Mind is omniscient in the eternal-moment. Time proceeds it. The Mind is knowledgeable before sensation!

This is incorrect. As Hurdle #3 points out, humans have had wrong assumptions about reality. They would never break out of these misconceptions, if one person's perception of reality was not different from everyone else's.
Pure reason is absolute. Just like mathematics. But whereas mathematics discusses the relations (implying scales of relativity and absolute points of reference - such as '0'; '1'; infinity... ) between the quantitative-value of things, my philosophy centres-around concepts known (by 'us') through the experience of our perceptions.

[Iacchus32]

Is there a difference between saying I "believe" I'm sitting in the chair, as opposed to I "know" I'm sitting in the chair? If so, then that should be the criteria by which you accept anything, even God Himself. Now based upon that, would you say I believe that God exists? Or, would you say I know that God exists?

Yeah, so why can't materialism and spiritualism be viewed as correlatives, you know, like in the yin and yang? Why can't the two halves come together to create the whole? ... The only reason why the schizm is there is because we choose to believe each one as "singular."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is there a difference between saying I "believe" I'm sitting in the chair, as opposed to I "know" I'm sitting in the chair? If so, then that should be the criteria by which you accept anything, even God Himself. Now based upon that, would you say I believe that God exists? Or, would you say I know that God exists?

Yeah, so why can't materialism and spiritualism be viewed as correlatives, you know, like in the yin and yang? Why can't the two halves come together to create the whole? ... The only reason why the schizm is there is because we choose to believe each one as "singular."


Materialism and Idealism are opposites. They form a contradiction.
In dialectical terms: they are a unity of opposites. One supposes the other. Like in capitalism. Capital supposes labor to exist, and labor supposes capital to exist. One can not exist without the other.

But the opposites in a dialectical-unity, because they are opposites, imply struggle. One competes the other.

This same kind of dialectical-unities exists within matter itself at all levels. It's in fact what the world makes go round. Without this permanent struggle and competence, there wouldn't be motion. There wouldn't be anything at all!

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
The post was to point out your philosophy... doesn't work.

But you didn't address any of my post.

By your argument, we can at best note that there is a 50% probability either way to the existence of an external reality.

Incorrect. By my philosophy, it's an absolute-certainty that there is only an internal reality. I do make that conclusion.

Which ever stance you take, it must be an irrational assumption.

It's only irrational if there's no reasoned-support for that stance.

If you make the assumption that an external reality does not exist, you will get no useful results.

Perhaps you need to contemplate the implications of my philosophy. It attempts to provide the impetus for inner-change (of attitude).

You get a view of life that justifies no action.

Far from it. I give a view of life whereby our efforts will change to reflect our changed-attitudes (if that happened). My philosophy is a spur to act, for everyone.

Why do you reply to me? Because you assume I exist. By your argument, there is no reason for you to believe I do exist

By my argument, 'you' do exist. It's just that 'you' don't understand what you are in relation to your own perceptions.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism and Idealism are opposites. They form a contradiction.
In dialectical terms: they are a unity of opposites. One supposes the other. Like in capitalism. Capital supposes labor to exist, and labor supposes capital to exist. One can not exist without the other.
Then what's the difference between idealism and spiritualism? If there is none (according to your original post under the same thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158)), then why can't we view it in terms of "the relationship" between the two? (i.e., materialism and spiritualism).

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you speaking of realization then or manifestation? Feelings can also be construed as gut instinct, and if you could provide something on that level, then perhaps you could provide something that's easier for everyone to relate to?
I don't know what this means. You want me to prove God exists by expressing my emotions? Who would believe that?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what's the difference between idealism and spiritualism? If there is none (according to your original post under the same thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158)), then why can't we view it in terms of "the relationship" between the two? (i.e., materialism and spiritualism).

Spiritualism is a different sort of term, and not a philosophical discipline. It is in a way connected to the philosophy of Idealism.

So let's us stay with the basic terms Materialism and Idealism here.

The relationship I already tried to explained: they are opposited, forming a dialectical-unity, in which one supposed the other.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But you didn't address any of my post.

Incorrect. By my philosophy, it's an absolute-certainty that there is only an internal reality. I do make that conclusion.

It's only irrational if there's no reasoned-support for that stance.

Perhaps you need to contemplate the implications of my philosophy. It attempts to provide the impetus for inner-change (of attitude).

Far from it. I give a view of life whereby our efforts will change to reflect our changed-attitudes (if that happened). My philosophy is a spur to act, for everyone.

By my argument, 'you' do exist. It's just that 'you' don't understand what you are in relation to your own perceptions.
Oh... you can disprove existence. Good luck. All your arguments apparently ever say is that there is no argument for the existence of external reality.

And how do you know I have perceptions?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
And the other, more important thing is. You can "say" and "make believe" to others, in a rational way, that there isn't a proof for this "external reality" as you call it, but I am very sure that within your consciousness and being, you are in fact not believing one bit of that.

Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Spiritualism is a different sort of term, and not a philosophical discipline. It is in a way connected to the philosophy of Idealism.

So let's us stay with the basic terms Materialism and Idealism here.

The relationship I already tried to explained: they are opposited, forming a dialectical-unity, in which one supposed the other.
Just to quote you from your previous thread ...

Originally posted by heusdens
What are the distinctive features of idealism?

1. The basic element of reality to the idealist is mind or spirit. Everything else comes from mind or spirit and depends upon its operations.

2. Mind or spirit exists before and apart from matter. Spirit is the abiding reality; matter no more than a passing phase or illusion.

3. Mind or spirit is identical with or emanates from the divine, or, at least leaves open the possibility of supernatural existence, power and interference.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I don't know what this means. You want me to prove God exists by expressing my emotions? Who would believe that?

If you hold it possible for us to actually believe your hypothese, it would sure be a piece of cake for us to believe also your emotions on that.

[Fliption]

Well, I'm going to interject here because I've seen alot of LifeGazer bashing lately. While sometimes this may be warranted, many times I see the people doing it making sloppy arguments and none of the other bashers bother to correct them or make points. The point here ought to be to get closer to the truth; not to bash LifeGazer.

Heusdens,

I've seen you make comments in several threads lately about materislim versus Idealism. First let me say that I am not an Idealists. But the bottomline is, there is no way you or I can prove or even add credibility to Materialism. I know you are trying and it seems obvious to you but you cannot do it. LifeGazer is correct that all evidence of a material world is recognized through an interpretation of the mind. You really have no idea what a tree is. You only know what your mind tells you a tree looks like. You cannot then proceed to use an object of the material world (like other people) to lend credibility to materialism. Thats not good logic at all. I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.

Absurdity is a subjective opinion here at best. Quantum physics would have been absurd 200 years ago so there is no strong argument here.

If you've seen the movie Matrix, then think about that. No one in that world knew they were not material. There was no way for them to know. None of your "evidence" or arguments would help you a bit in that situation. Even if a LifeGazer (Morpheus) comes along and tells you that you are a program inside a computer, you can't know for sure unless he presents you with the little blue pill.

I'm running out of time and do want to see if I can interject on the other comments but it'll have to wait. I will say that there are alot of concepts being thrown around like "god", "mind", "diety" and worst of all "time". The problem with building arguments around these concepts is that they are limited in definition to what people have been taught or exposed to. I would not be so bold as to claim that since heusdens idea of god cannot exists then the universe must be a cold, meaningless box full of rocks. What might exists inbetween the 2 extremes and do we have concepts that allow us to talk about it? The title of this thread mentioned "god". But too many times that word conjures up images created in Sunday school and noses begin to turn up. This will always turn into the same old debates that have been going on for centuries.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.

Of course it would.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Incorrect. By my philosophy, it's an absolute-certainty that there is only an internal reality. I do make that conclusion.


Yes, but you make it invalidly. There is no logic whatsoever in the leap from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "all reality takes place in The Mind". You simply take a leap of faith at the end, and that is what the chief complaint is.

Everyone agrees that the jump from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "there is a material universe" is also a leap. The thing is, we have to choose one of them.

You claim to have given a proof for the truth of your option, but you have not.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh... you can disprove existence. Good luck. All your arguments apparently ever say is that there is no argument for the existence of external reality.

That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.

And how do you know I have perceptions?

You communicate those perceptions. You act upon them.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.



And there's the mantra again.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
The title of this thread mentioned "god". But too many times that word conjures up images created in Sunday school and noses begin to turn up. This will always turn into the same old debates that have been going on for centuries.
The 'God' of reason is just 'everything'. The Gods of religion are finite and different. It's so simple.
Again, thanks for your open-ness.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Heusdens,

I've seen you make comments in several threads lately about materislim versus Idealism. First let me say that I am not an Idealists. But the bottomline is, there is no way you or I can prove or even add credibility to Materialism. I know you are trying and it seems obvious to you but you cannot do it. LifeGazer is correct that all evidence of a material world is recognized through an interpretation of the mind. You really have no idea what a tree is. You only know what your mind tells you a tree looks like. You cannot then proceed to use an object of the material world (like other people) to lend credibility to materialism. Thats not good logic at all. I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.

Absurdity is a subjective opinion here at best. Quantum physics would have been absurd 200 years ago so there is no strong argument here.

If you've seen the movie Matrix, then think about that. No one in that world knew they were not material. There was no way for them to know. None of your "evidence" or arguments would help you a bit in that situation. Even if a LifeGazer (Morpheus) comes along and tells you that you are a program inside a computer, you can't know for sure unless he presents you with the little blue pill.

I'm running out of time and do want to see if I can interject on the other comments but it'll have to wait. I will say that there are alot of concepts being thrown around like "god", "mind", "diety" and worst of all "time". The problem with building arguments around these concepts is that they are limited in definition to what people have been taught or exposed to. I would not be so bold as to claim that since heusdens idea of god cannot exists then the universe must be a cold, meaningless box full of rocks. What might exists inbetween the 2 extremes and do we have concepts that allow us to talk about it? The title of this thread mentioned "god". But too many times that word conjures up images created in Sunday school and noses begin to turn up. This will always turn into the same old debates that have been going on for centuries.

If you state that on the basis of logic alone we can not distinguish between the credibility of Materialsm and Idealism as formal systems, then you are correct.

But who says we have to narrow our domain of proof by logic alone?

Thus far I have been focusing too much on attacking the formal reasoning of LG, to show him his errors in his thinking, and that he could not construct a real argument, that falsified the premise of Materialism, and thus allowed him to proof the existence of God.

But when asked me directly, what evidence do you have of the premise of Materialism, that there is a material world, evolving and unfolding eternally, I can present it too you.

It is unbeatable evidence.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.
What's the difference between realization and manifestation? Do you mean realize in the sense that the brain uses it to extract reason or, do you mean "spiritual realizaion?" Do you mean manifestation in terms of the "outward appearance" of something, by which it can be observed or, do you mean an "outcropping of feelings," which is subjective.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Fliption
I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.


I know heusdens just made a good response to it, but I would like to emphasize the point:

Logic alone can not settle the issue.

Logic cannot even get us out of our own heads, so to speak. It takes us neither to materialism, nor to idealism. That is why this thread is a waste of time and disk space, because its objective "a proof of god", will never be presented.

Do we have anything besides logic at our disposal?

Yes. We have knowledge of the world, and we have people with whom to compare notes. That knowledge and comparison points unequivocally to one conclusion: that there is a big, wide, universe of lifeless objects moving according to definite laws.

So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, but you make it invalidly. There is no logic whatsoever in the leap from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "all reality takes place in The Mind". You simply take a leap of faith at the end, and that is what the chief complaint is.

I showed that the creation of the sensations was a Mindful creation... an artistic sensory-imagary of universal-reality. Again, I use 'pain' as the obvious example to convey what I mean. Our awareness can only trace the origin of its own perceptions to a subconcious aspect of itself.
Secondly, I added that the attributes of reason & emotion were used to 'judge' these perceptions.
Hence, all known-experience is a Mindful phenomena. Add to that the considerations of the Mind understanding reality before sensing it, and you're left pondering a Mind which has knowledge of the universe prior to sensing it.
I think you've overlooked the details of my post. I did explain why reality had to be a Mindful reality. There is no "leap of faith" asked of by the reader. The conclusion is built. You're just omiting my details.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.

You communicate those perceptions. You act upon them.
No they don't, even if they are valid. They can never prove that there is no such thing as an external reality, just as it is impossible to prove there is NO god. Because by definition, external phenomena is outside your internal existence, and since you say there is nothing but an internal existence, your reason does not extend outside it. Just as science cannot disprove god - you can give an alternative, of course, you cannot say there is nothing beyond your perceptions. Your perceptions themselves are not fit to reach it, and that is the tool you use. Catch-22.

As to part two, that is an awfully materialistic notion is it not? What even possesses you to think I am real, not just a trick of your perception? And how do you believe I am not just a robot, or perhaps a manifestation of your consciousness? Just by talking to me, you are making, by your argument, an unreasonable assumption.

[Tom Mattson]

Details, eh? Let's look "in detail" at the transition from my mind to The Mind.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.


So, your basic position here is that all my perceptions (which we all agree is all I really know) are in my mind. Fine.


Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.


So...

1. All observed phenomena register in my mind.
2. Those phenomena are governed by the laws of physics.
3. Since those phenomena register in my mind, the laws of physics governing them must be laws of the mind.
4. Since we all agree on those laws, they must have come from one mind.

First, #3 is an unjustified assumption. Second, this is a simple non-sequitur, because another conclusion can be reached from 1 and 2, namely:

3. Since we all agree on those laws, we all must be looking at the same material universe.

A valid deductive argument is such that its premises only admit one conclusion. Hence, you haven't proved a thing.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.
Without the capacity "not to know," we have no means by which to gauge what we "do know." So maybe we're just better off claiming ignorance which, is what you're doing by "choosing" materialism.

Knowledge is not wisdom!

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Without the capacity "not to know," we have no means by which to gauge what we "do know." So maybe we're just better off claiming ignorance which, is what you're doing by "choosing" materialism.


???

First, choosing materialism is not an appeal to ignorance. To accept it, I am not obligated to accept anything other than the existence of matter and its interactions, of which there is a great deal of knowledge.

Second, there is no sense in which appealing to ignorance is better. It leads to any one of an infinite number of subjective beliefs. If appeals to ignorance are admissible, then we have not only The Mind, but also Jehovah, Allah, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and invisbile dancing fairies. I would not say that that leavs us "better off".

Third, idealism, which really is based on ignorance, requires us to accept either solipsism or a super-intelligent being for which there is not one shred of evidence. I would say not say that that leaves us "better off" either.

[Iacchus32]

Oh, are you doubting me Thomas? By the way, today is Good Friday.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
???

First, choosing materialism is not an appeal to ignorance. To accept it, I am not obligated to accept anything other than the existence of matter and its interactions, of which there is a great deal of knowledge.
But the crux of the matter is "who" is doing the accepting? And from where does that "who" originate? If the who originates from within, then the who can only acknowledge from within, period. Therefore isn't it possible that the who can acknowledge "a God" inside there as well? It's not requiring you to do anything different, if you really think about it. In fact it's entirely up to you.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the crux of the matter is "who" is doing the accepting?


In my case: I am.


And from where does that "who" originate?


From the interconnectdness of my thoughts.


If the who originates from within, then the who can only acknowledge from within, period.


There is still the so-called Problem of Other Minds. What am I to make of the other people in the world? Are they within me, too? If so, then only I exist. But surely I could never convince you of that, can I? You surely could not convince me that I don't exist.

The above philosophy is called solipsism, and that is where your thinking leads. It ultimately says that, because everything is happening in my mind, only I exist.


Therefore isn't it possible that the who can acknowledge "a God" inside there as well?


By George, you've got it! God is "in there"--in the human mind as an abstract mental object, and nothing more.

LG has got it totally backwards here. Man is not in The Mind of god. God is in the mind of man.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is unbeatable evidence.

I don't mean to be dense. I'm not sure I've understood your post. Where is this evidence?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
I know heusdens just made a good response to it, but I would like to emphasize the point:

Logic alone can not settle the issue.

Logic cannot even get us out of our own heads, so to speak. It takes us neither to materialism, nor to idealism. That is why this thread is a waste of time and disk space, because its objective "a proof of god", will never be presented.

Do we have anything besides logic at our disposal?

Yes. We have knowledge of the world, and we have people with whom to compare notes. That knowledge and comparison points unequivocally to one conclusion: that there is a big, wide, universe of lifeless objects moving according to definite laws.

So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

Well, I'm not sure I understood Huesdens post and I'm not sure I'm understanding you either. If you're going to enter a philosophical discussion that questions the quality of our knowledge obtained through perception, you cannot then choose a side due to the fact that we have knowledge. This is exactly what I was pointing out in my first post. This is like asking the guy who robbed your house to give you a ride to the police department to file the report.

[Iacchus32]

How do we escape the perception of our own minds? There's no way, we can't! Even our awareness of the world is dependent upon it. And yet that isn't to say the world doesn't exist, not in the least, just that we can only acknowledge it through "our perception."

So it's through our perception, which is internal, that we determine what is real, both on the outside and, on "the inside." Hmm... Maybe we should consider it a gift?

[CJames]

Hi lifegazer. This is a great summary of your hypothesis, but again provides nothing conclusive.

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. I agree with everything proceeding and including this point, although I wouldn't necessarily say it is logic that is linking the ideas in every case, I agree with the assertions up to this point. Indeed, this is all we can know. You can't proceed forward from this point.

I agree with the assertions following this, stating that every individual's mind must present observations in a way that is comprehensible to the observer.

We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it.This comes from nowhere. You can't prove this assertion. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Infants do not understand their perseptions at all when they are born, they are clueless. Only by a process of trial and error can the mind finally present a comprehensible picture of the universe.

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.Even had the previous conclusion been correct, this doesn't follow logically. Why, for instance, couldn't each mind simply be aware of a set of rules upon creation? Or why assume that any of the living entities sharing these "laws of mind" even exist, that they aren't the creation of your mind? Since all these multiple conclusions exist, the whole thing's a non-sequiter, as Tom said.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
There is still the so-called Problem of Other Minds. What am I to make of the other people in the world? Are they within me, too? If so, then only I exist. But surely I could never convince you of that, can I? You surely could not convince me that I don't exist.

The above philosophy is called solipsism, and that is where your thinking leads. It ultimately says that, because everything is happening in my mind, only I exist.

The least we could do Tom, is acknowledge that other people exist. Who are both without and within. Of course I may not be willing to take it any further than that, only because the rest is not readily explainable: as most people are externalized and don't see things in the same sense.

Reality has always been there ... but "its perception" begins with, and ends with, "our minds."


Originally posted by Tom
By George, you've got it! God is "in there"--in the human mind as an abstract mental object, and nothing more.

LG has got it totally backwards here. Man is not in The Mind of god. God is in the mind of man.
Then you're saying reality is abstract by the same definition. Yes, man is in the Mind of God, in contemplation of "the God" within his own mind ...

[heusdens]

Some conclusions to the 'hypothese' of Lifegazer.

There have been a lot of remarks on where the hypothese goes wrong.

Let us start with his basic premise. He states that he has a mind, through which he perceives the outside world (which in the case of lifegazer does not exist, but only the reflections of them, in what he calls 'mind', but which he has yet to proof to exist).

Where in the world did he proof this first premise, that he has a mind in the first place? Where? Has he explained us that? Not in the least! We are merely asked to believe that assumption. And no matter how many times he testifies to us, and it even is acknowledged by others, al this does not constitute any proof whatsoever.

We are just asked to 'assume' he has a mind. We don't know however what mind is. Although it is certain that without his body, his mind (whatever that may be) will cease to be. Nowhere in the world we find - what is called - a mind (but has yet to be proven to exist) that worked without a body. Nothing at all we can have evidence of and relate to.

Oh, for certain. We know LG must be a person around somewhere. With a body and a brain. But all we can testify for, is material stuff and properties. We can hear him. We can see him. Touch him. But we do not see his mind, only his actions. We know that up there, in his brain, the world is reflected upon, that somewhere in his brain and neuron system, an image is made of the world he perceives, and he is able to make sensible actions upon his awareness of that reflections. But that just means there is a very sophistocated and very complex machine in there, that is able of transforming the input signals into output signals. Whatever you may call the process that is going on in there, all we can see and all we can know about, are their outside forms, shapes and properties. We can know, through experiments, about what part of his brain is responsible for what kind of functions. But even if we have a complete description of all his interior workings, a map of the wiring of his billions of neurons, and all the properties of all the neurons, and nerves in there, there is no way in which we can say that there is a 'mind' in there. Cause all we can testify for are the material properties we find.

So how does he know, he has a 'mind' in the first place? Or, let him in first instance give us a full and complete description of what the mind is, in terms of things we already know about, the material stuff.

Therefore, we have to refuse Mr Lifegazers hypothese built up around that central and dogmatic premise, because he has no way of prooving that premise. He may vibrate as many molecules in the air as he likes, and sent around as many bit pulses over the entire internet as he likes, or perform whatever other actions he likes, but at no time he is able of convincingly proof us that he has a mind in the first place. His mind is just an imagination he has, not a real thing.

The fact that he is able to testify that he has one, only means that his internal wiring of all his functions, do not make it possible for him to say something else then that. But that knowledge, does not come from reasonal conclusions, nor from the outside world information and conclusions made upon them. In fact, this knowledge he does not realy has, but he is given the impression that he has that knowledge, because of internal functions that do not permit him to testify this in any other way.

[Iacchus32]

It'll never fly ... so long as you remain "fixated" on material things.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well, I'm not sure I understood Huesdens post and I'm not sure I'm understanding you either. If you're going to enter a philosophical discussion that questions the quality of our knowledge obtained through perception, you cannot then choose a side due to the fact that we have knowledge.


I don't really understand your objection, but let me see if I can explain myself a little better.

First, we know that our perceptions register in our minds. From this, I can conclude either that I am looking "out there" or that I am imagining the whole thing.

Second, along comes another person. I talk to that person, and find that she has the same kinds of experiences that I do. From this, I can conclude either that we are both looking "out there" or that I am just imagining her, too. The first option leads me to conclude that there is an universe that we both live in, and the second leads me to solipsism, which is not even internally consistent, so I reject it. Having rejected solipsism then, I conclude that she and I are both part of a larger reality.

Third, I know that my mind is disjoint from her mind because we do not share the same thoughts. So if I am to cling to idealism, I have to fabricate a "super mind" on the basis of--literally--absolutely nothing. Barring that, I accept that the larger reality is made up of the objects that obey the laws I observe them to obey.

Conclusion: I say that materialism is an appeal to knowledge, because it is certain that there is a reality that I am part of and that is larger than myself, and I can know things about it. I say that idealism is an appeal to ignorance because it requires one to believe in a layer of reality beyond what I percieve for absolutely no reason.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The least we could do Tom, is acknowledge that other people exist. Who are both without and within. Of course I may not be willing to take it any further than that, only because the rest is not readily explainable: as most people are externalized and don't see things in the same sense.


I don't understand you at all.

What do you mean "both without and within"? Without and within what, exactly?


Reality has always been there ... but "its perception" begins with, and ends with, "our minds."


So you keep saying. And, no one disagrees. However, I tried to make it clear that the problem of other minds makes the view "all of reality is in my mind" untenable. I don't understand why you won't move beyond this point.


Then you're saying reality is abstract by the same definition.


No, not at all. I'm saying that god is an abstract object, whereas the computer I'm typing this message on is a concrete object. I don't know how you concluded otherwise.


Yes, man is in the Mind of God, in contemplation of "the God" within his own mind ...

This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that I am in the mind of a differential equation when I am in contemplation of solving it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I don't understand you at all.

What do you mean "both without and within"? Without and within what, exactly?Once somebody or something "registers" with your perception, then yes, it becomes part of your "collective experience" as a whole (which is within).


So you keep saying. And, no one disagrees. However, I tried to make it clear that the problem of other minds makes the view "all of reality is in my mind" untenable. I don't understand why you won't move beyond this point.Because my perception, which is clearly in charge of how I view things, tells me not to acknowledge anything that doesn't go along with what's already been perceived. Meaning I don't do things contrary to what I already understand. And hence a sense of "personal accountability."


No, not at all. I'm saying that god is an abstract object, whereas the computer I'm typing this message on is a concrete object. I don't know how you concluded otherwise.Everything is an abstraction to the "untrained mind." And yet once we perceive something, and understand it, then it no longer becomes an abstraction, even with God ... especially! In fact this is the whole crux of the matter, that determines whether one is able to believe in God or not. I mean this is it! ...


This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that I am in the mind of a differential equation when I am in contemplation of solving it. If you view the Universe in terms of being part of God's mind, i.e., whether we realize it or not, then we are all part of the "One Mind" Lifegazer is referring to. Beyond that, if we wish to contemplate our existence within our own minds which, is part of the "One Mind" as a whole, then that's entirely up to us.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
[B]
First, we know that our perceptions register in our minds. From this, I can conclude either that I am looking "out there" or that I am imagining the whole thing.

Agreed.

Second, along comes another person. I talk to that person, and find that she has the same kinds of experiences that I do. From this, I can conclude either that we are both looking "out there" or that I am just imagining her, too.

I'm with you.

The first option leads me to conclude that there is an universe that we both live in, and the second leads me to solipsism, which is not even internally consistent, so I reject it.

But why is it not internally consistent? Earlier you said you rejected it because it was absurd. You said it was absurd because you had "knowledge". Explain how this is inconsistent internally.


Third, I know that my mind is disjoint from her mind because we do not share the same thoughts. So if I am to cling to idealism, I have to fabricate a "super mind" on the basis of--literally--absolutely nothing.


You lost me here. If your mind is creating all that you see, why would you think that you should be able to predict or know what the other imaginary people are like? Can you predict or understand your own dreams? No? Does this mean that a super mind is dreaming it for you?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
But why is it not internally consistent? Earlier you said you rejected it because it was absurd. You said it was absurd because you had "knowledge". Explain how this is inconsistent internally.[/b]

Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.

In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus realy exists beyond the perceptions.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.

In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus realy exists beyond the perceptions.

Hmm, this doesn't help Heusdens. You're relying on the material existence of another person to prove Materialism. This is not a good argument. Again, this is like asking the robber to give you a lift to the police station.

[Lifegazer]

I'm a bit disappointed here. I presented an argument for the existence of God. Of the 70+ responses, I can only find a few posts which have bothered to analyse the process of reasoning used in my initial-argument.
The bulk of this chat has been irrelevant. There are some people in here who think that the correct-method in which to deconstruct my argument is to present one of their own arguments for the defense of materialism. I say x = p; and they say "no, since w = b."! Hence avoiding a public-scrutiny of my own philosophy, by talking about their own.

Some of you have made valid points about my post. I'll try to address them all soon. But what's the point of presenting my own argument, if all you want to talk about is your own? C'mon guys. I want valid complaints about my own argument. Why's the reasoning-process flawed?
This is important. Because if I can clear-up the complaints, then you have to take me seriously.
Thanks. End of rant.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmm, this doesn't help Heusdens. You're relying on the material existence of another person to prove Materialism. This is not a good argument. Again, this is like asking the robber to give you a lift to the police station.

Since other persons do exist, I think the point is made and is valid.
Or it would be that you can honestly testify to have never met any another person. If you do, I am sure you are a lier.

So the only position you can then logically still claim is that you think other people are not real people, but are only part of your own mind. This position is known as solipsism.

Suppose we have two people, A and B. A sees B as part of his mind, and not a real person. B sees A as part of his mind, and not a real person. These claims can't be both justified, so one of them is incorrect, because one has to accept (as put forward by materialism) BOTH people exist, and are seperate beings, and not dependend on the mind itself. it is just recognizing the fact that the things we perceive and are aware of in our mind, correspond to material things, that exist seperately and independendly of our mind.

The way out that Idealists use is to claim that both persons are in fact "thoughts" of a higher being. This means, that also Idealism can not escape from recognizing an outer reality, while still refusing the claim that materialism has, about a material world, that exists independend of the mind.

The problem of this idea is however:
- That this higher being can never be witnessed directly, and has no explenation.
- How to conceive of individual people being just "thoughts" in a higher order mind, and not recognize they have seperate minds.
etc.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens

Suppose we have two people, A and B. A sees B as part of his mind, and not a real person. B sees A as part of his mind, and not a real person. These claims can't be both justified, so one of them is incorrect.

Lol. What you're missing Heusdens is that no one has knowledge of both these claims. If all you know is through perception, you can only know that one of these is true. The other very well may not be true. I'm not telling you what I believe. I'm trying to get you to see that there's a reason this has been a philosphical topic for years. And that reason is that what you think you know, you cannot know. There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

There's no reasoning here. If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.
I think Tom and CJames made a complaint about this, too. They think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!
Your statement, on the other-hand, is an appeal to the senses. It basically asks how two different observers can exist within one Mind. My proof that this can happen is evident within your very-own awareness - in the same manner that two different entities can exist within your own mind, simultaneously.
This could be in imagination or dream. But even when you have a chat with someone, whilst 'awake', you cannot escape the fact that "the chat" has happened inside the mind - inside your senses, with the use of reason & emotion.
All interactions occur at the Mind-level. We cannot confirm any more than this. Hence, the details of my argument are worthy of address. Are you ever going to address that argument?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.
If I was to counter your 'neutral' complaints, people might take notice. What are these "better ways"? I want to shirk no question. Feel free to grill me.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. What you're missing Heusdens is that no one has knowledge of both these claims. If all you know is through perception, you can only know that one of these is true. The other very well may not be true. I'm not telling you what I believe. I'm trying to get you to see that there's a reason this has been a philosphical topic for years. And that reason is that what you think you know, you cannot know. There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.

I think there are many ways of proving tyhe absurdity of LG's hypothese.

However, I do not agree on that statement, and I can explain why. Suppose in real life, two firmly believing solipsists ever meet, and they tell eacht other their beliefs/philosophical viewpoints.
Let us first look at this from the position of person A. He only sees other things as part of his mind of course. He does see person B, but does not conclude there is a real person/mind, like himself, there.
He can however discover, if he is listening carefully, that the other person makes the same claim about reality as he does. Same goes on from person's B point of view. At least this will make both persons doubt there belief.

The issue is that we can make this a theoretical debate. The issue on hand is purely theoretical, in that it would make no sense to even mention such a fictious position of person A and B having a solid trust in solipsism. The point is, why would these persons even be listening to each other, if they don't recognize each other as being a person, like themself, in the first place? All forms of communication would then be in vain. No real communication would be possible, communication would be just monologues.

Not that I think that every communication between persons in daily
life is that very well established. The issue is of course that we see daily many conversations and forms of communication going on, in which we can seriously doubt if there is any real communication. It sure seems as if people are talking much in a way, as if they are the sole person on earth, and don't even recognize the position and reality about the other. The world we live in today is full of chaos and miscommunication, which has much to do with the way we see the world.

I think the world would much benefit from a full acceptance of the reality of the world as it is, and not as how we think it is. Materialism is for that goal the only practical and theoretical basis.

[Tom Mattson]

No one here except heusdens and myself seems to understand what role the rejection of solipsism plays here. Consequently, we are spending way too much time on it. I'll make a longer post on why I reject solipsism later, but for now it is sufficient to make one point clear:

Just about every party involved here reject solipism!

That's right: me, huesdens, LG, we all reject it (except Iacchus).

The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:

1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.

See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.

Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The bulk of this chat has been irrelevant. There are some people in here who think that the correct-method in which to deconstruct my argument is to present one of their own arguments for the defense of materialism. I say x = p; and they say "no, since w = b."! Hence avoiding a public-scrutiny of my own philosophy, by talking about their own.


Sorry, but that's perfectly acceptable. When you do not present a deductively valid argument (and you haven't), then one can effectively illustrate the ill reasoning by showing that the premises can be taken to a different conclusion.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's no reasoning here. If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.
I think Tom and CJames made a complaint about this, too. They think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!

I know that that is the way you escape such conclusions, and on one point, while refusing that point first, have to accept an independend reality outside of your own mind. The difference with materialism though is that you don't think of it as matter, but as mind.


Your statement, on the other-hand, is an appeal to the senses. It basically asks how two different observers can exist within one Mind. My proof that this can happen is evident within your very-own awareness - in the same manner that two different entities can exist within your own mind, simultaneously.

I think this is ultimately very different. The things happening in my mind. for instance at sleep, are in some way reflections on and based on all day life. In my dreams I can imagine/dream to have conversations with other people.

Your position is however, to extend this to all of reality, in which all of reality is takin place within one mind. There is only one mind real, the mind who is dreaming the 'reality'. This 'reality' however consists of seperate minds, which recognize themselves as seperate entities, having their own mind, and also have dreams.

And another point is, that since we know that our mind is attached to a physical body, and our mind would cease to exist when we for instance would not eat for a long time, how to show the existence of such a mind. This can not be proven.
Therefore this theory makes a lot of assumptions, that failed to be proven. Such inconsistencies do not happen on the basis of materialism, which therefore is not such a foolish philosophy as Idealism.


This could be in imagination or dream. But even when you have a chat with someone, whilst 'awake', you cannot escape the fact that "the chat" has happened inside the mind - inside your senses, with the use of reason & emotion.
All interactions occur at the Mind-level. We cannot confirm any more than this. Hence, the details of my argument are worthy of address. Are you ever going to address that argument?

This is not my viewpoint, but the ways as how you look at it.
Your statement is that the only way a person knows about the chat, is the things that happened within his own mind, during the chat.
It might be, for instance, in his later memories, he forgets certain details of what is being said then.
However, we could record the whole chat with a camera. The we can extend, when we later review the chat with that person, the experience of that person, and bring into memory the things he at first forgot. Which means, something happened "outside" the mind of that person too.

About adressing responses to your arguments. Do you mind remembering you that a lot of counter-arguments I already brought forward, were never responded by you? It seems whenever your theory comes into trouble, and sufficient proof has been forwarded by persons replying to your theory, you simply don't respond any more, and start a new thread, where everything goes on from the beginning.

In a serious discussion, you should not esacpe from that so lightly.

Your hypothese by the way, as I see is, is not a 'new' theory, but just a variation (different wordings) of a very well known philosophy, known as idealism.

Things you never replied to are that:
- In real day life you and every other person act and behave as materialist, and accept reality as it is (as independend of one's own mind and material). You never responded to that fact.

- Your whole argument starts out on claiming that the first premise of materialism is false. We have an awareness about a world outside us, but besides our perceptions, there is realy nothing outside there, is your claim. This is of course an incorrect vision, and does not explain reality as it is. You correct that only in a later instance, by claiming that 'God' exists, which is also an outside and independend of our own minds existing entity. This is inconsequent reasoning.

- The premise on which your hypothese rest is that you claim to have a mind. In normal daily use, we do talk about this in that way, me including. But you know that that only is an assumption of course. Same as we in ordinary life assume that there exists an outside reality, which you do in fact not recognize in the way materialism does, and by that you claim that the premise of materialism is not 'proven'. Your premise however, has at least the same difficulties, since it is centred around 'mind'. Where have you ever proven that you have a mind in the first place? What proof have you given of that?

You cannot at one point claim that an ordinary daily fact (that there is an objective material world, independend of our mind) is just an 'assumption' which is not proven, and then put in a premise which is also based on ordinary daily facts (that one has a mind) which neither is proven.

Without that proof, your whole hypothese stands on nothing realy.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens

Not that I think that every communication between persons in daily
life is that very well established.

Don't forget that LifeGazer isn't talking about Solipism. That's not what he believes. Regardless of what the implications are though, i don't nelieve there is a way to refute it and conclude materialism.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think Tom and CJames made a complaint about this, too. They think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful


No, you never did show that. That was your first leap of faith. You cannot go from "perceptions of reality are in the mind" to "reality is in the mind" without making an illogical leap (aka a leap of faith).


before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!


No, you are not so placed. This is your second leap of faith. You never made any valid deduction to get from (many minds)-->(One Mind). A deduction from premises to conclusion does not allow for the negation of the conclusion to be true. But, the premises of this argument do indeed allow for the negation of idealism to be true.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Fliption
Don't forget that LifeGazer isn't talking about Solipism. That's not what he believes. Regardless of what the implications are though, i don't nelieve there is a way to refute it and conclude materialism.
Except... we are not arguing about concluding materialism here. We are arguing about a proof of God. And by the other side of the coin, Lifegazer simply, as a matter of logic, cannot refute and disprove the idea of external reality. Hence, by this argument, God is still unprovable.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
I'll make a longer post on why I reject solipsism later,



I think that's a good idea. I hope it's different from "because my friend says he's really there"


but for now it is sufficient to make one point clear:

Just about every party involved here reject solipism!

What people accept and reject doesn't mean it can be refuted.



The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:

1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.

See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.


I got lost with this.

Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm [/B]

Thanks for that link. I would recommend that Heusdens read it. He/she seems to think it is not a worthy philosophical argument at all. I think this article goes to a lot of trouble to try to refute this view. And even then it's refutation made no sense. I don't believe it can be done.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Don't forget that LifeGazer isn't talking about Solipism. That's not what he believes. Regardless of what the implications are though, i don't nelieve there is a way to refute it and conclude materialism.

Well thank you, but I already knew that of course!
My point just was that taking his first argument (reality exists only in the mind) to be true, this ultimately leads to a position of solipsism. LG escapes that conclusion by making a leap (and shown by Tom to be an invalid leap) from many minds to one mind.

And of course there is a way to proof that the position of Idealism is wrong in so many ways. If one cares to hear them, at least.

But, as can be known from history, the clever Idealists always try to find a way out of this, and continue to attack the position of Materialism by writing a lot of stuff.
This is an important difference with how Materialism is established, cause it needs the practice (the research and experiments) to establish the theory.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Fliption
What people accept and reject doesn't mean it can be refuted.


Right, but it is a different topic entirely.


I got lost with this.


What I tried to show is that we are getting hung up on something that is not even a point of disagreement. Rejecting solipsism must be done prior to accepting god.

Let me explain some more.

#1 Idealism says: All states of existence are mental states.
#2 Solipsism goes further and says: The only mental states are my mental states.

A true solipsist, then, cannot accept a god (unless he thinks he is god). On the other hand, an idealist who understands the force of the problem of other minds and who wants to cling to principle #1 must, of necessity, introduce god.


Thanks for that link. I would recommend that Heusdens read it. He/she seems to think it is not a worthy philosophical argument at all. I think this article goes to a lot of trouble to try to refute this view. And even then it's refutation made no sense. I don't believe it can be done.

Heusdens could probably teach a course on it. He had a post in PF v2.0 on solipsism that I really wish I had copied. Actually, I thought I had copied it, but I can't find it.

I'll get back to this later.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Thanks for that link. I would recommend that Heusdens read it. He/she seems to think it is not a worthy philosophical argument at all. I think this article goes to a lot of trouble to try to refute this view. And even then it's refutation made no sense. I don't believe it can be done. [/B]

I have been reading a lot of articles in this domain of philosophy.
The article provided for by this link, made some good points of why to refute this philosophical point of view.

For instance this argument:

"The proposition 'I am the only mind which exists' makes sense only to the extent to which it is expressed in a public language, and the existence of such language itself implies the existence of a social context. Such a context exists for the hypothetical last survivor of a nuclear holocaust, but not for the solipsist. A non-linguistic solipsism is unthinkable, and a thinkable solipsism is necessarily linguistic. Solipsism therefore presupposes the very thing which it seeks to deny: the very fact that solipsistic thoughts are thinkable in the first instance implies the existence of the public, shared, intersubjective world which they purport to call into question."

If you aren't even able of recognizing the validity of such an argument, it is very arguable if continuation of this discussion has any meaning at all. I would suggest then for you to go on read some articles and books on this issue.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Except... we are not arguing about concluding materialism here. We are arguing about a proof of God. And by the other side of the coin, Lifegazer simply, as a matter of logic, cannot refute and disprove the idea of external reality. Hence, by this argument, God is still unprovable.

Yes, I agree FZ. This is the same reason I was telling Heusdens to attack LG's theory another way. He cannot do so by arguing which is the better theory, materialism or idealism. The idea that materialism cannot be disproven is certainly a better tactic.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
Heusdens could probably teach a course on it. He had a post in PF v2.0 on solipsism that I really wish I had copied. Actually, I thought I had copied it, but I can't find it.

I'll get back to this later. [/B]

Do you know what source I used for that. I know of a lot of philosophers who conquered solipsism.

One piece of literature I could recommend, is to read "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" by V.I. Lenin (1906). Despite the fact that science has since then revolutionairy evolved as well as our understanding of nature, this book is still of interest of those who want to have knowledge on dialectical-materialism, and how it opposes the point of view of Idealism.

Here is a link to this book.

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/)

(search for the keyword "solipsism" and you find many references throughout the whole book).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If 'you' feel that you exist within 'this universe', feeling pain is definitely an advantage for keeping healthy and alive... in the long-run. It's an aid to survival.


It's an aid to keep us from killing ourselves? If our mind produces all of reality, then even our reaction to pain is a product of the Mind.


There can be nothing external to a singularity. Which means that there are no boandaries to the Mind. Nothing cannot be touched or reached.


I'll disregard the semantic error of that last sentence, for now. Who said anything about a singularity? Is this an add-on, to deflect counter-arguments, or was this part of the original hypothesis?


It is concious-awareness of 'you' which does not like pain. 'you' are the product of the Mind's thoughts. 'you' are the pain... and everything else you feel is what constitutes 'you'. But 'you' had no say in this matter. The decision to create pain belongs to The Mind. And it does serve a purpose.


If the both the decision to cause pain, and the decision to make me dislike pain, belong to the Mind, then the Mind contradicts itself. Why should it make us feel pain?


Please print the relevant bits. I want the readers to know what I'm responding to.


Ok, that's a reasonable request.
You said:

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 individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).


Hurdle #4 has to do with the fact that when you leave an area, things continue to happen. Someone can tell you something about what happended when you left the party (for example), that you never witnessed.

Hurdles #2 and #3 have to do with the fact that our perception of reality is not/was not always correct. There was a time when everyone fully believed that the Earth was flat. This doesn't mean that the Earth actually was flat, does it? Hurdle number 2 also goes into the fact that we have dreams, and speculations, that never show up in actual reality. Why does the Mind distinguish between such things/"realities"?


We are reasonably and emotionally aware of the existence
we feel through the senses. Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses.


Yes, and this reasoning is perfectly compatible with the idea that there is an external reality.


You are aware of its existence - through the 5/6 senses, and the attributes of reason and emotion.


This is another important point. Why do we need such senses (or such organs that seem suited for the purpose of housing these senses), if the Mind is just imposing a reality on our awareness?


If The Mind creates the sense of time/change, then the Mind must understand the changes that are happening before it creates the sensation(s) of those changes. There's no way around this.
The Mind is omniscient in the eternal-moment. Time proceeds it. The Mind is knowledgeable before sensation!


This is direct contrast to what the quote before last (above), where in you said (and I quote): "Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses."


Pure reason is absolute. Just like mathematics. But whereas mathematics discusses the relations (implying scales of relativity and absolute points of reference - such as '0'; '1'; infinity... ) between the quantitative-value of things, my philosophy centres-around concepts known (by 'us') through the experience of our perceptions.

Actually, reason is not absolute. Tom has shown, in threads about Logic, that reason can be used to justify most any claims. CJames illustrated this with the Nacho hypothesis[;)].

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If I was to counter your 'neutral' complaints, people might take notice. What are these "better ways"? I want to shirk no question. Feel free to grill me.

Actually LG, I wasn't so much saying that I saw flaws that Heusdens could pick apart, as much as I was saying that the way he/she was going about it was really bad.

But I'll give it a shot. I can follow much of this but there are a few leaps that I cannot make. Some of these may be in the same areas that I've seen Tom commenting on.


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.

I agree.


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 individual 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 whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.


You know. After reading this I'm not real sure that it says anywhere in here that the material world does not exists. If there is a sentence here that was supposed to mean that then I am not interpreting it right. Most of this seems to reiterate the first paragraph above. If I've understood all this correctly then I can agree with this as well.


Additionally:-
We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it.

Now I'm lost. How exactly do we get to a mind that is aware of things "prior" to sensing it? This is the first leap I see.


Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.
Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.


Well again, up until now I have not seen the sentence that claims the material world doesn't exist. The existence of a material world can also be the reason that everyone has the same experience. So you have to get rid of the material world before this conclusion can be made. I guess my lack of understanding the first leap above, causes this conclusion automatically to be a problem.

Let's go from here.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, I agree FZ. This is the same reason I was telling Heusdens to attack LG's theory another way. He cannot do so by arguing which is the better theory, materialism or idealism. The idea that materialism cannot be disproven is certainly a better tactic.
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.

Look, Mr Lifegazer. This is a "discussion board". For the sake of the discussion, I would like to state that discussion is not merely a series of monologue, in which people present their own selfish ideas, and do not listen to the reaction towards their ideas, which invalidate their arguments.

I have presented some "hurdles" for your basic premisis of your 'theory'. Do you care, and respond them?

If you want to continue this discussion in a way of presenting more of your selfish ideas, without responding to the arguments that invalidate these ideas, I hold it that a further discussion is simply fruitless.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I have been reading a lot of articles in this domain of philosophy.
The article provided for by this link, made some good points of why to refute this philosophical point of view.

For instance this argument:


This argument falls under the same traps. It does nothing to defend materialism. And it attempts to argue against solipsism by essentially playing semantic games with the concept of "My mind" or "single mental state". The idea that only multiple minds can create a social context with which to express solipsism in language also implies that a single mind that imagines multiple people, creating this same context, is really not a single mind. It must be multple minds by definition. These concepts can be used to define away solipsism but you can see it does nothing for materialism.


If you aren't even able of recognizing the validity of such an argument, it is very arguable if continuation of this discussion has any meaning at all. I would suggest then for you to go on read some articles and books on this issue. [/B]

No thanks. I don't like for others to do my thinking for me. While you may be able to use this argument above to question my credibility on the topic, I'll point out that it has taken us 7 pages to get to this argument. And it's not even yours. None of your arguments have come close to a legitamate point. And this is what I've been trying to point out. The argument above is a nice try but I honestly do not see how materialism can be concluded with the certainty that you have dsiplayed. Even common sense notions must be defended in philosophy topics. They cannot be assumed.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.

LifeGazer, if you read my last post to you, you will see that I think you should have already argued away the material world. The idea that everyone is experiencing the same laws etc. can be attributed to an outside material influencer if you leave it there. As opposed to what you argued.....that all minds are really one.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. I think I understand what you want me to do. I've given a good argument for my own position; but now you want me to give a good argument against 'external reality'. Is that right?
If you want me to do that, I shall.

Well this is the logical way to go. You see, you have presented an idea (which I still think is flawed, for the previous reasons (also see http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97&highlight=Hurdles+Mind+hypothesis)), and it is - at the very most - on equal footing with the other existing (and commonly held) view. Thus you should now disprove the other view.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
This argument falls under the same traps. It does nothing to defend materialism. And it attempts to argue against solipsism by essentially playing semantic games with the concept of "My mind" or "single mental state". The idea that only multiple minds can create a social context with which to express solipsism in language also implies that a single mind that imagines multiple people, creating this same context, is really not a single mind. It must be multple minds by definition. These concepts can be used to define away solipsism but you can see it does nothing for materialism.

I was not defending materialism, and in this thread that is not the topic. I was just trying to argue that the point of view of Idealism, when put to the extreme, would lead to solipsism, and my arguments were solely to tackle that position because it is unholdable.

I will start (when I have time, and collected the right arguments) a seperate thread on that later.


No thanks. I don't like for others to do my thinking for me. While you may be able to use this argument above to question my credibility on the topic, I'll point out that it has taken us 7 pages to get to this argument. And it's not even yours. None of your arguments have come close to a legitamate point. And this is what I've been trying to point out. The argument above is a nice try but I honestly do not see how materialism can be concluded with the certainty that you have dsiplayed. Even common sense notions must be defended in philosophy topics. They cannot be assumed.

Like I said, I was not even trying to workout a full representation of the position taken in by materialism.
The idealist stand is just to tackle materialism wherever they can, put it's premise under question etc.

If idealism, as it states it is, can stand on it's own, and can replace materialism (which it can't of course), then my arguments against it, are very valid. If materialism has to defend it's basic premise, so should idealism.

I have never seen a reasoned argument for the existence of 'mind' for instance. Yet this is the central and crucial premise of idealism. It is nothing but pre-biased assumptions, but that position needs to be argued profoundly of course, and not just on the basis of assumptions.

For the rest of this discussion I simply state the following:

The identity "LifeGazer" on this discussion board does not have a mind, but his postings on here are just output of a very sophisticated computer connected to the internet, that can analyze written language, and make responds. I call that computer mindless, since it obviously doesn't have a mind. All the computer does is simulate a philosopher. And, as we shall show, a very bad philosopher indeed!

Now let him (if he has a mind, at least!) reason against THAT point of view.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I was not defending materialism, and in this thread that is not the topic. I was just trying to argue that the point of view of Idealism, when put to the extreme, would lead to solipsism, and my arguments were solely to tackle that position because it is unholdable.


As I've read this thread I have seen you make several side remarks that materialism is not only true but it is the only view that holds up to any reason.

Here is an example of it in paranthesis implying "of course" it cannot "replace" materialism.


If idealism, as it states it is, can stand on it's own, and can replace materialism (which it can't of course), then my arguments against it, are very valid.



If materialism has to defend it's basic premise, so should idealism.

I agree completely.


For the rest of this discussion I simply assume the following:

LG does not have a mind, but his postings on here are just output of a very sophisticated computer connected to the internet, that can analyze written language, and make responds. I call that computer mindless, since it obviously doesn't have a mind. All the computer does is simulate a philosopher.

Now let him (if he has a mind, at least!) reason against THAT point of view.

Yeah, I saw this angle made in one of your ealier post. This seems like you are trying to take the logic to an extreme to hopefully show how ridiculous it is. But all you've done is prove the point of solipsism. The idea is that one only has knowledge of one's own mind. LifeGazer cannot convince you he has a mind. The fact that he cannot prove to you that he has a mind is exactly the point of solipsism.

But he doesn't need to convince you that you have one does he? The point of the debate is that as an individual you can only know of your mind. You cannot be certain of the existence of anything else, including other people's minds.

[Mentat]

Let's watch the personal remarks. Heusdens, if you don't like lifegazer's way of talking you don't have to respond at all (a good few members take that road anyway).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah, I saw this angle made in one of your ealier post. This seems like you are trying to take the logic to an extreme to hopefully show how ridiculous it is. But all you've done is prove the point of solipsism. The idea is that one only has knowledge of one's own mind. LifeGazer cannot convince you he has a mind. The fact that he cannot prove to you that he has a mind is exactly the point of solipsism.

But he doesn't need to convince you that you have one does he? The point of the debate is that as an individual you can only know of your mind. You cannot be certain of the existence of anything else, including other people's minds.

Well, all I do is simply use the same kind of strategy he (well, the mindles philosopher simulating program called "LifeGazer", I mean) uses against materialism (which is with reason, the only thing acceptable) against his own philosohpy. I am not defending solipsism or any other idiotic form of idealism of course. I just show him (the mindless philosopher simulating program "LifeGazer") the unreasonability of his own arguments.

The argument is not, and cannot be, that one can only have evidence of his/her own mind, of course. Since most people have family, relatives, and loved ones, friends, we do know that there are "other minds", and have to take them in consideration.

Same as to say that only "I" know what pain is. If that were true, then I would not have to mind about standing on someone else's feet.
But "I" in reality DO KNOW that this other person feels pain as much as I do, since if I am that ignorant about this other person, that person for sure will let me feel what pain is, by kicking me in the *** or something!!

See how realy simple this "philosophy" can be disproven, if one is able at least to put the debate on another level, that of practice?

It is just a pitty this medium does not allow one to kick someone else in the ***.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
You know. After reading this I'm not real sure that it says anywhere in here that the material world does not exists. If there is a sentence here that was supposed to mean that then I am not interpreting it right. Most of this seems to reiterate the first paragraph above. If I've understood all this correctly then I can agree with this as well.

Then I was correct - with reference to my last post. You want me to show why this argument negates an external reality.
I could write a long-post (and thread) about this. But I'm hoping this short passage will suffice:-
If you follow my argument to its conclusion, and can find no fault with it itself, then the idea of an external reality is instantly negated by the conclusion of that argument.
For example; if I argue that the universe is 'white', I've instantly showed that it is not 'black'. I don't also have to explain why the universe is not 'black' - because I've already showed you that it's 'white'. I hope you get my drift.
The point is that if I argue that all observers exist within the perception of One Mind (which is exactly what I have done - unless you find faults with that argument itself), then the space & time within that Mind are obviously an illusion. For in what sense can 'one Mind' be apart from itself, except when deluded?
... It cannot. Therefore, the 'separation' of one observer to the next is merely a 'delusion' (with all due respects) of the mind in respect to the reality of the situation. And if you find that hard to swallow; then consider that **it is impossible to be in a dream (or imagination) without the delusion of space & time interfering with the singularity of your awareness.**

Now I'm lost. How exactly do we get to a mind that is aware of things "prior" to sensing it? This is the first leap I see.

I thought I'd established that the creation of sensations was
by an aspect of the mind itself... since the universe does not know what 'pain' (or whatever sense you'd care to mention) is, does it? If it does, then the universe is an entity unto itself.
There's something within the mind which can transform mathematics into experience. And here resides the pivotal-point of my conclusion.
For if the mind can create sensation in relation to universal-phenomena, then it needs to understand the universal-phenomena before it can even try to represent it, with sensations.
For example, can the artist give a representation of something, without having an understanding of the thing he is trying to represent? I don't see how reason could say "yes the artist can", since the artist always has an idea of what he wants to convey. Likewise, the Mind cannot create the sensations (the artwork) of an external reality which is also 'ordered', unless the Mind already comprehends the mathematics of this order.
Consequently, the Mind understands things prior to 'sensing' them.

The existence of a material world can also be the reason that everyone has the same experience.

I'm not doubting the reality of the perception. Similarly; I could tell you that your dreams are 'daft', but I cannot tell you that you have not had those dreams. The dream is 'real' within the observer. But it is not 'real' externally to that observer.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
The argument is not, and cannot be, that one can only have evidence of his/her own mind, of course. Since most people have family, relatives, and loved ones, friends, we do know that there are "other minds", and have to take them in consideration.
[/B]

Now you have just once again resorted back to common sense notions and you're concluding materialism is correct by assuming that other people do exists. I hope that robber takes you to the bank safely.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Look, Mr Lifegazer. This is a "discussion board". For the sake of the discussion, I would like to state that discussion is not merely a series of monologue, in which people present their own selfish ideas, and do not listen to the reaction towards their ideas, which invalidate their arguments.

I made my points first. It's my argument. And I have commented about the irrelevance of many of these responses. Your methods should be more in-line with those used by Fliption. Whether he agrees with me or not, his style of debate at-least exhibits an open-ness to that debate. You just want to kill the debate with assertions and materialistic propoganda. I cannot reason with you about my own ideas.

I have presented some "hurdles" for your basic premisis of your 'theory'. Do you care, and respond them?

You haven't presented any hurdles to my own reasoning. You've just presented a barrier to hide behind.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No, you never did show that. That was your first leap of faith. You cannot go from "perceptions of reality are in the mind" to "reality is in the mind" without making an illogical leap (aka a leap of faith).

I've shown that the only reality you can confirm is a mind-ful reality... whereby you have senses and then emotionalise/reason over those senses. That is your 'existence'. That's our existence, too. You even agreed with this, earlier.
"Reality is in the mind" is confirmed - regardless of the rest of my argument.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If you follow my argument to its conclusion, and can find no fault with it itself, then the idea of an external reality is instantly negated by the conclusion of that argument.


I'm not sure you understood me. Referring to the idea that everyone experiences the same laws etc. You then concluded that all this experience must come from the same mind. I am suggesting that another reason that everyone experiences the same thing is that there is a material world that instigates the perception. From there we would have to claim that there is only one way for a mind to recognize pain.


There's something within the mind which can transform mathematics into experience.

Right. But why does this imply that 3 separate minds would recognize pain differently?


For if the mind can create sensation in relation to universal-phenomena, then it needs to understand the universal-phenomena before it can even try to represent it, with sensations.

For example, can the artist give a representation of something, without having an understanding of the thing he is trying to represent?

When I first read all this, I thought to myself "what a leap this is". Just like most here are doing. But then I thought about it and I think I actually understand what your saying LifeGazer. I think I now see your point here. But If I do understand it correctly, then another explanation is possible. The mind may be able to represent things because it is the product of these things. This would be the materialist stance. If they can show (which they can't at the moment) that these experiences are not created but are actually just an algorythmic determined output to the external input then they could end this argument. It would also explain why separate minds have similar experiences.

[CJames]

Lifegazer, you have not demonstrated that the external universe is the creation of the mind, only that all observations are made in the mind. See my last post.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.

In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus realy exists beyond the perceptions. And there you have it, solipsism of its own accord is not the answer, and neither is materialism. And that's the Yin and Yang of it. You cannot have "one potential" without the other.

Therefore, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and not, 1 + 1 = 2 ... Welcome to the world of living color!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
No one here except heusdens and myself seems to understand what role the rejection of solipsism plays here. Consequently, we are spending way too much time on it. I'll make a longer post on why I reject solipsism later, but for now it is sufficient to make one point clear:

Just about every party involved here reject solipism!

That's right: me, huesdens, LG, we all reject it (except Iacchus).

The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:

1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.

See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.

Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm
The choice is not between whether to play in left field or right field, but on the whole playing field together. Although I will say that the materialists seem to be playing in "left field," because they won't acknowledge the playing field as a whole--i.e., "One Mind." As for myself, I tend to play somewhere between center field and right field, which isn't to say that I don't cross over to left field from time to time to snag a good catch ...

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
This comes from nowhere. You can't prove this assertion. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Infants do not understand their perseptions at all when they are born, they are clueless. Only by a process of trial and error can the mind finally present a comprehensible picture of the universe.

Here; you're talking about the processes of concious-reason and the acquirement of knowledge. What you think you know results from contemplation of previous experience through the senses.
You're confusing 'ourselves' with 'The Mind'. I contend that The Mind is omniscient in the eternal moment, since its power to reason is not dependent upon the existence of things outside of itself. Indeed, I did show that sensation necessarily does proceed knowledge.

Even had the previous conclusion been correct, this doesn't follow logically. Why, for instance, couldn't each mind simply be aware of a set of rules upon creation? Or why assume that any of the living entities sharing these "laws of mind" even exist, that they aren't the creation of your mind? Since all these multiple conclusions exist, the whole thing's a non-sequiter, as Tom said.
If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.
You think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The choice is not between whether to play in left field or right field, but on the whole playing field together. Although I will say that the materialists seem to be playing in "left field," because they won't acknowledge the playing field as a whole--i.e., "One Mind." As for myself, I tend to play somewhere between center field and right field, which isn't to say that I don't cross over to left field from time to time to snag a good catch ...

That is not a good conclusion about matrialism, it would imply materialism does not recognize mind. In materialism the picture looks like this, the whole field is matter and infinite and which consists of smaller fields that are minds, which are finite. They are the players on the field, they belong to and depend of the field as a whole. Without properly examining the field, they do not know a thing about the field (what is it? how big is it? where does it come from? has it been created by a supreme player?) and can create for themselves all kinds of dilusions.

[Iacchus32]

Do you see my avatar to the left? Now this is an actual effect that I've been able to produce over and over again in my mind when I meditate. Now, unless you know how to do this for yourself, then the whole idea becomes pretty abstract. But, if I were to teach you how to do this (notice how I'm addressing "you" as an actual person?), i.e., you and so and so, and any one else who was willing to participate, then we all might have what we term a "collective experience," and yes, then we would be able to compare notes ...

If you're interested, I briefly describe what it entails in the following thread, The Advent of Color (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429). Also note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension).

[FZ+]

If you follow my argument to its conclusion, and can find no fault with it itself, then the idea of an external reality is instantly negated by the conclusion of that argument.
Wrong. First, a perception based reality from a fundamental mind, which is what you are aiming at is philosophically indistinguishible from one involving an external reality. Secondly, you can not discount the existence of an external reality outside of your internal one, outside your perceptions. The situation is not that of black and white, but rather concluding that black can never exist, even outside of what you see as reality. Even if you are completely right in every way (very disputable), you cannot disprove an external reality. You have merely provided one possibility. Not discounted the other. I could similarly argue reality is supported by a host of invisible rabbits. You can not disprove that assertion, and it is self-consistent. But it may well not be true.

The mind in your hypothesis boils down to a simple fudge factor that makes your ideas exactly the same as that of an external reality. Just as my invisible rabbits are. And you have only shown, can only show perception is mindful. You have not shown the mind is above matter. You have not shown that knowledge is neccessary to create sensory awareness. You have not shown this knowledge cannot come from external reality. You have not shown the mind itself is real. You have not shown that pain etc is not caused by material existence. You have not shown the mind creates the external reality. You have not shown that perception is wholly mindful. Need I go on? You HAVE created an argument that satisfies itself. But you have not shown this is the only argument that satisfies the real world.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is not a good conclusion about matrialism, it would imply materialism does not recognize mind. In materialism the picture looks like this, the whole field is matter and infinite and which consists of smaller fields that are minds, which are finite. They belong to and depend of the field as a whole.
I think it's a very good analogy, at least in the sense that we're speaking about left brain activity (materialism) versus right brain activity (idealism), neither of which is complete unless it incorporates the other. One wants to deal with the "external facts" which are dead (after the fact), the other strives to pinpoint "the essence" which is alive (in the beginning).


From the thread, Knowledge versus Wisdom (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=609) ...

Origianlly posted by Iacchus32
Knowledge is the form (external). Wisdom is the essence (internal).

What point is knowledge? if it doesn't exist to serve wisdom?

Which is more important? The (external) facts? Or, the (internal) experience which leads to the facts?

Is it only knowledge that we seek? (physical evidence). Or, do we seek "context" (and the essence within).

Can life be sustained outside of context? outside of a form designed to suit it? which has not been corrupted or breeched?

What point is a dead corpse? without a spirit or essence to move it?

What point is a dead (physical) universe? without a Divine Essence to set it in motion?

What is an (external) effect without a (internal) cause?

What point is knowledge? if it doesn't exist to serve wisdom? ...
God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive. [/B]

True, but the last one should read the experience of "I", or the experience of the mind in the mind itself. Cause the only mind one can witness and experience directly (from within) is own's own mind.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
True, but the last one should read the experience of "I", or the experience of the mind in the mind itself. Cause the only mind one can witness and experience directly (from within) is own's own mind.
Where does life come from? If it doesn't come from within? It certainly doesn't exist without (of context or form).

So how does life acknowledge life, except that there were a "standard of life" within?

[Lifegazer]

An analysis of external reality.
This argument shall seek to strengthen the validity of my first-post by analysing the credibility of an external-reality which would actually mirror what we are perceiving. In other words, I shall be discussing concepts pertaining to a real 4-dimensional universe, and asking if 'sense' can validate such a reality.

... The crunch-question of this topic now (for many of you) is: Is there an actual 4-dimensional reality, outside of our perceptions of one?
Here, I shall seek to enforce my argument that there is not such a thing, by analysing the actual logic of 'real space' itself.
That space should be tangibly-real (as materialists need to believe) beyond our perceptions of it, opens it up to some telling questions...
What is space?
- It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes. And obviously, there cannot be incremental-motion through 'nothing'. You cannot move through x meters of 'nothing', for example. It's just a complete absurdity of logic. In fact, it's just impossible to move through 'nothing'.
Obviously, 'nothing' cannot fill anything... and motion through it is certainly impossible. So; there must be substance (of sorts) to 'real' 4-D space. Space must be something real. I hope we can agree with this.
So; is this space broken/fragmented, or uniform?
If this thing which we call 'space' is to exist beyond our perceptions of it, then it must exist as a uniform-entity (indivisible), or as a fragmented/divided entity.
The big problem with 'fragmented space', is that all fragmented objects must be fragmented upon/within another medium, allowing for fluidity and division. So, we would need to invent another hitherto-unknown substance to allow for the fragmentation of space. A stage or medium is required, to allow for the expansion and fluidity of space. *Therefore, fragmented-space would require the existence of a hitherto-unsuspected medium: to move through and to fill.*
Clearly; the fact is that we would require, ultimately, that an external reality be founded upon a uniform-medium.
Note that uniform = indivisible/singular.
So, ultimately, any 4-dimensional reality would have to be founded upon a uniform spatial-substance... whether you want to label that substance as 'space', or not. I hope you can see that.
Now, this uniform space - this medium - is indivisible in itself. So, how can anything really move through it? How can there be real movement through a substance that is indivisible? It is not logically possible to move half-way, for example, through an indivisible-medium.
Clearly, motion is just a concept gleaned from the relationship between 'things' which exist within this space/medium; but this concept has no reality beyond the perception of it.
Real motion cannot occur through a real indivisible-medium. And any external reality must, ultimately, be indivisible.
IMO, any rational contemplation of the concept 'real space', leads one to conclude that such a concept cannot actually exist beyond the perception of such a thing. Therefore, I again conclude that 'reality' is completely Mindful.
Thanks for reading.

[CJames]

You're confusing 'ourselves' with 'The Mind'.No, at this point in the argument you were trying to prove that our minds can't understand reality without first having knowledge of its existence. Only afterward did you try to prove the existence of an omniscent, omnipresent "Mind."

Indeed, I did show that sensation necessarily does proceed knowledge.Yes, you did, and how does that prove those sensations aren't real, may I ask?

If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.I assume by this you mean the same reality. Where in this entire thread have you proven that this same reality isn't simply an external reality?

[CJames]

The crunch-question of this topic now (for many of you) is: Is there an actual 4-dimensional reality, outside of our perceptions of one?That is not my position at all. I don't believe the existence of external reality has been proven, I assume one does because it is the only reality I experience. It is impossible to prove either is true. But we must operate with an assumption if we wish to continue living our lives, assume an external reality exists or assume one doesn't. Assuming one doesn't leaves us with the assumption that nothing exists, we can't even logically show that other people truly exist.

To be perfectly frank, LG, the rest of your post is less logical than most of your arguments. Indivisible doesn't imply no motion. You are simply creating a definition of uniform space that doesn't allow motion, that's not how you go about disproving things.

Let's see. An omniscent, omnipresent mind must be uniform, correct? Therefore, it is indivisible. Therefore, individual minds can't be divided out of this Mind. There you go.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
An analysis of external reality.
What is space?
- It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes. And obviously, there cannot be incremental-motion through 'nothing'. You cannot move through x meters of 'nothing', for example. It's just a complete absurdity of logic. In fact, it's just impossible to move through 'nothing'.
Obviously, 'nothing' cannot fill anything... and motion through it is certainly impossible. So; there must be substance (of sorts) to 'real' 4-D space. Space must be something real. I hope we can agree with this.

No. Our full universe - with physical and metaphysical dimensions - can be created with only an empty membrane (and the three processes of movement , isolation and interaction).
Condition: membrane is inifite stretchable and unbreakable
Mechanism: a special manifold.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
No, at this point in the argument you were trying to prove that our minds can't understand reality without first having knowledge of its existence. Only afterward did you try to prove the existence of an omniscent, omnipresent "Mind."

I have mentioned the duality of awareness in my previous topic. The Mind is aware of itself. But by default, this would require that The Mind is aware of its own possible attributes - it is aware of every single thing that it is, or which it can be, as well as being self-aware. It is aware, for example, of being 'us', and this awareness of 'us' is evident through our awareness of ourselves.
You must remember that a shift of awareness can happen within one mind. If this wasn't true, for example, then 'you' could never lose 'yourself' to the reality of your own bizarre dreams. Yet you do. We all get lost in our dreams. Our minds become aware of a different reality to the one it lives in now (the physical-universe with its physical-laws). Its awareness is shifted to another realm of being. And yet it is still 'you' which exists within the dream, even though your awareness of 'reality' has shifted somewhat.
It wouldn't matter what reality you found yourself in. 'You' will always be 'you'.
There is a strong-clue in the previous passage which should tell you that our identity is not a complete-function of the reality we find ourselves in. Fundamentally, there is something 'about you' which is immutable in all perceived realities. That applies to us all. In our dreams, our feelings are consistent with the reality we find ourselves in.

Yes, you did, and how does that prove those sensations aren't real, may I ask?

The sensations are 'real'. Those sensations are our source of universal-perception within the self-awareness. The self is looking within itself, and is seeing a universe. Literally.
Everything which any individual senses and then reasons (to formulate knowledge), is an inner-experience. It is a singular experience. 'I' is 'one'.
So, all of the things which one sees, is happening within the one. They're happening within your mind.
The Mind is independent of its perceptions. Distinct from them. Remember: the Mind itself has created its own 'sensations'. And the sensations are the product of a Mind which knew what was happening before it created the sensation of those events.
Now. I am not advocating that 'you' or 'i' knew what was happening prior to the sensations. But I am advocating that the actual self-awareness (of Divine existence) must exist at the back of our minds (remember the shifting of awareness I mentioned?), and that it knows about the universe prior to sensing it.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
That is not my position at all. I don't believe the existence of external reality has been proven

Why not? You have to say which bit is wrong, and why.

I assume one does because it is the only reality I experience.

As I keep trying to tell you: the only reality you experience is an inner-reality. You've never experienced an out-of-your-awareness experience before. You've only had inner awareness of anything. So, your assumption is not justified, on those grounds.
Your position, philosophically, is untenable. And belief in an external-reality is purely religious. You have nothing rationally-solid to build it upon. Nothing.

It is impossible to prove either is true.

That's not true. But it might be impossible to explain why it is the case.

But we must operate with an assumption if we wish to continue living our lives

Do you think your life takes on less significance by believing my philosophy? That's not true. And you know it.

Assuming one doesn't leaves us with the assumption that nothing exists,

'Assuming' one? Did you bother to read the explanation I gave? I've assumed nothing. I'm the only one here giving reasons for my philosophy, too. It is you who is guilty of blind-assumption here, not me.

To be perfectly frank, LG, the rest of your post is less logical than most of your arguments.

No it's not. Read it again. Think about what I say. Find the fault in what I say. Don't just say that my reasoning is faulty and expect to leave it at that.

Indivisible doesn't imply no motion.

Of course it does. Try moving through an indivisible substance. It's impossible. And if you exist inside an indivisible substance, then you are existing within a singularity. And if you're existing within a singularity, then you're not really moving - except amongst a Mind.

You are simply creating a definition of uniform space that doesn't allow motion,

I am giving you a rational perspective of what the term 'uniform space' should mean.

that's not how you go about disproving things.

In a rational debate, I use rational perspective of concepts. And then I show where they lead. The conclusion about external reality is justified via this argument. A 'real' 4-dimensional external-reality is not a viable option. Not rationally, anyway.

Let's see. An omniscent, omnipresent mind must be uniform, correct? Therefore, it is indivisible. Therefore, individual minds can't be divided out of this Mind. There you go.
Like I said, The Mind shifts awareness. It does not split into two minds. In itself, it is indivisible, regardless of the shifts in perception.

[Lifegazer]

Hello. Not spoken to you before...
Originally posted by pelastration
No. Our full universe - with physical and metaphysical dimensions - can be created with only an empty membrane

An empty-membrane = 'awareness'.
What does a 2-dimensional membrane exist within, apart from the mind?
What exists beyond these membranes? Don't say "nothing", or that entity cannot truly exist. 'Nothing' cannot truly exist next to 'something'. Because something cannot touch nothing.
That's how we can know that existence is boundless, ultimately.
It is impossible for a 2-dimensional membrane to actually exist in a tangible reality. Because it would have to exist next to nothing. And that makes no sense.
I have no idea what the mathematics of 2-dimensional membranes can predict. But I do know that they are not the ultimate explanation for the reality we perceive. Because they cannot rationally-explain their own existence, they wont be able to explain the reality we see, ultimately.

(and the three processes of movement , isolation and interaction).
Condition: membrane is inifite stretchable and unbreakable
Mechanism: a special manifold.
What medium does it stretch amongst? All motion requires a 'medium of motion'. But ultimately, we must be left with an indivisible-medium - something which isn't moving within something else... but which is the source of all motion. And that's an indivisible medium.
Thus, the logic of motion does apply. Motion cannot really occur in an external reality. It can only exist conceptually, through the human experience.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
An analysis of external reality.
This argument shall seek to strengthen the validity of my first-post by analysing the credibility of an external-reality which would actually mirror what we are perceiving. In other words, I shall be discussing concepts pertaining to a real 4-dimensional universe, and asking if 'sense' can validate such a reality.

... The crunch-question of this topic now (for many of you) is: Is there an actual 4-dimensional reality, outside of our perceptions of one?
Here, I shall seek to enforce my argument that there is not such a thing, by analysing the actual logic of 'real space' itself.
That space should be tangibly-real (as materialists need to believe) beyond our perceptions of it, opens it up to some telling questions...
What is space?
- It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes. And obviously, there cannot be incremental-motion through 'nothing'. You cannot move through x meters of 'nothing', for example. It's just a complete absurdity of logic. In fact, it's just impossible to move through 'nothing'.
Obviously, 'nothing' cannot fill anything... and motion through it is certainly impossible. So; there must be substance (of sorts) to 'real' 4-D space. Space must be something real. I hope we can agree with this.
So; is this space broken/fragmented, or uniform?
If this thing which we call 'space' is to exist beyond our perceptions of it, then it must exist as a uniform-entity (indivisible), or as a fragmented/divided entity.
The big problem with 'fragmented space', is that all fragmented objects must be fragmented upon/within another medium, allowing for fluidity and division. So, we would need to invent another hitherto-unknown substance to allow for the fragmentation of space. A stage or medium is required, to allow for the expansion and fluidity of space. *Therefore, fragmented-space would require the existence of a hitherto-unsuspected medium: to move through and to fill.*
Clearly; the fact is that we would require, ultimately, that an external reality be founded upon a uniform-medium.
Note that uniform = indivisible/singular.
So, ultimately, any 4-dimensional reality would have to be founded upon a uniform spatial-substance... whether you want to label that substance as 'space', or not. I hope you can see that.
Now, this uniform space - this medium - is indivisible in itself. So, how can anything really move through it? How can there be real movement through a substance that is indivisible? It is not logically possible to move half-way, for example, through an indivisible-medium.
Clearly, motion is just a concept gleaned from the relationship between 'things' which exist within this space/medium; but this concept has no reality beyond the perception of it.
Real motion cannot occur through a real indivisible-medium. And any external reality must, ultimately, be indivisible.
IMO, any rational contemplation of the concept 'real space', leads one to conclude that such a concept cannot actually exist beyond the perception of such a thing. Therefore, I again conclude that 'reality' is completely Mindful.
Thanks for reading.
Let's tackle this scientifically.

"It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes." : Your argument is wrong but your conclusion is correct. By certain key principles of quantum mechanics, space is indeed not nothing. Rather, it is filled with virtual particles, zero point energy, and is backed by a background of spacetime. The 4 dimensional reality of observable space. Some mathematics, based on experimentation etc suggest the existence of other dimensions which are outside our perception. The idea of either quantised, or non-quantised spacetime does involve the idea of a background "fabric" of spacetime. That is certainly not unsuspected. Relativity deals with it. For the meantime, we assume it is relatively flat. But it is non uniform due to the existence of of gravity changing it's texture. The modern theory of gravity and motion is based on non-uniformity in space. Ever heard of gravitational time dilation? You cannot justify your assertion that "fragmented objects must be fragmented upon/within another medium". Rather, all experimental evidence shows the reverse. All fluidic substances must be non-uniform and fragmented on some level.

Much of this is incidentally true by both your hypothesis and external reality with a constant laws of mind.

Uniform does not equal indivisible. It means indistinguishible, not currently divided, but not indivisible. I do not see how you can get that by any semblence of logic. And you can indeed allow movement, even on an indivisible medium. The medium can change and warp. It can concentrate. And uniform substance does not imply a substance in stasis.

Quantised or "fragmented" spacetime does not require an uniform medium. Water is based on non-uniform atoms and molecules, but does it not have fluidic character?

"Clearly, motion is just a concept gleaned from the relationship between 'things' which exist within this space/medium; but this concept has no reality beyond the perception of it."
COMPLETELY unsupported. Relative motion is indeed the reality of existence. But to say this concept has no reality beyond perception is absurd. Relative motion is the basis of physical laws by post-Einsteinian physics. It is the basis of mass, momentum, time itself. Each are tangibly real, even when unperceived.

"Real motion cannot occur through a real indivisible-medium. And any external reality must, ultimately, be indivisible."
Doubly incorrect, as seen before. And by all arguments, a mindful reality follows the same rules. If the universe has fluidic character as we can see, and you say, then as you say the existence of the mind is also an uniform and indivisible entity. And by this argument, you and I cannot exist. The universe cannot exist. Hence, if your argument is correct, mindful reality is similarly disproved. Fortunately, as shown, your argument is not correct.

"IMO, any rational contemplation of the concept 'real space', leads one to conclude that such a concept cannot actually exist beyond the perception of such a thing. Therefore, I again conclude that 'reality' is completely Mindful."

"IMO" is the only thing that makes this statement correct.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Let's tackle this scientifically.

Sorry; but the correct word to use is "rationally". Especially in this forum. Nevertheless, I'll entertain your complaints...

"It cannot be 'absolutely nothing', because it's supposed to be filling a real 4-dimensional volume with dynamic properties/attributes." : Your argument is wrong but your conclusion is correct.

Which part of my argument is wrong, and why? If you pass judgement on anything here, you need to explain yourself. Please.
And how can a bad argument give the correct conclusion, anyway?

By certain key principles of quantum mechanics, space is indeed not nothing. Rather, it is filled with virtual particles, zero point energy,

Let's note the significance of the use of the term "zero point energy". The rational-understanding of that term infers an energy which exists at singularity.

and is backed by a background of spacetime.

A singularity is not "backed" by anything. A singularity is boundless.
"zero point energy" cannot reside within space or time. Sorry... it's just a logical consequence of the terms which you provide. A singularity experiences no time (change) and is indivisible. Therefore, it's impossible that zero-point energy could be backed by anything, including 'nothing'.

The 4 dimensional reality of observable space. Some mathematics, based on experimentation etc suggest the existence of other dimensions which are outside our perception.

Conceptual mathematics Fz. You obviously didn't consider what I said about making a distinction between things of the mind, and things which can actually tangibly-exist in a world which makes sense.
Did you read my post to 'pelastration'?

The idea of either quantised, or non-quantised spacetime does involve the idea of a background "fabric" of spacetime.

It has no choice. It's the only way to make sense of an existence in motion. Ultimately, there must be a medium for this motion. A uniform medium. An eternal, uniform medium.
But a uniform-medium is a singularity. And nothing can really move in a singularity. But if a Mind is present there, then motion can be perceived.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
It's an aid to keep us from killing ourselves? If our mind produces all of reality, then even our reaction to pain is a product of the Mind.



I'll disregard the semantic error of that last sentence, for now. Who said anything about a singularity? Is this an add-on, to deflect counter-arguments, or was this part of the original hypothesis?



If the both the decision to cause pain, and the decision to make me dislike pain, belong to the Mind, then the Mind contradicts itself. Why should it make us feel pain?



Ok, that's a reasonable request.
You said:


Hurdle #4 has to do with the fact that when you leave an area, things continue to happen. Someone can tell you something about what happended when you left the party (for example), that you never witnessed.

Hurdles #2 and #3 have to do with the fact that our perception of reality is not/was not always correct. There was a time when everyone fully believed that the Earth was flat. This doesn't mean that the Earth actually was flat, does it? Hurdle number 2 also goes into the fact that we have dreams, and speculations, that never show up in actual reality. Why does the Mind distinguish between such things/"realities"?



Yes, and this reasoning is perfectly compatible with the idea that there is an external reality.



This is another important point. Why do we need such senses (or such organs that seem suited for the purpose of housing these senses), if the Mind is just imposing a reality on our awareness?



This is direct contrast to what the quote before last (above), where in you said (and I quote): "Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses."



Actually, reason is not absolute. Tom has shown, in threads about Logic, that reason can be used to justify most any claims. CJames illustrated this with the Nacho hypothesis[;)].

I realize that the thread has gone in different directions, but were you planning on responding to this, lifegazer?

[FZ+]

LG:Sorry; but the correct word to use is "rationally". Especially in this forum.
Nope. I mean scientific. I mean using things that we can empirically observe, and are more or less indisputable. I do not mean doing it by speculation, as you are. And science is implicitly rational, is it not?

If you pass judgement on anything here, you need to explain yourself. Please.
Do read the rest of my post. I go on to explain.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. ZPE and vaccum energies do not require signularities. Singularities are in the middle of a black hole, while hawking radiation, which is how virtual particles manifests itself, is due to interactions at the event horizon of blackholes, where the curvature of space is at a crucial point. This is also good proof to the non-uniformity of the medium of spacetime.

Singularities are matter. They are matter of very high density which are known to us by the non-uniformity of space time in which they exist. The singularity is certainly not boundless. Singularities are singular entities, hence the name. Where did you get that idea from? Secondly, by the implications of hawking's theories, black hole singularities naturally evaporate. When the mass and density disappears, the singularity disappears. The idea the singularity experiences no change is certainly wrong.

Conceptual mathematics Fz. You obviously didn't consider what I said about making a distinction between things of the mind, and things which can actually tangibly-exist in a world which makes sense.
Nope. Incorrect. There is a difference between imagined mathematics and extrapolations from known reality. If I look at a computer and say "the monitor is lit" and therefore the computer is "on". I am making a statement based on my experiences and the photons on my eyes. I am not using my imagination. String theory and similars are like this. It involves tying in groups of real data. It is not a thing of the mind, but the interaction of things of reality.

It has no choice. It's the only way to make sense of an existence in motion. Ultimately, there must be a medium for this motion. A uniform medium. An eternal, uniform medium.
But a uniform-medium is a singularity. And nothing can really move in a singularity. But if a Mind is present there, then motion can be perceived.
You are using the words, but have the wrong meaning. An uniform-medium is not a singularity. That is not at all it's scientific meaning. The medium is not uniform. We know this from reality. The medium is not eternal, and uniform does not imply eternal.
And you still have not realised that if your argument is correct, mind is also uniform and eternal. And hence existence is impossible.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
An empty-membrane = 'awareness'.
A sole entity (on his own) has no reflection because there is no surrounding. Cfr.in Kabbal (Kether: 1) needs the Two to be aware of the difference. In other words you need a mirror to have awareness.
What does a 2-dimensional membrane exist within, apart from the mind?
Where does the mind come from? Show me the creation system. Where come the circular energy from (needed for awareness) and how is it generated?
What exists beyond these membranes? Don't say "nothing", or that entity cannot truly exist. 'Nothing' cannot truly exist next to 'something'. Because something cannot touch nothing.
Why should there something behind the membrane?
If that something is manifolded membrane ... it's possible.
But you are desperate looking for motives to start with a mind that comes from start out of the blue (or has always existed). That's an assumption but not a fact like you present it. It's a 'believe', not a proof.
I have no problem with your believes but don't present as a fact.
That's how we can know that existence is boundless, ultimately.
Existence - if it has consciousness - needs boundaries to isolate separate areas to reflect itself and to create tension differences/polarities to create circulation [/B][/QUOTE]
It is impossible for a 2-dimensional membrane to actually exist in a tangible reality. Because it would have to exist next to nothing. And that makes no sense.
For you it makes no sense. Ask the Mind.
I have no idea what the mathematics of 2-dimensional membranes can predict. But I do know that they are not the ultimate explanation for the reality we perceive. Because they cannot rationally-explain their own existence, they wont be able to explain the reality we see, ultimately.
So you "know" in advance without checking. ;-)
And that's because you don't understand yet the manifolding system.
What medium does it stretch amongst? All motion requires a 'medium of motion'.
"Medium": nice ... this proves you know that separations must be made!
But ultimately, we must be left with an indivisible-medium - something which isn't moving within something else... but which is the source of all motion. And that's an indivisible medium.
Ah ... thus no separation? Isn't this new statement contradicting with your previous statement?
What is your argument to state this? What make you say: "And that's an indivisible medium"; an assumption again in which again you refer to a (separated) MEDIUM.
Thus, the logic of motion does apply. Motion cannot really occur in an external reality. It can only exist conceptually, through the human experience.
This should be a logic step? I think only You and the Mind understand the giant step you made. This is wishful logic.
I repeat: motion needs polarity or pressure differences and thus needs boundaries, thus needs divisions. Then it may stay internally.
Then: why can it only exist conceptually? What make you says this?
And: What is the human experience? It refers to a past, a process of knowledge building. Where and how happened that ? And what was that experience? Experiences of dreams? Where are those experiences stored?

;-)

Lifegazer try to be less absolutistic is your expressions and don't play for the MIND. We have our own. As we want to respect your you should respect ours and try to avoid statements which are not enough motivated.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
As I keep trying to tell you: the only reality you experience is an inner-reality. You've never experienced an out-of-your-awareness experience before. You've only had inner awareness of anything. So, your assumption is not justified, on those grounds.
Your position, philosophically, is untenable. And belief in an external-reality is purely religious. You have nothing rationally-solid to build it upon. Nothing.

Despite the fact the the only reality that is experienced in oneself is the inner reality, this does not mean that that is all of reality. I have for instance no idea what it means to be you, but this does not mean that you therefore have no reality of your own.
I am not a sun, and therefore I do not know what it is to be a sun, and as far as I can make sense of it, neither the sun knows that, cause it misses an "I" that can have sense of itself. Nevertheless the sun is part of reality, according to my mind.

Idealists claim that reality is made up of this subjective reality only. We - in our ordinary case - know that that is not the case. How else does one explain that even an idealist tries not to be droven over by a bus, for instance? Yet this is something, one can experience, and therefore should also be taken account of, when mentioning our sources of knowledge about the world.

The fact is that materialism can be the only solid basis for reality.
Idealists are being caged in their own created fixation of mind, which must be caused by a partial understanding of how the mind realy works, and how it understands things. For people who do not understand this, let us for one moment try to assume that the claim, there is no outer reality (only the mindfull perception of it) would be true. What would that mean to us? How would "I" feel about that?

Our mind must be thought of to be able to function, because we have brains. Different parts of our brain perform different functions. For example one part of the brain is connected to the eyes, and transform the incoming data from the eyes into data that are meaningfull for the brain itself. And there are other parts that do this for hearing, and the other perceptory organs, and other mental and cognitive functions that are performed within the brain.
However, from the way and as far as we understand our own mind, it must be the case that somewhere in our brain, the awareness, not only of "external" data and "internal" data (your emotions, for instance, and inner thoughts) takes place, but also a central awareness of "I" comes into existence. This is of course crucial. Without it, you would not be aware of the fact that you are aware of things. Your brain would project your eye-sight and hearing experience into recognizable form, but if there would not be an "I" being aware of that data, this would be all utterly meaningfull.

The question which arisis is where this feeling of "I" arises. Is it a part of the brain, that shapes this awareness of "I". Or is it a function that is not realy located in a part of the brain, but for which the brain is able of locating it's center of awareness around different parts of the brain. From own experience it can be know that you are able of concentration. For example when listening to music, you are able of concentrating on the hearing awareness completely.
Or any other cognitive activity in which you are involved. Does your center of awareness shift with the cognitive functione being performed?

In your mind you can create your own perceptions. This happens when sleeping for instance, but then the waking awareness is on a minimum, and some spontanious awarenesses occur in parts of the sleep. But it can also happen at will. The mind has of course (partial) knowledge about the outside world. This knowledge of outside objects is stored in some form in the brain. They can be called up from memory at will, and the brain can do transformations with it. For instance, think about a table. In your imagination an image of the table arises. Now you can try to change the image, by imagining different shapes, size, colours, design and material. Our brain can perform that perfectly for us. In short, the brain can portray us every possible image we might want to have of the outside world, without any bother if that corresponds to reality or not. But there are limitations to this, which are in itself quite logical.

For instance you can not look directly into your own eye. You can only do that using a mirror. You can lift things with your arms, yet you can not lift your own arm or body (only baron von Munchausen can do that). And so on.

For the brain for instance it would not be able to imagine itself not being there, cause this would imply that it has awareness of not having awareness, which is self contradicationary, in more or less the same way as the other examples of physical impossibilities of other organs.
So when you are very desperately trying to portray in your brain a picture of itself not being there, your mind will still come up with an image of reality, in which whatever minimal it can be that you are aware of, you are still aware of one-self, necessarily. If you stop have self-awareness..... well then you are dead, but that you will not notice, since then you are no longer there or anywhere.

What we discussed here is that the "inner" workings of our mind, is some different as the working of the real world. For the real world, at some day, it will come true that you will no longer be there, and there was a time, in which you were not born. Internally, you do not have any representation for that (one never has, or can have, an actual experience of "not being there"), and belongs to the "impossibilities". In the real world, you can not take things in or out of existence. Internally however, this is done on the spot. You can imagine of anything that lacks existence in the real world, and can imagine of something not having existence, that in the real world definitately does have existence.

What do we define the world to be? Only our "inner" world of perceptions, although we know there is an "outside" world too?
This sounds suspicious, why limit the world to only the experience that exist in the brain? TRhe realioty means all of reality, and all that has existence. The inner world is subjective, but not entirely subjective. Suppose for example we dream. An outside observer can however detect in our eyemovement that we must be dreaming, although this observer does not know what we are dreaming about.

All of the claims that idealist make, are entirely limited to the "inner" world. In that "inner" world, it is entirely justified to say that all images, or projections we have of material things, are "created" by the "I", that by the way, cannot think about itself not existing. If we name this "I" God, then we have a perfect description of what the Idealist philosophy is about. It is entirely refrained to the inner workings of the brain, the inner world. Despite the fact that it is because of the brain that we can know the world, we know that the world is larger then our own brain.
Idealism is a philosophy that refrains and limits itself entirely to this inner world. It defines the world to be that of what we percieve within our brain. We know on perfeclty rational and solid grounds that not only "thoughts", "emotions", which belong to the inner world exist, but that also stars, bodies, and busses exist.
Materialism is not limiting itself to this "inner" world, although science can only deal to some extend with that, but to all of reality.

If you take the Idealist philosophy out of scope and context, and take their claims for real (God created matter, for instance) then you are completely lost. Cause idealism is not even referring to an outside world. It is talking only within the realms of inner experience, which are up to a certain extend of course real (that is: material) phenomena that are happening within one's brain.
Nowhere you can state that some God/mind that exists outside matter, "created" the world. It just can be stated the the central awareness one has in ones own brain (that function within the brain that makes it possible that the awarenesses that are created in different places of the brain) we can come aware of, or in other words it is the "I" that creates this awareness.

The problems arise however that the idealist philosophy is not just referring to itself as being a theory or concept of our internal functioning within our brain, it makes the false claim that apart from the awareness that exists in one's brain, which are of course part of reality, there realy isn't something else.

We know from reality that things do not come and go into and out of existence "just like that". From our thoughts we know however, that we can create and delete images of reality, without any problem.
From reality we know, there was a time, we were not there, and there will be a time, we are no longer there.
Form our thoughts however, we can never find any clue regarding a time in which we were not there. All we are ever able to find, is the awareness that "I am there", and not a clue of data that concerns the state in which "I am not there". Quitte logical, cause it would be realy strange if the opposite was true.
If you follow this line of thought, it explains that "God" (the self-wareness of "I") is eternal (or even timeless, and not bound to space), and the awareness themselves were not, but were "created" one time. From reality, we know however that the world wasn't created, but exists in time and changes in time, and is endless.

[heusdens]

How do we know about reality?

One way of knowing reality is because, for instance, this apple, which is red, I can know of, because it is realy there, and I can see it is red. A problem would arise however if someone came in, that would have mental and cognitive and sensitory capacities that equal mine, but who would claim the apple was green.
How could we restore the original situation, in which we knew the apple was red, to this new situation, in which we can not claim with certainty the apple is red. At least, we have to take into consideration the fact that the other person, makes a different claim, and on equal grounds. We assume here, both people are not lying, but testify what they see.
Do we doubt in that case the objectivity of there being a red apple?
Well it would for sure be a situation defeating normal logic.
With no other observers available, the situation is a draw. From the situation given, we know that we must attribute equal observer status to both observers, there is not supposed to be a problem in seeing (colour blindness, for instance). How can we know about the colour of the apple?

(I will provide an answer to this later, I hope someone will come up with a plausible explenation that clariefies the situation).

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
How do we know about reality?

One way of knowing reality is because, for instance, this apple, which is red, I can know of, because it is realy there, and I can see it is red. A problem would arise however if someone came in, that would have mental and cognitive and sensitory capacities that equal mine, but who would claim the apple was green.
How could we restore the original situation, in which we knew the apple was red, to this new situation, in which we can not claim with certainty the apple is red. At least, we have to take into consideration the fact that the other person, makes a different claim, and on equal grounds. We assume here, both people are not lying, but testify what they see.
Do we doubt in that case the objectivity of there being a red apple?
Well it would for sure be a situation defeating normal logic.
With no other observers available, the situation is a draw. From the situation given, we know that we must attribute equal observer status to both observers, there is not supposed to be a problem in seeing (colour blindness, for instance). How can we know about the colour of the apple?

(I will provide an answer to this later, I hope someone will come up with a plausible explenation that clariefies the situation).

On the apple:
Go both a step backwards.
Decide to rephrase the terms/definition of red and green by using an external system : a spectrometer or similar that works with a common accepted value frame: numbers. up to 10 = red , 11 to 20= green
Check the measured value and ... smile.

Heusdens ... smile! Don't spent all that time on this issue. Enjoy life and go and get a beer! [6)]

[Iacchus32]

What it is is what is man ... The apple didn't change therefore the apple is a constant. Just as reality is a constant, at least in a materialistic sense anyway. In which case it doesn't matter who or what or how it's perceived.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
On the apple:
Go both a step backwards.
Decide to rephrase the terms/definition of red and green by using an external system : a spectrometer or similar that works with a common accepted value frame: numbers. up to 10 = red , 11 to 20= green
Check the measured value and ... smile.

Heusdens ... smile! Don't spent all that time on this issue. Enjoy life and go and get a beer! [6)]

Yep! Right!

And you might say that to Lifegazer as well!

PS.
You think I am too serious on this? I can't have it when one makes false claims about reality. Esp. idealism has a historic record of making false claims. There is only one reality, and it is consistent.
Materialism and Idealism are in full contradiction in one way, and in absolute harmony with each other, in another way. The point is that we need to have better terminology and define the context to make this explicable. For instance one can use two different concepts of I. The big I that is seeing with his eyes the moon, and experiences seeing the moon. This is the "outer" perception, and is a material context.
The small I that is aware of the image within the mind. The small I is not aware of the real moon, only of the image of the moon within the brain. This is the "inner" perception, and is a mindfull context.
The small I is aware of the big I (or is it the other way around?), and sees it as "God".

Idealism for instance claims:
"Matter is created by mind".
This is a false claim, cause in fact it should read: "the image of matter is created withing the mind", which then can be testified to be true. However, because of the wording, an outer, material context is supposed, which triggers the wrong meaning of the sentence.
And then it becomes non-sense, or simply a false claim.

However, in normal communcations, the default meaning of words is based on the outer, material context. Cause communication takes place with people on the outer level and in a material sense. (we don't connect to each other directly on a brain-to-brain level, but use the perceptory organs to communicate, so this is "outer" context.)
When one wants to express something to someone in the other, non-default context, that is fine, but then please make other people aware you are changing context, and try to make that clear either explicitly or implicitly (by using proper definitions of terms).

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I can't have it when one makes false claims about reality. Esp. idealism has a historic record of making false claims. There is only one reality, and it is consistent.

I think that if anyone can claim to "know" the nature of reality, then it is that person that is making false claims. I think you should type less and go get that beer. I got me one [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think that if anyone can claim to "know" the nature of reality, then it is that person that is making false claims. I think you should type less and go get that beer. I got me one [:)]

You seem to imply that nobody can know the nature of reality. How do you know that?

The statement I made about idealism, is based on the confusion that arises, because the difference in layers of reality involved.

Idealism is for instance not even dealing with matter, but only with thoughts that exist within the mind. A statement as "mind creates matter" is then a mere absurdity, and a false claim.
If it is stated as "the image of the material world is created within the mind", then we have a more meaningfull description, which even materialist recognize as being true.

See what I mean?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens

See what I mean?

Honestly, no. I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense to me. And the way that I know that no one "knows" the true nature of reality in this discussion is because their arguments all have the same old flaws. The way I understand these concepts, trying to prove materialism is like trying to prove 1 plus 1 equals 3. I don't see how it can be done.

[Iacchus32]

"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Honestly, no. I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense to me. And the way that I know that no one "knows" the true nature of reality in this discussion is because their arguments all have the same old flaws. The way I understand these concepts, trying to prove materialism is like trying to prove 1 plus 1 equals 3. I don't see how it can be done.

I know materialism is true, but idealism to me sounds like 1 + 1 = infinity. But there must be a logical explenation for the fact that in some way idealism can be true, and can be meaningfull, but on different grounds.
Because in the frist place, they don't talk about the same reality.
Materialism talks in the firs place of what takes place outside the minds. Idealism doesn't even recognize the outer reality! It doesn't know about anything material! It is only familair with 'mindstuff'.

To see what this means let us create a mental image about this. A picture would be helpfull, but I don't have one.

On a piece of paper draw a large head. Now materialismn talks about the things 'outside' the head, primarily. So for example the moon. Draw the moon outside the head. For idealism, the only thing we are aware of are the things 'inside' the brain, the mind-stuff. So, let's draw the equivalent of the moon, the image of the moon inside the head.
While in idealism, only the image of the moon exist, in materialism both the moon, and the image of the moon exist. But take care: the later 'image of the moon' is not what it is in idealist terms. Because in Idealism that are our thoughts about the moon, and they are not the same as the material things that form that very same thought. In materialism, they are just forms of matter and energy, that are forming this brain activity. We have no means (yet!) to transform this material data back into an 'outside' form that we can understand. Like we cannot attach a device to a part of the brain, and try to see what it represents internally for that person, to someone in the outside world. Perhaps this transformation can be done, at some point in time.

So, each in their own terms, materialism and idealism can be telling the true, but the truthvalue of each reasoning system is only valid within each distinct reality. For materialism, that is the material reality. For idealism, that is the mind reality. The both realities correspond with each other, but, in no way they even touch each other.
The realities are like distinct planes that are parallel. The entitities in each plane are seperate, but have a certain correspondence. (a moon is represented as thought/image about the moon).
Materialism is the outer level, it's reasoning is outside -> in.
Idealism is the inner level, it's reeasoning is inside -> out.

Materialism is true within itself. Idealism is too (it just needs to have some terms redefined, so we don't mix it up with materialism).
As long as your are in the materialist frame, you won't discover any contradictions. Same for idealism. Only problem comes when you try to mix things. If you say in idealist terms that "matter is created by mind" then you realy mix things up. There is no matter in Idealism! Only thoughts, concepts, and other mind stuff!!

As we have stated, Idealism, is the mind projection of the surrounding world onto the brain. Materialism describes the whole material world in terms of matter. Idealism describes the projections of all the outside, material things in concepts understood by the mind.

Both describe the complete world in total. So, also materialism can talk about things in the brain. But they do that in different terms as idealism does.

Note that everything gets projected. So also yourself, must be projected inside into an 'I', the part or function of the brain that is realy aware of things (compare it with your computer, it's the CPU that 'knows' os things, no other part of the computer is). The same is true for the whole of the universe, etc.

If you are forcing yourself to think about a reality in which nothing is existent, what you ultimately come up with is that this little I, that is inside oneself aware of the thoughts that it has, then must at some point seriously doubt the existence of you as a whole person.
This can not be performed (in computer terms it would be called a hardware failure, invalid operand, or something like that). What your inside will come up with, is that it cares about itself, and the little I sees the big I as it's 'God'. That is your meaning of existence, programmed/hardcoded in your brains. The little I can not think about the big I not being existent (it has not data to verify upon that..hmmm when was the last time i was switched on? ****! no date about that! imposible operaration! it might conclude anything, like for instance that it will conclude that it has eternally existed. Inside that is true. From outside knowledge, we know that makes no sense, these two conclusions do not match of course).

You can also see this as follows: materialism is more related to the hardware side of things, idealism is related to the software side of things.

Basically when defining reality, we have to take into account that both realities exist. Each have their own set of entities that have meaning within that reality. Both are describing all of reality, but in a different way.

That's why it is not either materialism OR idealism, but we need a description of reality that fits both realities, and the correspondence that exist between them, and in which the relation between being and thinking is resolved in a more meaningfull way.

The best approach to this known to me is dialectical-materialism.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism talks in the firs place of what takes place outside the minds. Idealism doesn't even recognize the outer reality! It doesn't know about anything material! It is only familair with 'mindstuff'.

I have no idea who you are talking about. But my philosophy does not ignore the reality of my perceptions. What I perceive is really being perceived. All I say is that what is being perceived is inside a Mind. And I have actually demonstrated this to be the case. Our experience of existence is utterly 'inner'.
Do not think that my philosophy renders-meaningless the perceptions we have. It just infers a new identity for ourselves, amongst what we are sensing.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I have no idea who you are talking about. But my philosophy does not ignore the reality of my perceptions. What I perceive is really being perceived. All I say is that what is being perceived is inside a Mind. And I have actually demonstrated this to be the case. Our experience of existence is utterly 'inner'.
Do not think that my philosophy renders-meaningless the perceptions we have. It just infers a new identity for ourselves, amongst what we are sensing.

I know that you cannot know that. Cause my reasoning is ultimately based on a materialist world perspective, and you do not accept that reality. All you can talk about is your inner reality, that is a projection of the bigger reality around us (and in us too, of course).

Your reasoning is as follows. In my mind I have an image, a thought about something. All I know and can ever know is, are things that are refrained to my own mind, and the concepts that it knows. The mind doesn't know real apples, it only knows about the image or the projection of the apple that has been formed inside, the mindstuff.

Your reasoning is inside out. It stops as soon as it reaches the physical limit of your brains and brain power. Your world is the size of about 1 large football, and defininately finite in size and in time. You have no ability to know what is outside that, or before that. In order to know that, you must become 'God'.

We have different opinions on things, cause we use different concepts.
"The world" means in materialist terms the material stuff of which everything that is made, and that is infinite in extent, and is around, outside and in us.
"The world" means in idealist terms only those things, as they have been projected/transformed into meaningfull concepts within the mind itself. It knows about the thought about the moon, but not about the moon itself.

When I say, the world, the universe, is infinite and unfolding inifinitely in time, you claim, no that can't be true. It's definately finite and had a beginning. So which one is true, since this seems to contrast each other? Well it makes sense (from my point of view) to say that all you are talking about, is not the real universe (since this does not exist within your reasoning, only the projections inside of you) but is only the idea's, images, projections of the real universe into your thought. Well your brains are limited in size, and have begun at some time. So you think therefore the universe must be that way also.
You claim for instance 'I cannot know X'. I can make a statement that says: 'I do know X'. Have we totally different minds? No. It's just that we have used different concepts for 'I'.

As I said before, you have to 'tunnel' yourself into existence, and look at things from outside in, instead of inside out, and look at the big reality also some time. Escape from your self-created cage of mind. It can be done. Or do you think all materialists make false claims?

The big problem with your philosophy is that it tryes to draw people back into the historic time, at which mankind did not have knowledge about the material world. Why would one refute that? What is the purpose for that?

Your kinf of 'knowledge' which proceeds from the inside, and tries to reason from there, stops of course where your brain tissue stops. But for the outside world itself, it is of course ridiculous to claim that it is limited to that! That is reasoning in a very naive and childish way. You have the reasoning capabilities of a child. it has the ability to learn, but it refuges to accept that knowledge. Very stubborn, very stubborn indeed. You are reasoning in empty space, and the sole reason for that is because a lot of your brain cells miss any content. It would be time you gave those brain cells an excercise, and learn them how the reality realy looks like!

History progresses forwardly, not backward. We don't want backwardness, we will need the knowledge we have accumulated through science very badly, to run this planet in a bit more decent and human way!

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by pelastration
A sole entity (on his own) has no reflection because there is no surrounding. Cfr.in Kabbal (Kether: 1) needs the Two to be aware of the difference. In other words you need a mirror to have awareness.

Who is it that is looking in this mirror?

Where does the mind come from? Show me the creation system. Where come the circular energy from (needed for awareness) and how is it generated?

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 that The Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity, I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.
The Mind is the source of all sensations. It gives sensory-energy to its own awareness.

Why should there something behind the membrane?

Where would this membrane be existing? Within 'nothing'? That's not possible. No thing can touch 'nothing'. Therefore, the membrane would have to exist within another 'medium'. Hence, the membrane cannot be acclaimed as the fundamental source of universal-phenomena. It's just logically impossible.

But you are desperate looking for motives to start with a mind that comes from start out of the blue (or has always existed). That's an assumption but not a fact like you present it. It's a 'believe', not a proof.

Every one of my conclusions has a reasoned explanation. Every one.

I have no problem with your believes but don't present as a fact.

I am presenting conclusions from rational-argument. Those conclusions are valid unless you show the reasoning to be flawed. You're not even addressing my reasoning.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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 that The Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity, I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.
The Mind is the source of all sensations. It gives sensory-energy to its own awareness.

Where would this membrane be existing? Within 'nothing'? That's not possible. No thing can touch 'nothing'. Therefore, the membrane would have to exist within another 'medium'. Hence, the membrane cannot be acclaimed as the fundamental source of universal-phenomena. It's just logically impossible.

Every one of my conclusions has a reasoned explanation. Every one.

I am presenting conclusions from rational-argument. Those conclusions are valid unless you show the reasoning to be flawed. You're not even addressing my reasoning.

I think the above is all abstract non-sense.
Your philosophy is a 'limited edition' of reality, it's the projection of the material reality in the brain. Outside of that, in your philosophy, nothing exists.

You are talking here not about the world outside your brain, but you are just talking about the inside tissue of your brain. It consists indeed of two halves of brain tissue, and looks like it, when strected out completely, has the shape of a membrane that is folded/pelestrated inside itself.

But don't try to make people think that your 'inside' reality has anything to do with the world outside of that. Because you know, you cannot do that. Not because I say so, but because that is the foundation and pillar of your own philosophy.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your reasoning is inside out. It stops as soon as it reaches the physical limit of your brains and brain power. Your world is the size of about 1 large football

Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity. I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

, and defininately finite in size and in time.

Our perceptions have an origin - The Mind itself. Anything which is linked to this origin is 'finite'.

You have no ability to know what is outside that, or before that. In order to know that, you must become 'God'.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

We have different opinions on things, cause we use different concepts.
"The world" means in materialist terms the material stuff of which everything that is made, and that is infinite in extent, and is around, outside and in us.
"The world" means in idealist terms only those things, as they have been projected/transformed into meaningfull concepts within the mind itself. It knows about the thought about the moon, but not about the moon itself.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

As I said before, you have to 'tunnel' yourself into existence, and look at things from outside in, instead of inside out, and look at the big reality also some time.

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

Escape from your self-created cage of mind. It can be done. Or do you think all materialists make false claims?

I think materialism is intuitive. The tree I can see across the road does appear to be apart from me by several meters. And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.
As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true. This includes an awareness of 'space'.

The big problem with your philosophy is that it tryes to draw people back into the historic time, at which mankind did not have knowledge about the material world. Why would one refute that? What is the purpose for that?

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

History progresses forwardly, not backward. We don't want backwardness

It doesn't matter what you want. Materialism will not survive the 21st century (IMO).

we will need the knowledge we have accumulated through science very badly, to run this planet in a bit more decent and human way!
Science and knowledge are not rendered useless by my philosophy. Our perceptions are ordered.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity. I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

Our perceptions have an origin - The Mind itself. Anything which is linked to this origin is 'finite'.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

I know about your arguments and that of many other arguments that idealists use (read my own trhead about it, where it represents those ideas). I can show you that it does make sense to talk about an outside reality, a material reality. Not that you would accept it, because even the words 'sense' and 'knowledge' are something completely different then the terms I use.

To make this point, let's use an anology here.
Let us for instance say that the computer I am using, is able of presenting a Word document. And I can proof you that it has that capability. The claim is about the ability of the complete system.

Your reasoning goes then as follows, to attack this claim. You say that inside the computer there is nothing that has awareness itself.
All components inside the computer have their own functioning. At several levels the computer contains all forms of data, and transforms these data. There is only one element in which this data gets processed, which is the CPU. The CPU knows nothing about Word documents. So your claim is that the computer is not able to present Word documents. And that outside the computer with all it's components, nothing can be known, only what is inside the computer.

Your claim makes sense in one way, but only when using your standards of reasoning/defining. You make the transition for example of computer (whole system) to CPU (processor). Then you loose the point we are talking about. Cause the computer in total is realy able of presenint a Word document (no problem), but that knowledge is not in the CPU, but in the computer in total.


My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

In your reasoning you are talking about a different world, or at least a different outlook on reality.
But the world is the world. Only you refuse to see things in their materialist terms, because either you hate them (for no appearant reasons), or you simply did not learn to think in materialist terms.

Your reasoning system is more simple and therefore more naive as mine, cause you stand on the perspective of the CPU and it's outlook on 'reality', while I reason from the capacity of the whole system. That is an important difference.

Your equivalents are: the CPU is what is called 'I'. The computer ios what is called 'God'.
My equivalents is: The CPU is inner awareness. The computer that is me.

(And god does not exist).


That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

Yet it is possible. Shall I show you how my compoter represents a Word document??

(see the above anaology)

I think materialism is intuitive.

Materialism conforms to the outer reality, and is very usefull to communicate in the real world, in which different minds exist. These mind do not communicate with each other direclty (in terms of the mind itself), but use there 'presentation layers' for that.
Idealism would be the perfect outlook on reality, if I would be the only person in the world, and needed to communicate within myself only.


The tree I can see across the road does appear to be apart from me by several meters. And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.
As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true. This includes an awareness of 'space'.

Who says that I ain't aware of that too?
You advocate something that has some (limited) meaning on itself, but which is not the only reality, or outlook on reality, in fact it is a reality that is a shrunken version of the real reality, but nevertheless is a reality on it's own (the point however is that it is not the only reality, but that point can not be seen from 'within' that shrunken reality).

The problem is that it is rather helpless in dealing with reality. It is therefore a naive outlook on reality. Only science based on materialism can be helpfull to succesfully produce real knowledge about the world. Knowledge needs to be verifyable. All your claims about your inner reality, also need to be proven, based on science.

We have to deal with real reality. Not the fixations of our minds as such. For this world to become a better place for everyone, we need scientific educated people, not relogiuous fanatics.

We better increase the budgets for science education.

There is a way however to increase your point of sight, from a 'singularity' to a full blown up universe. It is called inflation.
This will create a universe from a near-singularity. Hope that it will do the trick for you.


My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

How do you know it's original. I am not accusing you of having copied it, but I can not imagine that this argument has never been used before. Have your read Berkeley?


It doesn't matter what you want. Materialism will not survive the 21st century (IMO).

Materialism is the only way to help us in this forthcoming century, and protect us from a world which clearly is in chaos. Know why?
Just because of the religious inspired movements (fundamental christianity/ capitalism, conquering the arab/islamic world again, which inflicts arabic/moslinm fundamentalism).

Science can be of much help to solve the problems of the world. But instead not science or knowledge rules the world, but big money enterprises and all kinds of religiuous ideas do that.

You have obviously not had much knowledge about materialism, and are even unaware of the most modern form of materialism, which is dialectical-materialism. This is a very rich and profound reasoning system.

[(Q)]

Lifey

Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity.

Impossible. I exist and you exist as separate as can be. I think completely different from you in almost every way shape and form. Proof enough that we are not one.

I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

The use of scientific terms to describe an imaginary concept is quite popular with those who do not understand the terms.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

Your argument does not use reason to explain anything – if it did, we would agree.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

Our worlds are very different. Yours is one of imagination and fantasy while mine is firmly based in reality. This alone will dictate our decision making process in almost every way.

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

That is double-speak. Your talking in riddles.

And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.

Would that make you a sap?

As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true.

Yes, and the universe disappears when I close my eyes. This is in fact true.

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

No it isn’t – Buddhism also advocates the concept of the “boundless singularity.” It defined the foundation of the Dharma.

Science and knowledge are not rendered useless by my philosophy.

That’s a contradiction. Everything would be rendered useless with your theory. There would be no point to existence, knowledge, understanding, creativity, family, etc. It would all be for naught.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.

[heusdens]

LG:

You have a kind of reasoning that states things like 'I can't know that'. They are based of course on your worldview, Idealism, that denies the existent material world in the first place, and only determenines it to be the world that is known within the thoughs, the thinking process and such. Instead of the capacities of the full human mind and body (which is how I see myself as 'I'), you only reason from far and deep within, where some inner awareness exists, that has a very limited outlook on reality. You define knowledge to be that what can be perceived by that center of awareness.

And you are right. When you base your knowledge on that worldview, then indeed it can be proven that you cannot know anything about the outside, material world. That is the crucial point, since because the outside world exists, it means that this philisophy is wrong.
It comes down on having a wrong point of view.

For people who base themselves on a broader vision of reality, this becomes immediately clear. If you pertain and persist however to leave your point of view, then of course this does not come to your mind, and never can.

It is therefore clear that Idealism is not a very fruitfull attempt to describe reality in the first place. Because it chooses a definition of reality, which limits it's scope to that what is know to the inner awareness within the mind. As if we should limit our capacities of knowledge to that inner awareness only, and don't want to take into account the capacity of the full system.

The reasoning is as absurd as claiming that a computer is not able to present a Word document, cause the CPU has no knowledge about Word documents, only about 32-bit words.

Nevertheless, the computer can present to us a Word document, which falsifies the argument. Wether or not the CPU is in fact not knowing what it is doing, is not of any interest of course!
Who cares about what the CPU would 'know' or does not 'know' as long as the computer does what it is supposed to do.

You must have a very narrow mind to claim that the point of view of the CPU is the only thing one can know. It's childish and primitive, and does not belong in the modern world.

[Mentat]

Heusdens, I agree with other members who say you are taking this too seriously. Remember, it wont affect your life, or lifegazer's, whether he is right or not. I don't mean that you should abandon reasoning on it, altogether (I myself started at least three threads, before, attacking the hypothesis), I'm merely suggesting that you not let it matter so much to you whether lifegazer listens to you or not.

[chosenone]

If you want to debate whether god exist or not,ask jesus he's coming back,or did he.well he's suppose to anyway!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chosenone
If you want to debate whether god exist or not,ask jesus he's coming back,or did he.well he's suppose to anyway!

You are making the same mistake as Iacchus32: confusing "God" for "God of the Bible". The God of the bible is nothing like lifegazer's God. In fact, lifegazer's hypothesis leaves no room for the God of the bible.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, I agree with other members who say you are taking this too seriously. Remember, it wont affect your life, or lifegazer's, whether he is right or not. I don't mean that you should abandon reasoning on it, altogether (I myself started at least three threads, before, attacking the hypothesis), I'm merely suggesting that you not let it matter so much to you whether lifegazer listens to you or not.

Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality, which in fact have nothing to do with reality. I know that Lifegazer is not listening to any of the arguments, as they don't have a meaning to him at all. So, my arguments can only have meaning to people, who are not entangled in the kind of reality that LG presents them.
In itself it can be a fruitfull discussion, just how to discover how reality works, and set aside one's biasess, and make full use of one's reasons capacities.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
[B]Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality,

Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

[(Q)]

Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

Why should this even concern you? Who are you to tell other members when and what to write, or whether they should or shouldn’t respond?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

Why should this even concern you? Who are you to tell other members when and what to write, or whether they should or shouldn’t respond?

I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense. This seemed like the kind thing to do, and I hope that heusdens doesn't think me as nosy as you seem to.

[(Q)]

I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense.

You presume too much and your concern is honorable albeit however distant from the cause -- but I think we are all grown-ups here and can handle ourselves, thank you very much.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense.

You presume too much and your concern is honorable albeit however distant from the cause -- but I think we are all grown-ups here and can handle ourselves, thank you very much.

In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member? It shouldn't even be your business if I really am being as nosy as you implied earlier.

BTW, I understand that heusdens is capable of "taking care of himself", as you put it. That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

[(Q)]

In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

Well, considering the fact that heusdens has already posted a thread, with giant posts (compared to most that I've seen, except perhaps DT Strain's posts...) that attack the hypothesis. And considering the obviously disapproving tone of heusdens' posts. I think that mine was a safe assumption. Besides, I'm not the only one who thought so (if you look back, you'll see a couple of invitations to "have a beer").

Look, you've side-tracked the thread. If you have a problem with me personally (as you seem to), just PM me.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.
Don't be so hasty to make that conclusion.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Don't be so hasty to make that conclusion.

Forgive my presumptiousness. Doesn't your hypothesis call for a God who's mind is the source of all reality? This is not compatible with the God of the Bible, who created a universe, seperate from Himself, and interacts with humans as though they were seperate (and free-willed) entities.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by (Q)
In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

I appreciate the concerns here. I will take note of that.

But now, about how to proceed here.
We know the debate here is about an absurd hypothese. We can proceed in two different ways.
One is performing an effort in trying to make reason out of it, and communicating to the person who dropped this hypothese, where his errors are.
Or, in case we think that attempt is only futile, we can at least state what gives us profound reasons to state that the hypothese is incorrect

And a third position is of course to not take note in total of this.

I reason for myself as follows. This is a philosophy discussion board, and we should proceed in this debate taking it for a profound discussion on our very basements of knowledge.

The topic is very central to philosophy itself. It is a discussion which goes on for about 2000 years or more. There is a lot of histroric material available on the subject. So this for me means there is purpose in discussing these things.

And to me, I find it learnfull and knowledgeable to take the challenge in showing where and why Idealism is wrong and why Materialism is a better perspective on reality.

If I can this make clear to LG himself, I can not say. I do not know in how far he actually believes it himself. He can only partly believe it of course, it is not possible for anyone to take full account of Idealism. Or you would run into a bus very soon!

The purpose is to develop here a good form of reasoning, and which constitutes sufficient proof to make sure that such a hyopthese is false.

I think we are not there yet. But I know we can.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

I appreciate the concerns here. I will take note of that.

But now, about how to proceed here.
We know the debate here is about an absurd hypothese. We can proceed in two different ways.
One is performing an effort in trying to make reason out of it, and communicating to the person who dropped this hypothese, where his errors are.
Or, in case we think that attempt is only futile, we can at least state what gives us profound reasons to state that the hypothese is incorrect

And a third position is of course to not take note in total of this.

I reason for myself as follows. This is a philosophy discussion board, and we should proceed in this debate taking it for a profound discussion on our very basements of knowledge.

The topic is very central to philosophy itself. It is a discussion which goes on for about 2000 years or more. There is a lot of histroric material available on the subject. So this for me means there is purpose in discussing these things.

And to me, I find it learnfull and knowledgeable to take the challenge in showing where and why Idealism is wrong and why Materialism is a better perspective on reality.

If I can this make clear to LG himself, I can not say. I do not know in how far he actually believes it himself. He can only partly believe it of course, it is not possible for anyone to take full account of Idealism. Or you would run into a bus very soon!

The purpose is to develop here a good form of reasoning, and which constitutes sufficient proof to make sure that such a hyopthese is false.

I think we are not there yet. But I know we can.

Well, one thing you should realize is that you are going on the premise that this is an absurd/irrational hypothesis. Perhaps considering the possibility of it's being right would help you to make more constructive arguments. That's what I did.

[(Q)]

Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

Sorry heusdens, Mentat was high jacking the thread and I was trying to get it back on course.

[heusdens]

About LG's hypothese.

Let me first state that this hypothese is in no way new, although the exact wordings and exact reasoning is different from most other Idealist viewpoint, nevertheless it is definately closely linked and belongs to the philosophical school of Idealism.

Second thing is that at the very basis of this and any other hypothese, there is reality as it is, wether we know, can know, or not, that forms in ultimate sense the basis of any reasoning. Wether this or that hyopthese is correct or not, absurd or not, the only arbiter in this 'game' can be reality itself.

There is reality, and there is the thinking about reality.
These are two different things. The thing to accomplish is, to give a prescription, definition and explenation of reality, as thinking, that fits reality itself. The thinking part is ultimately part of reality itself.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality, which in fact have nothing to do with reality.

Absurdity? My argument is excellent. And you know it.

I know that Lifegazer is not listening to any of the arguments, as they don't have a meaning to him at all.

You're quite a character. You have yet to address the body of my argument. You're too busy defending your own cause.

So, my arguments can only have meaning to people, who are not entangled in the kind of reality that LG presents them.

Brainwashed people. That's correct. Anyone with an open mind would definitely take notice.

In itself it can be a fruitfull discussion, just how to discover how reality works, and set aside one's biasess, and make full use of one's reasons capacities.
Are you Alexander in disguise?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, one thing you should realize is that you are going on the premise that this is an absurd/irrational hypothesis. Perhaps considering the possibility of it's being right would help you to make more constructive arguments. That's what I did.

Why would it be necessary to consider the possibility that the hypothesis is right for making constructive arguments?
As soon as I do that, I rob myself of the very arguments needed to proof that the hypothesis is absurd.

The point is of course that Idealism bites itself in the tail. If you follow the point of reasoning, after accepting the premise, you are already dragged into this, and there is no way out of it.
It is quite logical that a philosophy or formal system, can not be proven incorrect on the basis of it's own premises.

There can be only one arbiter to the debate, which is the reality itself, that forms the basis for all philosophical debate.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Forgive my presumptiousness. Doesn't your hypothesis call for a God who's mind is the source of all reality? This is not compatible with the God of the Bible, who created a universe, seperate from Himself, and interacts with humans as though they were seperate (and free-willed) entities.
I don't see the distinction. I advocate that God created the universe (in his mind) which is within himself, but not truly "separate" from himself. He interacts with humans as though he was the humans himself (God is all things). 'We' have free-will because our actions and thoughts are Its actions & thoughts.
You would have to work harder than this to deter me from thinking that my God is different to the one of the bible.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Absurdity? My argument is excellent. And you know it.

Yes. Absurdity. The kind of absurdity that while talking about reality, and that in fact there is no such thing about reality, cause all we know about are 'inner perceptions', at the same time you step aside for avoiding that a bus might drive over you. That kind of absurdity.

And your hyopthesis has many more of course. And you know it has!


You're quite a character. You have yet to address the body of my argument. You're too busy defending your own cause.

Well, look at yourself. From my perspective, that is what you should do!


Brainwashed people. That's correct. Anyone with an open mind would definitely take notice.

Hear hear! Taking the word 'brainwash' in the mouth.
Let us see now. I put two fingers in the air. I ask, how many fingers do you see? You say 2. I say, no, you are wrong, you don't see any fingers, cause the fingers are not even there, only in your thoughts.

Now, that is what I would define as 'brainswash' and so is all of religion!


People who are educated in science, know better as your appeal on ignorance.

[heusdens]

Waiting for proof...


This thread is about proving your absurd hyopthesis, which adapts to a version of reality, better spoken of as 'inner reality'.
As far as it knows of anything in reality, it defines reality as that what takes places between the ears.

It comes up with the concept of a mind that can be aware of anything, that takes place within the mind itself.

But where did you proof in the first place that a mind as such exist?
Doesn't it need to be proven first?

What part of you is aware of anything? If you adapt to the common sense view as that this must be located somewhere in the brain, and is a function that the brain, which is a material existing organ, is performing, then tell me. What part of you is responsible for awareness? What do you refer to as 'I'.

[heusdens]

How do I know something?

I know I can ride a bicycle. How do I know? Cause I ride my bicycle.
Is that sufficient proof which is based on reality?

No. At least not in the mind of Lifegazer. Cause he tells then that the bicycle does in fact not exist, only in my mind it does.

How do I know, from withing my mind, this bicycle does exist, and that my legs exist, and that I can perform the will power to coordinate all my muscles and keep my balance in such a way as that the 'bicycling' is performed?

Realy, that is too complex.

So, do I know how to bicycle? I do not know if I know how to bicycle, all I know is that I did it.

There are only two ways to proceed here, in defining 'knowledge'.
One is to state from the fact that someone performed the bicyling that one knows how to bicycle. I would go from that point of view.
The other is to state that since we do not know all the things involved in the whole process of bicycling, that we do not have that knowledge. LG would state that is the case.

Well, in that case I would claim, if that is the way you claim that knowledge is defined, then knowledge does not exist.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Waiting for proof...

In my initial argument, I showed you all two vitally-important facts:-
1. The awareness of sensation is a Mind-created phenomena.
By using 'pain' as my obvious example, I was able to show you that all of your sensations are Mind-given.
Are you going to dispute the reasoning here? Directly please.
2. I also showed that a Mind cannot create ordered-sensations unless it already possesses knowledge to do so. The conclusion is obvious: The Mind has universal-knowledge before creating the sensation of it.
Are you going to dispute this fact?

Unless you can dispute these facts to this forum, then your arguments are worthless to everyone. For in these two facts alone, the idea of God is firmly established: as an all-knowing Mind which has the power and capability to create the ordered-sensations of universal existence upon itself, countless times-over. If you ignore these points again, then I can only doubt your sincerity.

This thread is about proving your absurd hyopthesis, which adapts to a version of reality, better spoken of as 'inner reality'.

My philosophy is based upon the absolute-truth of known existence. A sensed-existence. An inner-sensed existence. This is the experience which we all share. Nobody knows anything about anything, without understanding the order present within his own sensations.
The sensations of the Mind are the source of known existence. The attributes which 'decipher' these sensations, are reason & emotion - two more aspects of the Mind.
Everything you sense, and everything you think, is a Mindful-experience. My theory is built upon the absoluteness of this statement.

[FZ+]

Every one of my conclusions has a reasoned explanation. Every one.
I would point out now that you have yet to respond to my complete rebuttal of your "disproof of external reality". I remind you that hiding behind unrevealed "reasoned explanations" does not help to convince anyone.
Proof is and never will be based on belief and opinion.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In my initial argument, I showed you all two vitally-important facts:-
1. The awareness of sensation is a Mind-created phenomena.
By using 'pain' as my obvious example, I was able to show you that all of your sensations are Mind-given.
Are you going to dispute the reasoning here? Directly please.

With great pleasure. First: you didn't define me what 'Mind' is or not is. So I have a huge gap in knowledge there, and all the rest is now becoming rather diffuse.

I would still state that pain involves the following things:
1. An outside occurence. For instance something material that enters your skin.
2. A perceptorary organ. A nerve sensor, that detects the phenomena, and transmits that to the brain.
3. The awareness of that withing the brain.

Since I do not know what mind is, I can not make any statements regarding that.


2. I also showed that a Mind cannot create ordered-sensations unless it already possesses knowledge to do so. The conclusion is obvious: The Mind has universal-knowledge before creating the sensation of it.
Are you going to dispute this fact?

You go on here refuting to tell me what 'Mind' is and what 'knowledge' is. I do not know what 'Mind' is or what 'knowledge' is. Can you tell me? Explain me those in sensible terms. And don't avoid to mention to tell the material basis, or you will end up making no sense at all!

All what is needed to say here is that the system that was able to detect for instance pain, is a functional system, already in place.
Where or what is the knowledge?

One might ask sensible things like: where does the nerve system come from. We can then further discuss the material basis of nerve systems within organic living matter, and how it evelved in time.
That is a fruitfull attempt.

Your statements don't mean anything to me. It's just wully bully bull ****.


Unless you can dispute these facts to this forum, then your arguments are worthless to everyone. For in these two facts alone, the idea of God is firmly established: as an all-knowing Mind which has the power and capability to create the ordered-sensations of universal existence upon itself, countless times-over. If you ignore these points again, then I can only doubt your sincerity.

I can only state firmly, that the term 'God' which is referenced here, has no internal representation. So what do you mean?
I can not proceed untill you make explenations which make sense to me. 'God' for me is a placeholder for missing knowledge, and has no material basis, and therefore misses an important quality: existence!
Such a fruitless concept is out of the question to be further involved in serious debate.

The idea of God is just the idea of God. What can I tell?
We also have the idea of nothingness. But as it is a language concept, must it therefore be a meaningfull concept in reality too?
Don't think so.

You miss in total the relevant point, as for instance, what do you call your awareness and where does it reside, what is consciousness, what is knowledge, etc.
You have not explained them, in fact you call upon ignorance to go for beliefs about these things, instead of real knowledge.

What you call 'real' I call illusions.


My philosophy is based upon the absolute-truth of known existence. A sensed-existence. An inner-sensed existence. This is the experience which we all share. Nobody knows anything about anything, without understanding the order present within his own sensations.
The sensations of the Mind are the source of known existence. The attributes which 'decipher' these sensations, are reason & emotion - two more aspects of the Mind.
Everything you sense, and everything you think, is a Mindful-experience. My theory is built upon the absoluteness of this statement.

I told you again and again that absolute truth and absolute knowledge is not a viable concept. From what grounds you think there is such a thing as absolute knowledge? From 'God'?

Absolute truth and absolute nonsens are known to be very close relatives. Since you speak about 'absolutes' you speak nonsense.

Our proceedings in this universe are from relative knowledge to better relative knowledge. There is absolute knowledge in the infinite time perhaps, but not in the now or later, or any time.

Sensations of the 'Mind' are not sources of existence. That statement fails to be able to be proven in reality, which is the theater and arbiter in this discussion/debate.

Sources of existence are known and proven to be the material forms of existence. Without that, anything is inexistent.

You say that nobody knows anything about anything without knowing the order present within one's own sensation.

That is a definition of knowledge, I do not accept.

If I can ride a bicycle, all that is important is that I am able of performing that, and does not require me to understand all of my actions involved therein.

If I would accept that kind of nonsense, then you would say that nobody knows how to drive a car, cause very few people understand all of the inner working of a car.

This comes finally to this. Using your terminology and flawed concepts, for humans there is no knowledge whatsoever, and only 'God' knows everything, who happens to not exist, so that leaves us with no knowledge whatsoever.

Clearly a flawed concept. Humans have knowledge, but the knowledge is relative.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In my initial argument, I showed you all two vitally-important facts:-
1. The awareness of sensation is a Mind-created phenomena.
By using 'pain' as my obvious example, I was able to show you that all of your sensations are Mind-given.
Are you going to dispute the reasoning here? Directly please.
2. I also showed that a Mind cannot create ordered-sensations unless it already possesses knowledge to do so. The conclusion is obvious: The Mind has universal-knowledge before creating the sensation of it.
Are you going to dispute this fact?

Unless you can dispute these facts to this forum, then your arguments are worthless to everyone. For in these two facts alone, the idea of God is firmly established: as an all-knowing Mind which has the power and capability to create the ordered-sensations of universal existence upon itself, countless times-over. If you ignore these points again, then I can only doubt your sincerity.

1. But it creates it with reality. You have yet to show that the mind is wholly responsible for these sensations, and so you cannot continue this argument. Pain does come about without a physical stimulus.

2. This is not disputed. The mind is based on data from experiences. And these experiences come from reality.

Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation. Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself. The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. But it creates it with reality. You have yet to show that the mind is wholly responsible for these sensations, and so you cannot continue this argument. Pain does come about without a physical stimulus.

2. This is not disputed. The mind is based on data from experiences. And these experiences come from reality.

Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation. Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself. The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

ALL his arguments are circular of course.

I keep saying here that such a debate, if it at all should occur on here on a Physics form in the Philosophy section, is very misplaced.

He takes the point of view of religion. There is a subsection, in which people with lesser minds can put their flawed concepts of reality in there.

[heusdens]

There is reality and there is the thinking/interpretation of reality.

Do we see in reality God? No we don't.

So if we come up in a theory of reality with this concept, which does
not has a representation in reality, this proofs that this theory is not a real representation of reality, but has a flawed concept and consistency.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Do I need to say anymore?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation. Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself. The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

He has DEFINED reality just to be that. It is the naive outlook of a small child. When it experiences pain (for instance it fell from it's bicycle), it must hold something/someone responsible for inflicting that pain on him/her. It's just a very naive and primitive outlook on reality.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. But it creates it with reality. You have yet to show that the mind is wholly responsible for these sensations, and so you cannot continue this argument. Pain does come about without a physical stimulus.

But this is an assertion. You don't know that there is an external event, because you only have knowledge of an internal event. That's the point of my whole thread. And what is undisputable, is that the Mind itself has created sensations such as 'pain' upon its own awareness.

2. This is not disputed. The mind is based on data from experiences. And these experiences come from reality.

The Mind cannot create sensations mirroring the order of our universe unless it has prior knowledge of what the universe is about (prior to having the sensation of an event, the Mind must have knowledge of that event).
Clearly, The Mind does not merely know what it has sensed. The Mind has sensed what it already must know. It is the awareness of being lost within those sensations which has created 'human knowledge'.

Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation.

How have I failed? All experience of existence comes via created-sensations. It's impossible for you to counter that. Reality is sensation... combined with reason; emotion; will; etc..

Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself.

That's all anyone can link to existence. You seem to be confused. Would you like to tell us about your experiences beyond your sensations and reason; emotion; will... ?

The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.
The argument works because it reflects the reality of our experiences. It doesn't ask, for example, for the reader to simply 'believe' that sensations exist, since the reader knows exactly what I'm talking about, through direct-experience.

Materialism, on the other hand, is an appeal to take you beyond those sensations. It asks you to accept that there is an external reality, mirroring those sensations of yours. But it cannot give you any proof - rational or otherwise - that this is the case.
And then when I also posted an argument to show why an external-reality doesn't actually make sense (a few pages back), the construction of this argument was also largely-ignored. But the conclusion merely strengthed my own position.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
With great pleasure. First: you didn't define me what 'Mind' is or not is. So I have a huge gap in knowledge there, and all the rest is now becoming rather diffuse.

You don't know what your own mind is like? I was assuming that you were a sentient-being.[;)]
Mind is the sensations, plus reason; emotion; will...

I would still state that pain involves the following things:
1. An outside occurence. For instance something material that enters your skin.

The assertion of an external-reality is not supported by your knowledge about inner-experience. You must see that.
Do you also see, again, how you have just totally-evaded the 'fact' I presented and asked you to address? You never addressed it.
The fact is that The Mind itself creates the sensation of pain. You cannot dispute that. So the fact remains solid. It then leads to the second fact, which you've again ignored - that the Mind itself has knowledge before experience and without sensation.

Your statements don't mean anything to me. It's just wully bully bull ****.

Thanks for the laff!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't know what your own mind is like? I was assuming that you were a sentient-being.[;)]
Mind is the sensations, plus reason; emotion; will...

You are referring here to some 'common sense' knowledge, which you assume I must have. Wether I assume or know (or think to know) I have a mind is here not in any way of any importance. And we can not go from any common sense view. (in the same way, you disqualify materialism, cause it is based on a common sense view that matter exist as something outside the mind).

Now you state that the mind is composed of, consists of, or contains the following elements: sensations. reasons. emotion. will.
That is at least something!

Now, the next step is of course: define me those entities.


The assertion of an external-reality is not supported by your knowledge about inner-experience. You must see that.

I DO have knowledge about 'external reality' (the reality as it is). You just claim that I can not know that!! It's a claim with no basis however!

You DEFINE inner experience to be the sole basis for experience and knowledge. It is not. You just think or define it is. That is the real problem!

Here is the famous computer anology again:

The CPU in my computer is not in any way familiar with the concept of Word documents. All it know are 32 bit sized words.
Nevertheless, my computer can present me a Word document. So, therefore I assume my computer is able of performing that task, and 'knows' about Word documents.

What have you to say against that?


Do you also see, again, how you have just totally-evaded the 'fact' I presented and asked you to address? You never addressed it.
The fact is that The Mind itself creates the sensation of pain.

"The Mind". Here is the 'God' concept again. It still misses internal representation. I look at reality, which is our arbiter and stage.
No 'God' there. Ok?

So in 'fact' I do dispute what you say here.

You cannot dispute that.

If I DO dispute them, does that in your mind mean that I can?

If I DO ride my bicycle, does that in your mind mean that I know how to ride a bicycle?



So the fact remains solid. It then leads to the second fact, which you've again ignored - that the Mind itself has knowledge before experience and without sensation.

Solid? It's not founded on anything!!!!
How solid can anything be when it misses foundations?


You keep mixing 'The Mind' and 'mind'. The first term is something that totally misses representation in my point of view.

'mind' as the processes, concepts, thoughts, emotions, etc. that are taking place as material phenomena in my brain, is something else.
I could come to see that, if you define that properly for me.

PS.
Did you read my posts anyhow about little I and big I?
It might explain a few things here.

If you determine knowledge and awareness to be what little I encounters, you will miss a few points then, same as in the computer analogy.

You just fail to see that, and won't admit it!

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But this is an assertion. You don't know that there is an external event, because you only have knowledge of an internal event. That's the point of my whole thread. And what is undisputable, is that the Mind itself has created sensations such as 'pain' upon its own awareness.

The Mind cannot create sensations mirroring the order of our universe unless it has prior knowledge of what the universe is about (prior to having the sensation of an event, the Mind must have knowledge of that event).
Clearly, The Mind does not merely know what it has sensed. The Mind has sensed what it already must know. It is the awareness of being lost within those sensations which has created 'human knowledge'.

How have I failed? All experience of existence comes via created-sensations. It's impossible for you to counter that. Reality is sensation... combined with reason; emotion; will; etc..

That's all anyone can link to existence. You seem to be confused. Would you like to tell us about your experiences beyond your sensations and reason; emotion; will... ?

The argument works because it reflects the reality of our experiences. It doesn't ask, for example, for the reader to simply 'believe' that sensations exist, since the reader knows exactly what I'm talking about, through direct-experience.

Materialism, on the other hand, is an appeal to take you beyond those sensations. It asks you to accept that there is an external reality, mirroring those sensations of yours. But it cannot give you any proof - rational or otherwise - that this is the case.
And then when I also posted an argument to show why an external-reality doesn't actually make sense (a few pages back), the construction of this argument was also largely-ignored. But the conclusion merely strengthed my own position.
1. Ouch. You just decimated your own argument. This thread is not about assertions against each other. It is about proof. By admiting you only have knowledge of internal events, you have shown that you cannot determine the idea that sensations are wholly mindful to be a fact, as you cannot know that they are NOT stimulated by an external factor. So, the rest of your proof is based on an irrational assumption contrary to common sense, and can not be a proof.

2. This is an assertion, a matter of your belief. It is not proof. I am merely saying there are two conclusions from this fact. You have unreasonably ruled out the other.

3. How have I failed? All experience of existence comes via created-sensations. It's impossible for you to counter that. Reality is sensation... combined with reason; emotion; will; etc..
Repeating it does not make it more true. And the fact that perceptions comes via the mind does not mean that the source of the perceptions is all sensation, that there is reality beyond sensation or what we can perceive. You have failed to reason this. You have instead assumed it irrationally.

That's all anyone can link to existence. You seem to be confused. Would you like to tell us about your experiences beyond your sensations and reason; emotion; will... ?
But all that exists is not all that can be seen. You have not made this crucial link. Perception is irrelevant unless you show this relevance. The only way you can make this relevance between what is perceived and what is actually real is by assuming your hypothesis to be correct. A circular argument, QED.

The construction of the anti-external reality argument was largely ignored? Are you joking? I posted 2 posts in reply to it. It seems you have ignored that in making your conclusion, not I.

EDIT: correction, I posted 3 posts in reply. You only responded to one, and I refuted that.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

Originally posted by Mentat
Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.
No, it makes a very good point, and reiterates precisely what Lifegazer is saying, that the proof of God is "within us." Always has and always will be, as is the "proof" of everything else. Get it?

Oh, and by the way, does anybody know that Lifegazer started this thread on Good Friday? Hmm... I wonder if he did it deliberately?

[heusdens]

LG fails to see a lot of common sense points. That is the reason he keeps coming up with his crap.

Awareness and knowledge. To LG this is only seeable by the inner awareness. Reality is defined as that what occurs in the mind only.

Reality is thus brought back from an infinite universe to the size of not much more then the size of a football.

Do we miss here something?

If you deny the most part of reality is not part of reality in your theory, then there is not much to say for such a theory.

The rest is just circular reasoning.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Materialism, on the other hand, is an appeal to take you beyond those sensations. It asks you to accept that there is an external reality, mirroring those sensations of yours. But it cannot give you any proof - rational or otherwise - that this is the case.
And then when I also posted an argument to show why an external-reality doesn't actually make sense (a few pages back), the construction of this argument was also largely-ignored. But the conclusion merely strengthed my own position.

This is clearly a false claim about materialism.

The acceptance of material reality is not something of cognition.
That is false reasoning! Material reality exist, wether you are consciously aware of it or not. You can only try to create in your mind an image of a world where that what you are in your ordinary life aware of (consciously or not) would not be existent.
This is precisely the other way around. It asks for cognitive capacities to try to deny the existence of the world!
But cognition can not accept that, no matter how hard one tries!
Cognition can at least not fail to admit that at least cognition itself must be present and that the 'tour-de-frappe' of being mentally cognitive about a non-existent world, simply fails!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

No, it makes a very good point, and reiterates precisely what Lifegazer is saying, that the proof of God is "within us." Always has and always will be, as is the "proof" of everything else. Get it?

Oh, and by the way, does anybody know that Lifegazer started this thread on Good Friday? Hmm... I wonder if he did it deliberately? [/QUOTE]


Now excuse me. I fail to see this proof of God "within us".
I don't know if that is a "weakness" of my mental and cognitive system, or that there is just lack of proof, or that other people just lack to see that there is no proof of God, and that anything they may come up with, wether inner experience or something else, can always be explained in other terms.

To proof something, well let us define this in such aw way that this is open for arbitration. That what you see in your mind, is not witnesable for me. And we currently lack any device that can connect my brain directly to your brain.

So could we please agree on the fact that therefore we need a more objective arbiter?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is clearly a false claim about materialism.

The acceptance of material reality is not something of cognition.
That is false reasoning! Material reality exist, wether you are consciously aware of it or not. You can only try to create in your mind an image of a world where that what you are in your ordinary life aware of (consciously or not) would not be existent.
This is precisely the other way around. It asks for cognitive capacities to try to deny the existence of the world!
But cognition can not accept that, no matter how hard one tries!
Cognition can at least not fail to admit that at least cognition itself must be present and that the 'tour-de-frappe' of being mentally cognitive about a non-existent world, simply fails!
But what brought about that external reality if not through the "consolidation" of an "original idea?" Of course one might be willing to argue that this is not the case with nature (which occurs more on a subconscious level), but with man, that's an entirely different story. Who, through his very ideas (... idea/ideal/idealism), consolidates everything around him, i.e., in a concrete and "material sense."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what brought about that external reality if not through the "consolidation" of an "original idea?" Of course one might be willing to argue that this is not the case with nature (which occurs more on a subconscious level), but with man that's an entirely different story. Who, through his very ideas (... idea/ideal/idealism), consolidates everything around, i.e., in a concrete and "material sense."

If you figuratively speak about an entity that had an "original idea" and "consolidated" that into material form, I can state that this was not the case.

But that you already saw.

The difficulty of the acceptance of this is perhaps not due to the explenation itself, but due to the difficulty in 'giving up' on a created concept of this.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Now excuse me. I fail to see this proof of God "within us".
I don't know if that is a "weakness" of my mental and cognitive system, or that there is just lack of proof, or that other people just lack to see that there is no proof of God, and that anything they may come up with, wether inner experience or something else, can always be explained in other terms.

To proof something, well let us define this in such aw way that this is open for arbitration. That what you see in your mind, is not witnesable for me. And we currently lack any device that can connect my brain directly to your brain.

So could we please agree on the fact that therefore we need a more objective arbiter?
Just as you have to prove to yourself that "you exist" (you and everything else around you; nobody else will do it for you), then the same criteria of "proof" falls directly on the doorstep of you know Who ...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what brought about that external reality if not through the "consolidation" of an "original idea?" Of course one might be willing to argue that this is not the case with nature (which occurs more on a subconscious level), but with man, that's an entirely different story. Who, through his very ideas (... idea/ideal/idealism), consolidates everything around him, i.e., in a concrete and "material sense."
And what is an idea, if not an abstraction in the first place?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just as you have to prove to yourself that "you exist" (you and everything else around you; nobody else will do it for you), then the same criteria of "proof" falls directly on the doorstep of you know who ...

Have you read my posts on this subject?
Like in the thread 'The Fundamental Question' and 'proof against Lifegazers hypothese' - the intermezzo part.

In a cognitive sense this was an excercise in prooving that the negation of my normal attitude towards reality (reality exists), was failing. A mental image of the negation or absense of the world, was impossible for the fact that the cognition itself makes that impossible (it's impossible to use your cognition to be aware of a state of the world in which your awareness isn't there).

But what to conclude from that?

I would conclude that it 'proofs' for me that the world is realy there! No doubt about that.

If the world wouldn't be there, then neither I would be there.

A misinterpretation is to say that the world thanks it's presence to the fact that there is some entity, which can reflect upon itself as 'I' was there and 'created' the world.

I explained that already, I think.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
If you figuratively speak about an entity that had an "original idea" and "consolidated" that into material form, I can state that this was not the case.
We, the "entity of mankind," do it all the time. Which, if you like, can be taken it to be a reflection of an even "Greater Entity."

The difficulty of the acceptance of this is perhaps not due to the explenation itself, but due to the difficulty in 'giving up' on a created concept of this.
Are you referring to yourself, or me?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We, the "entity of mankind," do it all the time. Which, if you like, can be taken it to be a reflection of an even "Greater Entity."

Which is?

[Are you referring to yourself, or me?

It was generally speaking, since we still see a lot of these ideas around in present days.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
In a cognitive sense this was an excercise in prooving that the negation of my normal attitude towards reality (reality exists), was failing. A mental image of the negation or absense of the world, was impossible for the fact that the cognition itself makes that impossible (it's impossible to use your cognition to be aware of a state of the world in which your awareness isn't there).
And yet it's through this process of cognition that we learn to develop a sense of reason, and it's through our sense of reason (again, based upon cognizance), that we are able to ascertain whether or not God exists. Now why does that sound so much like what Lifegazer is saying? And how is it that both he and I can acknowledge it at the same time?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. Ouch. You just decimated your own argument. This thread is not about assertions against each other. It is about proof.

I never asserted anything. Read those 'facts' again. They were structured upon reason. They were built.

By admiting you only have knowledge of internal events, you have shown that you cannot determine the idea that sensations are wholly mindful to be a fact

At this particular stage of my argument, I do not make that conclusion. The reason for dismissing external-reality ultimately falls upon this:-
Existence (whatever it might be) is eternal and boundless. It is definitely a singularity. Explanation can be given again, if you wish. It all boils-down to 'something' not emanating from absolutely-nothing; nor of existence being embraced by 'nothing'.
This instantly shows that 'motion' is purely in the mind. Because it is impossible to actually move across a singularity. And a singularity of indivisible-nature is definitely what existence must be. And I'm not talking about a singularity in the same sense as science. I'm using the term in its purest rational-sense. An indivisible existence, which has truly always existed - but which has not always existed in the time we are experiencing. For this time of ours has its origin within It. 'The Mind' created the time we now see.

as you cannot know that they are NOT stimulated by an external factor. So, the rest of your proof is based on an irrational assumption contrary to common sense, and can not be a proof.

My first argument denounced materialism without having to even consider it. The conclusion was a consequence of my own conclusion.
But I have presented this other argument for the skeptics. And it too denounces the sense of an external-reality, by directly addressing that reality.

[FZ+]

My first argument denounced materialism without having to even consider it. The conclusion was a consequence of my own conclusion.
Precisely! Therefore this cannot be a proof, only a circular assumption. Your facts are not facts at all. Do you see now?

(Incidentally, by declaring that existence is only within the mind, you have self-invalidated your comment existence is boundless and eternal. You have also not shown any of the things you assert. You seem to be just repeating yourself.)

When by the way are we going to get the reasoned explanations you speak so much of?

[heusdens]

This thread is about the subject of 'A proof for the existence of God'.

So far no proof has come up.

But I got something else, which I would like to adress.

We can ask the world, with which we daily interact, about it's existence. Not literally or directly of course, but in an indirect way. We can ask the question, why there exists a world, in the first place, instead of no world.

All the times I dig into this issue, the only answer I get from this is: 'I can not fail to exist'.

I must add to this that I is a general way of perceiving. It is about 'I'-ness. About oneself sensing oneself. Something like an universal 'I'.

Now, one can then go interpreting this, in as what it means.

For some perhaps, this is like asking about God, and then God comes up with the answer : 'I can not fail to exist'. For me this does not work, since it requires one to already have a concept in one's mind of God, which I hadn't and still haven't.

"I cannot fail to exists" means for me this. An entity, that has selfawareness, is not able of detecting it's own inexistence. Because if it is inexistent, it is not able of detecting anything.

It can also be interpreted as that for the world itself, it is not able of being inexistent. Which means in other words, it has always and will always be.

Not let us leave the issue with that. That answers should be sufficient.

Let's leave it with the experience, and leave that to itself. Overinterpreting it would only destriy the experience itself.

[Iacchus32]

I would like to interject one thing here. That although Lifegazer "seems" to be rejecting "external reality" (I don't know if it's his wording or what?), the whole purpose of this thread is to provide "proof of the existence of God," in which case there are many similarities between what Lifegazer is saying and what I'm saying. Comprender?

And yet it seems everyone wants to pick at this one point, and use it to invalidate the rest of the argument ...

[FZ+]

And yet it seems everyone wants to pick at this one point, and use it to invalidate the rest of the argument.
Because his utter failure to show this does in fact invalidate his whole "proof".

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely! Therefore this cannot be a proof, only a circular assumption. Your facts are not facts at all. Do you see now?

No I don't. If I build an argument to say that existence is 'x', I am definitely well-positioned to say that it is not 'y' (since y is the opposite of x).
Furthermore, I have addressed external-reality head-on in that second argument. I have made this conclusion independent of my first argument.

(Incidentally, by declaring that existence is only within the mind, you have self-invalidated your comment existence is boundless and eternal.

Why? I am merely advocating that there are no barriers or limits to the mind's existence. Even the laws of physics are sometimes defied in our dreams.

You have also not shown any of the things you assert. You seem to be just repeating yourself.

If you cannot see the validity of my reason, then don't blame me. The Mind creates sensory-experience and the Mind has knowledge prior to sensing existence. I've fully-explained why this is so. It's very simple really. Anyone could grasp it... unless he didn't want to. I can do nothing to address your feelings. You are responsible for them.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
For some perhaps, this is like asking about God, and then God comes up with the answer : 'I can not fail to exist'. For me this does not work, since it requires one to already have a concept in one's mind of God, which I hadn't and still haven't.
Concepts are developed through the capacity of reason. Therefore, it all depends on whether you want to "reason" it out for yourself or not.

[Lifegazer]

Do you agree with my argument Iacchus32? You haven't made yourself clear.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Concepts are developed through the capacity of reason. Therefore, it all depends on whether you want to "reason" it out for yourself or not.

Like I said, that is what reason I put it in to it, but I was stating it just briefly, cause that would lead to over interpretation, and would undo the experience itself.

Clearifying it as 'God' doesn't do it for me, cause then you add-in a culturally developed and therefore artificial concept.

I would like to speak more in terms of universal awareness of being.

If you ask the universe of why does it exist, it responds in your mind with 'I can not fail to exist'. Which gives you an impression of the infinite being that exist, in time and space.

For me this is close to the reality, and the materialistic concept of describing existence makes for me therefore sense. Much sense in fact.

So why would I need to adopt any other concept?

[FZ+]

No I don't. If I build an argument to say that existence is 'x', I am definitely well-positioned to say that it is not 'y' (since y is the opposite of x).
I think you will find that you have show existence can be x. You have not shown it can only be x, or that it can be x and y as well. Opposites can co-exist... unless you show otherwise. Which you also have not done.
Suppose I say invisible Santa Clauses exist, and they uphold the laws of physics. I discount without having to consider any possibility that they do not exist, and say that because the laws of physics work, invisible Santa Clauses must exist to make it work, and the fact we do not see them is because they are invisible. Since invisible Santa Clauses are the opposite of no invisible Santa Clauses, have I made a valid argument? That is exactly what you have done. You cannot start with an assumption and use it to self-justify.

Why? I am merely advocating that there are no barriers or limits to the mind's existence. Even the laws of physics are sometimes defied in our dreams.
Nope. Boundless means without bounds. It implies that it is not within something, and is hence all encompassing. You cannot reasonably equate without bounds to bounded by an infinite sized object. It is, in fact, an absurdity. And you have further invalidated your statement by saying that the medium of existence and the laws with it are not boundless, since they cannot exist in the mind.

If you cannot see the validity of my reason, then don't blame me. The Mind creates sensory-experience and the Mind has knowledge prior to sensing existence. I've fully-explained why this is so. It's very simple really. Anyone could grasp it... unless he didn't want to. I can do nothing to address your feelings. You are responsible for them.
It is not my fault you have no reasonable argument for these assertions, and that you have not responded to my objections.
I can similarly say: "I can see the invalidity of your reason. It is not my fault you do not." Do you see the utter pointlessness of trying to curry sympathy like this?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Clearifying it as 'God' doesn't do it for me, cause then you add-in a culturally developed and therefore artificial concept.

My notion of 'God' does not come from any religious text. My notion of 'God' relates to a concept of the Mind which acknowledges the possibility that such an entity might exist. Religions were founded upon the concept. Not vice versa. The concept exists within our minds because our reason can understand the concept of an all-powerful being, without having to see such a being.
Thus, any philosophical contemplation of 'God' can only be done in relation to a reasoned analysis of the meaning behind that concept. And reason cannot accept a limited entity as 'God'. It's simple.
Hence, 'God' is all things... omnipresent; God is omnipotent (all creative); God is omniscient. These are the minimum requirements of an entity which can be labelled as 'God'. And The Mind fulfils all of those requirements.
I have not labelled the Mind as 'God' without justification.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Do you agree with my argument Iacchus32? You haven't made yourself clear.
Do I believe in a Universal reality that can be viewed as one mind? Yes.

Do I believe we all share in that same reality? Yes.

Do I believe that God exists? Yes.

Do I believe that reality is determinate (at least for us) upon what we perceive? Yes.

Do I believe we develop our understanding of God through the process of reason? Yes.

The only thing that seems to be an issue is whether or not external reality exists outside of "our mind." In which case I would have to say, Yes it does. As it needs to be included, at the very least, for the sake for everyone else's benefit.

Besides that, I don't know how I can make myself any more clear?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think you will find that you have shown existence can be x.

Then you do see the credibility in the argument.

You have not shown it can only be x, or that it can be x and y as well. Opposites can co-exist... unless you show otherwise. Which you also have not done.

When 'x' is shown to be a singularity of existence with pre-universal knowledge of the sensations which It shall create (as explained), then there is no logical possibility of an external reality. No thing can be external to a true singularity. Which means that a singularity is not enveloped by anything - including 'nothing' - for how can 'nothing' envelop anything? And how can something else envelop a singularity? - Its own indivisibility would be compromised at the boundary of those two different entities. You need to ponder that more carefully, I feel.
In this specific case, 'x' means that 'y' is false.

Nope. Boundless means without bounds. It implies that it is not within something, and is hence all encompassing. You cannot reasonably equate without bounds to bounded by an infinite sized object.

I have said that existence is a singularity. 'Size' is an illusion happening within the mind.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My notion of 'God' does not come from any religious text. My notion of 'God' relates to a concept of the Mind which acknowledges the possibility that such an entity might exist. Religions were founded upon the concept. Not vice versa. The concept exists within our minds because our reason can understand the concept of an all-powerful being, without having to see such a being.
Thus, any philosophical contemplation of 'God' can only be done in relation to a reasoned analysis of the meaning behind that concept. And reason cannot accept a limited entity as 'God'. It's simple.
Hence, 'God' is all things... omnipresent; God is omnipotent (all creative); God is omniscient. These are the minimum requirements of an entity which can be labelled as 'God'. And The Mind fulfils all of those requirements.
I have not labelled the Mind as 'God' without justification.

I don't know if you ever cared to follow my path of reasoning, cause in that reasoning, a concept of God never digs up. The only way it can, and as I showed you over and over again, is because of insufficient and unprofounded reasoning, as in your hypothese.
Why deny existence of the universe and all material being, as the very fundament of the theory, and then later on having to admit that you can not possibly make sense of it, and need therefore a new concept, which you call 'God' or 'The Mind'. It just shows that the part of reality you left out, was done on wrong assumptions, cause it could not be left out. That is what I call flawed reasoning. Materialism clearly defines being and does that in a profound way. The way of evolving and developing materialism is through science, and therefore makes it possible to test the thoughts. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the thinking.
Second: no matter how you define God and arrive at that concept, which is in all not much different from how others arrive at this concept, is nevertheless a religious concept. So this drags in a whole lot of other concepts. A fundamental flaw is that the theory can not be tested experimentally.

Now you tell me what is wrong with the concept of matter, and of the developed materialis theory. What part of it don't you understand. What part of the method of science, or what conclusion of science aren't you happy with? What makes it, you think you need to replace this with?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only thing that seems to be an issue is whether or not external reality exists outside of "our mind." In which case I would have to say, Yes it does. As it needs to be included, at the very least, for the sake for everyone elses benefit.

Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.

[FZ+]

Then you do see the credibility in the argument.
Notice the word can. You have shown it is not immediately disprovable. But this is nowhere near a proof of god. Lack of disproof does not equal proof. Any body with experience in logic knows that.

I have said that existence is a singularity. 'Size' is an illusion happening within the mind.
This is a nonsensical statement. If you say that one aspect is an illusion, how then do you validate the others? An additional flaw in your argument pops up. How can you justify using your sense of "reason"? How do you know that reason is real, not an illusion of the mind? Outside of the mind, it follows there is no reason, and there is no reason why the mind itself is governed by reasonably laws. Hence you cannot prove or disprove it by reason, and the existence of god, or the mind, is not plausible as a target for logical discussion. You can additionally no longer deny the existence of external reality outside the mind, as reason no longer applies. The only solution is to place the laws of the universe as objectively real, in which can you create an external reality to support this reason. See?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do I believe in a Universal reality that can be viewed as one mind? Yes.

Do I believe we all share in that same reality? Yes.

Do I believe that God exists? Yes.

Do I believe that reality is determinate (at least for us) upon what we perceive? Yes.

Do I believe we develop our understanding of God through the process of reason? Yes.

The only thing that seems to be an issue is whether or not external reality exists outside of "our mind." In which case I would have to say, Yes it does. As it needs to be included, at the very least, for the sake for everyone elses benefit.

Besides that, I don't how I can make myself any more clear?
If on the other hand, you don't believe in an external reality, then perhaps this is your way of dealing with all the "suffering" in the world, by not acknowledging it? (i.e., to distance yourself from it). You know, how could God, which you've come to accept, and is supposed to be Good, possibly allow us to suffer? Of course this is just a guess?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.
I think it's important for us to feel that sense of seperation, by virtue of some barrier (our ignorance?), otherwise we would never have the capacity to acknowledge Him, at least from the standpoint of being "seperate beings," i.e., God is not looking for conscripts.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
a concept of God never digs up. The only way it can, and as I showed you over and over again, is because of insufficient and unprofounded reasoning, as in your hypothese.

My reasoning builds towards an omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent Mind which exists at singularity. That's God, by reason... not by assertion.

I'd like to say that I believe that some people here are actually afraid of my philosophy. They cannot handle the enormity of it all. I understand that. But believe me; my philosophy is not bad news. There's absolutely-nothing to be afraid of. My philosophy does not condemn anyone.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reasoning builds towards an omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent Mind which exists at singularity. That's God, by reason... not by assertion.
But you did not build that tower of reasoning on firm facts and realities. Instead, you built this tower on itself, and shored it up with unproven and often unprovable assumptions. The route is reason, but the sum result? It is still assertion of one's belief, nothing more.

I'd like to say that I believe that some people here are actually afraid of my philosophy. They cannot handle the enormity of it all. I understand that. But believe me; my philosophy is not bad news. There's absolutely-nothing to be afraid of. My philosophy does not condemn anyone.
One word: Arrogance.
Have you ever even considered the idea that this thread is no proof at all, merely an example of a SELF consistent theory with God as it's aim?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reasoning builds towards an omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent Mind which exists at singularity. That's God, by reason... not by assertion.

I'd like to say that I believe that some people here are actually afraid of my philosophy. They cannot handle the enormity of it all. I understand that. But believe me; my philosophy is not bad news. There's absolutely-nothing to be afraid of. My philosophy does not condemn anyone.

It just puts things upside down, and inside out, uses inverse logic, and is full of flawed concept. But then that is just what this theory is, isn't it? Normal reasoning fails to understand your hypothese.

If one person has an iability to handle enormities, then it's you, cause you constantly argued against the infinite of time and space.

What is wrong with materialism? You never answered that.
Can't you handle the fact that 'dead' matter formed and shaped into sensible beings? That the laws of dialectics apply anywhere within matter and within thinking? That dialectical-materialism is a way to unite being and thinking? That science is a verifyable process and that religion is not?

[CJames]

Since this topic has gone on for so long with everybody saying the same things, I'm going to take it right back to the first post, try to summarize it, and explain exactly why I find no logical connections. I will first post the summary, then another post for my response, so that others can use the summary if they so desire.

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.

1. All one knows is through the five senses.


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.I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

2. The mind must represent the five senses in a way that the mind can understand.


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.

3. It is impossible to prove that this representation is based upon anything external.


And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each individual 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.

4. The subconcious generates this representation, which is then judged by the conscious using reason.


Thus, our whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.

5. Existence is experienced entirely within the mind via senses and reason.


Additionally:-
We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it. Note too that our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course).

6. To be capable of understanding the sensory data, the mind must have prior knowledge of that data.


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, minds possessed universal-knowledge before those minds could ever come to 'sense' the order of the universe.

7. Minds therefore had knowledge of the universe before they sensed it.


Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.
Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.

8. Since all minds agree on the laws of physics, all these minds are somehow linked as a single Mind.


Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

9. This Mind is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and is therefore God.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
One word: Arrogance.
Have you ever even considered the idea that this thread is no proof at all, merely an example of a SELF consistent theory with God as it's aim?
My point was valid. The conclusion of my philosophy is one which might be rejected through fear alone. That would be criminal.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.
It says in the Bible that we're all brothers and sisters, and yet that seperation does exist.

Let me ask you this? How do you distinguish between one form and another, if in fact it didn't have an "exterior" as well as an interior? At the same time, how is it possible to put one form inside another? Say like a ball inside a box? In which case you have one external reality resting "within" another? Why can't it be any different with our minds and the mind of God?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If on the other hand, you don't believe in an external reality, then perhaps this is your way of dealing with all the "suffering" in the world, by not acknowledging it? (i.e., to distance yourself from it). You know, how could God, which you've come to accept, and is supposed to be Good, possibly allow us to suffer? Of course this is just a guess?
Who is suffering? God is all things, in my philosophy. Only God suffers. But God cannot know joy without relating to suffering.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
1. All one knows is through the five senses.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

That's just not true. We can know that the Mind itself has created an awareness of sensation. And as such, we can see that the Mind needs to have knowledge prior to creating sensed-order.
That's so simple that if you can't see it, then it's because you refuse to see it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by CJames
1. All one knows is through the five senses.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.
No, knowing is more than what we know through the five senses. Knowing is what we "interpert" through the five senses, otherwise we would be bereft of the brain to offer the interpretation (which has the ability to speculate on other matters as well).

[CJames]

1. All one knows is through the five senses.

True premise.

2. The mind must represent the five senses in a way that the mind can understand.

This is another obviously true premise.

3. It is impossible to prove that this representation is based upon anything external.

Again, entirely true. However, this should not be taken as a proof that the external reality does not exist.

4. The subconcious generates this representation, which is then judged by the conscious using reason.

Here you are assuming that 3. proves the external reality does not exist. You also offer no proof of the subonscious mind.

5. Existence is experienced entirely within the mind via senses and reason.

True again.

6. To be capable of understanding the sensory data, the mind must have prior knowledge of that data.

This is unsubstantiated and is not a logical necessity. Rather, a continuous intake of information can just as easily provide the knowledge needed to be capable of understanding sensory data.

7. Minds therefore had knowledge of the universe before they sensed it.

Based on faulty conclusion 6.

8. Since all minds agree on the laws of physics, all these minds are somehow linked as a single Mind.

There is nothing to logically disprove all minds couldn't be created with the same laws of physics without being linked. There is nothing to logically prove that any mind other than yours is real. How do you experience other people? Through the senses, just like everything else.

9. This Mind is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and is therefore God.

Being based on false/unsubstantiated conclusions and premises, this conclusion is false.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Who is suffering? God is all things, in my philosophy. Only God suffers. But God cannot know joy without relating to suffering.
We all suffer. Do you know why? Because we're ignorant.

Do you suffer? If you say you don't, then I would say mine was a pretty good guess.

[CJames]

And as such, we can see that the Mind needs to have knowledge prior to creating sensed-order.No, it simply needs the potential to learn. As far as we know, knowledge isn't required to learn, and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

That's so simple that if you can't see it, then it's because you refuse to see it.It's simple, and there's nothing there. Mine and others' refutations are just as simple, and you refuse to see them.

Take care--Carter

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
The best approach to this known to me is dialectical-materialism.

Then by all means you should believe it. But you cannot prove it or "know" it in any way beyond faith.

[Tom Mattson]

Fliption,

Seeing that this thread grew by several pages in my absence, I am not going to go on about solipsism here. It is not a point of dispute in this topic, and the thread is long enough.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I've shown that the only reality you can confirm is a mind-ful reality... whereby you have senses and then emotionalise/reason over those senses.


OK so far.


That is your 'existence'. That's our existence, too. You even agreed with this, earlier.


Here's one of your leaps of faith, and no, I never agreed with it. In fact, it was one of the things I identified as a leap of faith. There is no way to logically deduce "my existence is in my mind" from "my perceptions are in my mind".


"Reality is in the mind" is confirmed - regardless of the rest of my argument.

It so very obviously is not confirmed, that I can't believe you are still repeating this. I have read the rest of the thread, and you are still stuck on it. The above is simply not a valid deduction. Why are you so unwilling to lose your bias and look at this logically?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Since this topic has gone on for so long with everybody saying the same things, I'm going to take it right back to the first post, try to summarize it, and explain exactly why I find no logical connections. I will first post the summary, then another post for my response, so that others can use the summary if they so desire.

1. All one knows is through the five senses.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

2. The mind must represent the five senses in a way that the mind can understand.

3. It is impossible to prove that this representation is based upon anything external.

4. The subconcious generates this representation, which is then judged by the conscious using reason.

5. Existence is experienced entirely within the mind via senses and reason.

6. To be capable of understanding the sensory data, the mind must have prior knowledge of that data.

7. Minds therefore had knowledge of the universe before they sensed it.

8. Since all minds agree on the laws of physics, all these minds are somehow linked as a single Mind.

9. This Mind is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and is therefore God.

Right. Thanks for taking us back.

People who cared to follow my 'Anti-Lifegazer' thread (thought the name of the thread was changed to 'proof against the hyopthese of the mind') must know by now the path of reasoning which the idealists follow. All known entities to us, of which we can be aware through our senses, are in a fact dismantled, and undone from their intrinsic properties. It is then stated that the 'things in themselves' which exist independend of our mind, are insignificant, and in fact the idealist claim that they do not exist at all, only the feelings, hearing, and other senses of which we are aware in our mind, exist.
Materialists reason against this, that although our awareness of things indeed takes place in our minds, and that our senses can make errors when detecting things, by using science we nevertheless know what the material world is like. Materialism can not be split with sciences. The consequences is that idealists have a limited vision on what the reality is. In fact the reality is defined as and limited to the inner experience of such a reality.

Let us take an example here.
For instance we know about the sun, which is a hot and dense globe of gas that emits enormous amounts of light, which come from nuclear fusion reactions inside the sun. Our limited senses have the awareness of the sun as a flat disk, which is brilliant at day time, and is bigger and redder near the end of the day, when the sun is just above the horizon. We know however that the sun isn't flat, neither a disk but a round globe, and that the sun emits light in all kind of light, visible, infrared, x-ray, etc. This kind of knowledge is not directly detectable by humans, but only by using detectors and instruments. There have been thousands or more of detections regarding all kinds of aspects of the sun. This enables us to make more profound assumptions on what the sun as a material object in fact is, how it is evolving, etc.

A statement as that in fact there would not be a sun, that exists independ of our mind, is in that respect an absurd notion. It ignores a great amount of evidence using varying sources and detection methods, that form a coherent picture of the sun. Unless one wants to be totally ignorant of that, it arges us to take into account that the sun realy exist, and not just in our minds.

The uses of instruments enables us to go beyond our ordinary 5 senses, and increases our way of perceiving, and also understanding nature and the material world.

That would be sufficient to negate statement 1.

Statement 2 is for me a rather obscure statement.
I could only make a sensible statement, in which the perceptions which our ordinary senses receive, must be internally represented in such a way, that it has meaningfull information for us, as humans.
Which is a way of saying of why we see the things we see, and hear the things we hear, etc. Although our perceptions are certainly limited, for human purposes, these senses suffice.
The question, which is not adressed however, is to ask the why question. Why don't we see x-rays, or rontgen, but can see red, yellow, violet. Same for hearing and the other senses.
This has of course to do with the fact that the sensoray organs were developed in a long process of evolution, and were determined by the conditions of the environment. Comparing our senses to that of other animals, we don't have extra-ordinary well developed senses. Many animals have one or more senses that are better developed. The sight of cats is much better then that of humans, esp. in the dark.
Dogs can smell much better as humans. What gave humans an advantage in evolution was the well developed brain and reasoning system.

Statement 3. An external reality would be unprovable.
If one builds a theory in which the first premise is that there is no external reality, then within that theory this is unprovable.
But why would one make that assumption in the first place? Human life and all life is bound to enabling the species to survive. The senses are of course closely linked with this purpose. Why would we have an internal representation of an external reality, if such an external reality does not exist in the first place? The assumption that the sensory organs, do no realy represent in our mind an image of something external, is therefore non-sense. Suppose a frog that sees an insect. If we don't assume the insect exist independend of the mind of the frog, then why would the frog have senses to detect the insect, and why would it not be the case that the insect realy exists?
After all the frog needs the insect for a purpose of feeding. If the exernal reality would not exist, then ... so much for the frog, it would have starven to death. The hypothese of 'The Mind' which is able of seeing everything and is linked to every mind, in this sense is also suspicious. Why would the frog need to see the insect then? Instead, the Great Mind could then cause the insect to walk directly into the mouth of the frog, without the frog needing to see or sense it. It would make things infinitely less complex. It would not even call upon the need for any material world at all....


Living organisms developed in the course of evolution sensory organs, to be able to be aware of things outside them, in order for them to be able to survive, find food, find mates, etc.

As I am not an expert in biology and evolution theory, I will further direct to the various available sources on these kind of topics, that explain the development of species and the development of the sensory organs in greater detail.

Statement 4.
The incoming signals from the senses will be translated into information that other parts of the brain can handle, in order for it to be aware of it and make sense of it.

Also this is a highly specific subject, which is better explained in that discipline of science. (biology/cognition/brain).

Statement 5.
Our mind activities take place within the mind. We think with our brain. I think a lot more can be said on that, then that is stated here.

Statement 6.
The brain and all the sensory organs and other bodily properties, were developed during a very long lasting evolutionary process.
This would mean that the properties of the outside world, which were vital for the survival of the species, must be correctly representated within the brain itself, in order for the organism to function well and be able to survive.

Statement 7.
This is a statement without any proof. All we can assume however is the laws of phyiscs and chemistry that came in action. This determines the abilities of life forms to form and change during the long course of evolution.

Statement 8.
This is put in a weird way, as if a mind has to be asked wether or not to agree on the laws of physics. The laws of physics work no matter how one thinks about it. The laws governing the material world link everything together, yes they do. What is interesting to know however is how everything fits in place in this context.

Statement 9.
There is no clear connection to this statement and the other statements, which are partly or fully invalidated. Since the statements do then not lead to 'God' but to the laws that govern the material world, we better concentrate us to finding and prescribing those laws. The things we are looking for are present in matter, and only discoverable by scientific research. This has been done in numerous fields of science, and in many millions of explorations all over the world. If you want to find real answers for the questions being asked, ask them in a sensible way, and look at the results of scientific discoveries that took place in the last 20 centuries.

Or it must be that you are unbelieble dissatisfied with the results they untill yet have found. But I am suspicious that you probably didn't have much science eduction, because the way you persistently want to reach this conclusion. If you want to find out the way material world works, then you have to study the results of science.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Then by all means you should believe it. But you cannot prove it or "know" it in any way beyond faith.

It's not a doctrine, and it doesn't ask to be believed.
As is said, the proof is in the practice. Dialectical-materialism should show it's usefullness in explaining the material world.
I will come soon with a post about dialectical-materialism.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My point was valid. The conclusion of my philosophy is one which might be rejected through fear alone. That would be criminal.

Don't come up with such hasty conclusions.

The arbiter in this game is the reality itself, which will take care itself of the conclusions you have drawn on her.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.
But what is a mind (even God's) if it's not allowed to differentiate? How could it distinguish between one form and another without their being separate? Why is it that you and I can't agree upon this, if in fact you were I and I were you? Because you and I "are" separate.

[CJames]

While heusdens does in fact assume that the material world does exist outside our minds, he presents a great deal of evidence to demonstrate why such an assumption is quite justified.

Since my perceptions of the world are always consistent, since they obey laws that do not change, since it is the only world in which I can communicate others and the only world I can make predictions about, it is in fact real, whether it's some illusion or not. And it is far more real than anything else, because the assumption that it's all false leaves me nowhere. It truly does, if you truly look at it logically. There are multiple conclusions to arrive at when you assume (or even if you prove) that it's all the creation of the mind. Statements that lead to multiple and simultaniously incompatable conclusions are not logical.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
While heusdens does in fact assume that the material world does exist outside our minds, he presents a great deal of evidence to demonstrate why such an assumption is quite justified.

Since my perceptions of the world are always consistent, since they obey laws that do not change, since it is the only world in which I can communicate others and the only world I can make predictions about, it is in fact real, whether it's some illusion or not. And it is far more real than anything else, because the assumption that it's all false leaves me nowhere. It truly does, if you truly look at it logically. There are multiple conclusions to arrive at when you assume (or even if you prove) that it's all the creation of the mind. Statements that lead to multiple and simultaniously incompatable conclusions are not logical.

Would my argument suffice?

[CJames]

It certainly seems to, although I guess I haven't gone over it with a fine-tooth comb or anything.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by CJames
[i]1. True premise.

[i]2. This is another obviously true premise.

[i]3. Again, entirely true. However, this should not be taken as a proof that the external reality does not exist.

[i]4. Here you are assuming that 3. proves the external reality does not exist. You also offer no proof of the subonscious mind.

[i]5. True again.


Cjames my synopsis about 6 pages ago was very similar to this. But no oneresponded to it. I think I agreed with and had problems with the exact same points that you do.

But I still continue to disagree with the way Heusdens is presenting his case. He is basically disagreeing with number 3 even though he says "right" in response to it. There is no way to "know" the material world exists. Building evidence for it can only give you assurance to some percentage less than 100%. But there is no logical argument that will allow you to know this for sure.

Your comments in your last post are more of the same comments dealing with common sense notions and and evidence. None of this will give you knowledge of an external material world.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Cjames my synopsis about 6 pages ago was very similar to this. But no oneresponded to it. I think I agreed with and had problems with the exact same points that you do.

But I still continue to disagree with the way Heusdens is presenting his case. He is basically disagreeing with number 3 even though he says "right" in response to it. There is no way to "know" the material world exists. Building evidence for it can only give you assurance to some percentage less than 100%. But there is no logical argument that will allow you to know this for sure.

Your comments in your last post are more of the same comments dealing with common sense notions and and evidence. None of this will give you knowledge of an external material world.

The issue might well be stated, and is in fact equivallent to this: what does it need you (as a biological organism) to know that an "external reality" exists?

If you have little time to think, and your life is in danger, what do you think you will do? Our brains are built to deal with that, and don't need 100% certainty. Now the study of the biological organism will tell you that everywhere in nature you will find behaviour that absolute shows that organism behave acoording to their senses and according to the assumption that there is an external reality.

And for supplying even more reasons. Suppose that some biological species would appear, that would not apply this logic/reason and subsequent behaviour that there is an external reality according to their senses. It would not take long for such a species to go extinct. This is true for humans too of course. No matter how consequent an Idealist is in his thinking, he will still take care not to be droven over by a bus.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
It so very obviously is not confirmed, that I can't believe you are still repeating this. I have read the rest of the thread, and you are still stuck on it. The above is simply not a valid deduction. Why are you so unwilling to lose your bias and look at this logically?
I'm all ears. But if you come out with meaningless statements such as "A bus will kill you."; or "Physics works."; then you obviously don't understand that these things can be true whether there is an external reality or not.
My conclusion follows my whole argument; and I have enforced this argument with an analysis of external-reality, a few pages back. I would appreciate your comments, but I think you need to step-up a gear from Heusden's approach.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
No, it simply needs the potential to learn. As far as we know, knowledge isn't required to learn, and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

It's simple, and there's nothing there. Mine and others' refutations are just as simple, and you refuse to see them.

There's a fatal flaw in your reasoning...
The Mind can only become aware of a sensation through having prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent as 'reality' (as sensation). Remember that our sensations must mirror the order inherent within the Laws of Physics. That is why sensation necessarily proceeds knowledge of the Mind which creates those sensations.
You cannot escape this obvious conclusion.
You infer that the Mind has 'learnt' about the external reality. But 'knowledge' is gleaned through the concious-reasoning of those sensations. It is 'our' knowledge. And you should not be confusing the knowledge gleaned from concious-reasoning as a reflection of the knowledge required to create the very sensations which all living things do have.
You infer that knowledge proceeds sensory-awareness. Yet this is so obviously incorrect for the Mind as a whole. It only applies to conciousness within those sensations. It does not apply to the conciousness which has created those sensations.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what is a mind (even God's) if it's not allowed to differentiate? How could it distinguish between one form and another without their being separate? Why is it that you and I can't agree upon this, if in fact you were I and I were you? Because you and I "are" separate.
I contend that all things spring forth from God's Mind. So in that sense, everyone is a distinct perception of God's Mind. However, this does not make us truly 'separate'.
When your mood changes, or when you change as you become older, have you become a different person? Of course not - you've merely shifted your perception of reality.
In the same sense, I advocate that each one of us is a distinct shift of God's perception. The same Mind, but with another perspective. That is why 'we' are not truly 'separate'. We might be having different thoughts, but those thoughts are not emanating from/within different minds. Just One Mind.

[pelastration]

I go back to the first thread of Lifegrazer.
Lifegrazer's starting point is one-dimensional.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
This argument 'evolved' from another thread of mine. I think it's an excellent argument to show that 'God' exists...
How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing.

By this statement he pushes everyone in a paradoxal situation. (Nice try Lifegrazer ... almost nobody noticed)

NO. NO. NO. With our capacity to we build things we made "measurement systems" which can give us information about exogenous systems which are not related to our own individual system.
These measurement system give us the possibility to make statements about those other systems.
These measurement systems (by their composition) will extend the human possibility to have information that is higher or lower level than that of the five human senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing.

The results of the statements brings us REPEATABLE KNOWLEDGE which is independent from what our own individual (and even commonsence) senses may indicate.
That way individuals can communicate about our surrounding(s) in a way that is "independent" from our five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing.

So TRASH ... please start again Lifegrazer ... ;-)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's a fatal flaw in your reasoning...
The Mind can only become aware of a sensation through having prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent as 'reality' (as sensation). Remember that our sensations must mirror the order inherent within the Laws of Physics. That is why sensation necessarily proceeds knowledge of the Mind which creates those sensations.
You cannot escape this obvious conclusion.
You infer that the Mind has 'learnt' about the external reality. But 'knowledge' is gleaned through the concious-reasoning of those sensations. It is 'our' knowledge. And you should not be confusing the knowledge gleaned from concious-reasoning as a reflection of the knowledge required to create the very sensations which all living things do have.
You infer that knowledge proceeds sensory-awareness. Yet this is so obviously incorrect for the Mind as a whole. It only applies to conciousness within those sensations. It does not apply to the conciousness which has created those sensations.

I protest againt this. You just 'state' or 'assume' that we have knowledge about the things we perceive prior to perceiving them.
That isn't in the least true. The knowledge comes from the fact the world itself is ordered, and so are our perceptions about it. All jusdgements we make, and all knowledge we acquire ourselves, are based upon that. Our levels of consciousness are structured layers, which we can describe in symbolic terms, but ultimately these are based on and arrive from the material world, and how matter itself is organized.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I contend that all things spring forth from God's Mind. So in that sense, everyone is a distinct perception of God's Mind. However, this does not make us truly 'separate'.
When your mood changes, or when you change as you become older, have you become a different person? Of course not - you've merely shifted your perception of reality.
In the same sense, I advocate that each one of us is a distinct shift of God's perception. The same Mind, but with another perspective. That is why 'we' are not truly 'separate'. We might be having different thoughts, but those thoughts are not emanating from/within different minds. Just One Mind.
Let me put it this way, if there is a heaven and a hell, just as with the reality of the "external world," we will be held accountable for who we are ... more so "the act" in this world, as opposed to "our intent" (which gives rise to the act) in the next. None of which can be accomplished though, unless we are "judged seperately" and on an individual basis.

While I also understand a "commonality of minds" does exist in the spiritual world, where in fact thoughts and experiences are "shared mutually" but, only to the extent that each shares a similar demeanor (thus accounting for the differences between heaven and hell, as well as the different societies in heaven, etc.). For anyone who's interested, there's Emanuel Swedenborg's work, Heaven and Hell, which is available through the Swedenborg Foundation (http://www.swedenborg.com/).

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It says in the Bible that we're all brothers and sisters, and yet that seperation does exist.

Let me ask you this? How do you distinguish between one form and another, if in fact it didn't have an "exterior" as well as an interior? At the same time, how is it possible to put one form inside another? Say like a ball inside a box? In which case you have one external reality resting "within" another? Why can't it be any different with our minds and the mind of God?
On my website http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology (16 pages) you can find a mechanism or process that describes such infolding. It shows that physical reality exists, but also contains the original energy (which Lifegrazer calls the Mind). The reversible connection between sub-dimensions happens with a type of white holes/black holes which create a new dimension (by adding an extra layer). Connection to the original source can not be reached through the joints but by resonance (inter-vibrations through the layers of the new entity). This universal manifold is a mechanism showing how the paradoxical joint between body and spirit can be explained. Lifegrazer failure is that he wants to explain all without the existence of separated but still joined structures which have there own freedoms.

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, The Mystery Within (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611&perpage=15&highlight=influx&pagenumber=2) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.

Originally posted by Iacchus 32
Originally posted by Mentat
Iacchus32, what do you mean by "the truth of God is without, the whole material universe"?
The whole material world is evidence (the truth), of the mystery that lay within ..." I don't know, does that make sense? The mystery is the beginning (essence), which gives rise to the physical effect, what we otherwise call the truth (or form).

And just as we all have a body, which manifests itself externally (and notice the external layers of our skin are considered "dead"), there's also a living entity or soul within, which dictates to the body what to do.

So why can't we address the Universe in the same fashion? In terms of that which manifests itself outwardly, in the physical sense, and that which exists inwardly as a soul? (consisting of motive, reason, etc.). In other words does the Universe have a soul? If so, then would that be God?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
IACCHUS 32: I believe the Universe is a living, conscious Entity whose natural forces tend toward ORDER. On the physical "plane" (for want of a better way to express it), matter (which is actually energy, as we "know") accretes due to natural spin and gravity. I believe similar forces are at work in the "non-physical" Universe...namely consciousness (and spirit, as well).
I believe there's a similarity between the two, except that the spiritual realm is more "fluid" and in a state of flux, otherwise it wouldn't be able to "abide" in the subconscious realm. Whereas from top to bottom, Heaven and Hell if you will (pardon me), there is a constant influx by which everything exists, both internally and externally.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The whole material world is evidence (the truth), of the mystery that lay within ..." I don't know, does that make sense? The mystery is the beginning (essence), which gives rise to the physical effect, what we otherwise call the truth (or form).

And just as we all have a body, which manifests itself externally (and notice the external layers of our skin are considered "dead"), there's also a living entity or soul within, which dictates to the body what to do.

So why can't we address the Universe in the same fashion? In terms of that which manifests itself outwardly, in the physical sense, and that which exists inwardly as a soul? (consisting of motive, reason, etc.). In other words does the Universe have a soul? If so, then would that be God?

I believe there's a similarity between the two, except that the spiritual realm is more "fluid" and in a state of flux, otherwise it wouldn't be able to "abide" in the subconscious realm. Whereas from top to bottom, Heaven and Hell if you will (pardon me), there is a constant influx by which everything exists, both internally and externally.

As for mind, the whole essence of the world is that in ultimate sense, there is just matter in eternal motion. A mind cannot think and can not refer to itself as "I" without the material world being existent. All that in essence mind is (that it can refer to itself as "I"), is a capacity or quality, which are ultimately based on matter itself. Matter can only think for and about itself in the form of a mind, but matter does not depend on the mind to exist.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
On my website http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology (16 pages) you can find a mechanism or process that describes such infolding. It shows that physical reality exists, but also contains the original energy (which Lifegrazer calls the Mind). The reversible connection between sub-dimensions happens with a type of white holes/black holes which create a new dimension (by adding an extra layer). Connection to the original source can not be reached through the joints but by resonance (inter-vibrations through the layers of the new entity). This universal manifold is a mechanism showing how the paradoxical joint between body and spirit can be explained. Lifegrazer failure is that he wants to explain all without the existence of separated but still joined structures which have there own freedoms.

This pelestration idea (I don't know if i can call it a scientific hypothese), do you think that it is fundamentaly a materialistic concept? (so far I guess it is).
What is your exact idea between the way matter and mind relate? Is mind in your opinion the highest form of material structure which is capable of relating to itself (having the essence of being able to refer to itself as "I")?

[heusdens]

Any conclusion we can make now regarding the hypothese of Lifegazer?

Is it reasonable to conclude that the world as such, as something independend of the mind, exists on it's own?
Is it reasonable to say that thinking as such in ultimate sense is based on material existence, and that thinking without being is an impossible concept?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I protest againt this. You just 'state' or 'assume' that we have knowledge about the things we perceive prior to perceiving them.
That isn't in the least true.

All sensations are subjective. Things like 'pain' are sensations which the Mind imposes upon concious-awareness via sensory-awareness. Hence; the Mind creates its own sensations.
But these sensations must mirror the 'order' which exists amongst the universe. Therefore, these sensations must be created to mirror this order. This requires knowledge of universal-order prior to creating the sensation of it.
Whenever the Mind becomes conciously aware of sensation, we can say without doubt that an aspect of that Mind already understands universal-order prior to imposing the sensations of this order upon sensory-awareness. I.e., the Mind has universal-knowledge before it acquires universal-sensation.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All sensations are subjective. Things like 'pain' are sensations which the Mind imposes upon concious-awareness via sensory-awareness. Hence; the Mind creates its own sensations.
But these sensations must mirror the 'order' which exists amongst the universe. Therefore, these sensations must be created to mirror this order. This requires knowledge of universal-order prior to creating the sensation of it.
Whenever the Mind becomes conciously aware of sensation, we can say without doubt that an aspect of that Mind already understands universal-order prior to imposing the sensations of this order upon sensory-awareness. I.e., the Mind has universal-knowledge before it acquires universal-sensation.

It might be small and acceptable leap to you, but where did you proof the existence of that Mind? This you haven't prooved to us in the least. Further I think we should discuss the development of sensory organs on known facts from biology and evolution theory. It is non-sensical to talk about the feelings and perceptions of that, without stating their material origin. Guesses as to what the mind of God might or might not be, are just guesses, and not something solid.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
It might be small and acceptable leap to you, but where did you proof the existence of that Mind? This you haven't prooved to us in the least.

The existence of the Mind as a creatively-free entity with prior-knowledge of universal-order, is certainly true. If it wasn't, then sensory-awareness would not be possible, since sensory-creation could not happen.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
This pelestration idea (I don't know if i can call it a scientific hypothese), do you think that it is fundamentaly a materialistic concept? (so far I guess it is).
What is your exact idea between the way matter and mind relate? Is mind in your opinion the highest form of material structure which is capable of relating to itself (having the essence of being able to refer to itself as "I")?
For sure it's not an idealistic approach. You can say it is indeed a materialistic concept since it describes a type of omnivalent mechanism, but its object is omnivalent

From our daily reality we know that we have a body, a house ... we know that we can travel ... and that we can calculate our position by GPS on earth. We measure events, calculate how we send people to the Moon and build the machines to put them there, we photograph nano-tubes, we can measure pain-levels with electrical systems, we know (starting to know) how endorphines works, ... etc. That is a tangible level, we can have a tactile contact with a number of things and we can locate them by coordinates. Observation of this level brings us 'repeatable' knowledge, and facts.

Next to that level we have what we call the meta-physical level including all kinds of un-proven events (because we have not yet the measure devices) and un-provable events (since they pass our measurement level).

Now the first class can be de-mystified when we progress in measurement systems. There will be probably a number of the so called pseudo-science proven from the moment we can measure them.
The measuring of this level is for the moment only a type of personal "experience", thus colored by the limits of the human structure and the semantic limits to express these experiences. Having such as experience is not provable (and is not transmittable), thus is accepted or rejected by the others. Proving (or indications of proof) can be indirect by the results (cfr. PSI clairvoyance like Hurko (famous 30 years ago) specialized in finding corps of missing murdered people).

The un-provable events are related to believes and the (in general) only way to have information about them goes over 'revelations', 'insights', etc. These revelations don't have to be put into the scam box
Religions can be situated here since most of them are based on holy revelations, described and written in holy books.

This dichotomy of our world provokes extreme points of view in philosophy, forums, etc.
There are "energetic" events in both worlds. Science today (cfr Michio Kaku) confirms that everything is vibration.
Different kind of vibrations occur on different levels, but they can interact or join action under certain conditions.

Originally posted by heusdens
What is your exact idea between the way matter and mind relate?
Matter and (lets call it) spirit are two presentations of the same. They only differ in level of re-structuring. Matter has more layers. But to the observer in the real world only the similar vibrating "products" are observed. When he observes through introspection "other information" it is by internal vibrations (from his internal structure).
Originally posted by heusdens
Is mind in your opinion the highest form of material structure which is capable of relating to itself (having the essence of being able to refer to itself as "I")?
I don't like the word mind. Consciousness is in essence the understanding that one ("I") is an isolated entity in reference to the surrounding world. Collective consciousness (CG Jung) and archetypes are probably stored in lower layers of each human. In dreams or meditation we can "feel" indirectly those other layers. Eventually, if you do mental exercises in the correct way you can willfull penetrate in those hidden layers of yourself.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm all ears. But if you come out with meaningless statements such as "A bus will kill you."; or "Physics works."; then you obviously don't understand that these things can be true whether there is an external reality or not.


I already said what was wrong with it. You have been saying all this time that "all perception occurs in the mind" to "all reality exists in the mind". That is the illogical leap. And then the leap from "my mind" to "god's mind" is totally unwarranted.


My conclusion follows my whole argument; and I have enforced this argument with an analysis of external-reality, a few pages back.

But that's the whole problem--your conclusion does not follow from your argument. There is no valid deduction anywhere in your arguments.


I would appreciate your comments, but I think you need to step-up a gear from Heusden's approach.


LOL Your approach is not any different, really. You just take up the opposite point of view. Neither materialism nor idealism can be arrived at via logic alone. There has to be some other evidence. I think that materialism has it, and idealism doesn't.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The existence of the Mind as a creatively-free entity with prior-knowledge of universal-order, is certainly true. If it wasn't, then sensory-awareness would not be possible, since sensory-creation could not happen.

No, it is not "certainly true". Sensory awareness could be possible through entirely material processes, with no prior knowledge needed. Your reasoning here is every bit as ineffectual in proving your case as "getting hit by a bus" is for proving materialism.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I already said what was wrong with it. You have been saying all this time that "all perception occurs in the mind" to "all reality exists in the mind". That is the illogical leap.

I remember that you agreed that all experience of existence is sensed. So, at this stage of the argument you can agree that reality is mindful - sensations + will; reason; emotion. Now; I acknowledge your point that this alone does not disprove an external-reality (to the mind). But the argument doesn't finish there.
The important aspects of the argument show two things:-
1. The Mind creates its own sensations.
2. The Mind already has universal-knowledge of events that it can then create sensations of. I.e., The Mind knows about things before it senses them - always. For example, if you were to create an animation of things that mirrored the laws of physics, then you would have to have knowledge-of-Law for all animation-effects that you portray in your animation. Knowledge precedes animated-effect.

In the case of human sensation; we can now say that our subconcious-Mind had the knowledge to create the universe which we ourselves are now coming to understand. We're talking about a seriously smart 'Mind' here. It's created the sensations which mirror the complex-order apparent within the Laws-of-Physics. In fact, it's created the whole of human history, through human knowledge - through human sensation. It's created our understanding of cosmology too. In fact, all of human knowledge has been gleaned through human-sensation. And therefore, what we know - it already knows.

Not only can it be shown that the Mind created everything which we sense; It can also show that The Mind has knowledge of everything we sense.
I think you should read my argument again.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I remember that you agreed that all experience of existence is sensed. So, at this stage of the argument you can agree that reality is mindful - sensations + will; reason; emotion. Now; I acknowledge your point that this alone does not disprove an external-reality (to the mind). But the argument doesn't finish there.
The important aspects of the argument show two things:-
1. The Mind creates its own sensations.
2. The Mind already has universal-knowledge of events that it can then create sensations of. I.e., The Mind knows about things before it senses them - always. For example, if you were to create an animation of things that mirrored the laws of physics, then you would have to have knowledge-of-Law for all animation-effects that you portray in your animation. Knowledge precedes animated-effect.

In the case of human sensation; we can now say that our subconcious-Mind had the knowledge to create the universe which we ourselves are now coming to understand. We're talking about a seriously smart 'Mind' here. It's created the sensations which mirror the complex-order apparent within the Laws-of-Physics. In fact, it's created the whole of human history, through human knowledge - through human sensation. It's created our understanding of cosmology too. In fact, all of human knowledge has been gleaned through human-sensation. And therefore, what we know - it already knows.

Not only can it be shown that the Mind created everything which we sense; It can also show that The Mind has knowledge of everything we sense.
I think you should read my argument again.

And yet you still fail to address my argument. This is what happened to my "Hurdles" thread - in the old PFs. I had to make another thread that said that I declared victory over your hypothesis, in order to get you to even look at my thread again, and even when you did, you didn't respond to the counter-arguments. That doesn't say alot for the credibility of your idea.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I remember that you agreed that all experience of existence is sensed. So, at this stage of the argument you can agree that reality is mindful - sensations + will; reason; emotion.


No, I can't agree that reality is mindful. That was precisely my objection!


Now; I acknowledge your point that this alone does not disprove an external-reality (to the mind). But the argument doesn't finish there.
The important aspects of the argument show two things:-
1. The Mind creates its own sensations.
2. The Mind already has universal-knowledge of events that it can then create sensations of. I.e., The Mind knows about things before it senses them - always. For example, if you were to create an animation of things that mirrored the laws of physics, then you would have to have knowledge-of-Law for all animation-effects that you portray in your animation. Knowledge precedes animated-effect.


Two things:

First, there is no reason to suppose that the mind works like that, unless one assumes that the universe only exists in the mind. That makes the argument circular. I can tell you for certain that nowhere in my mind are the laws of physics stored, apart from my having studied them, of course. This part of the argument is pure supposition on your part.

Second, you seem to advocating some strange variant of solipsism here after all. Namely, that a universe exists within the mind of each person. There is no need to do that, either. Indeed, it even runs contrary to your ultimate point that god exists.


In the case of human sensation; we can now say that our subconcious-Mind had the knowledge to create the universe which we ourselves are now coming to understand.


What do you mean by 'subconscious mind', and why should one think that such a thing exists?


Not only can it be shown that the Mind created everything which we sense; It can also show that The Mind has knowledge of everything we sense.


Now, are you still talking about an individual human mind, or The Mind? You have taken to the confusing habit of capitalizing both of them.


I think you should read my argument again.

I read it. As everyone here has been telling you, it has a number of illogical leaps that you just don't seem to want to see.

[Mentat]

18 pages...

How much farther have we gotten? It's getting a little pointless, IMO. But, then again, my points have been ignored, so why shouldn't I think that the thread is going nowhere? [:((]

[CJames]

Originally posted by Fliption
Cjames my synopsis about 6 pages ago was very similar to this. But no oneresponded to it. I think I agreed with and had problems with the exact same points that you do.

But I still continue to disagree with the way Heusdens is presenting his case. He is basically disagreeing with number 3 even though he says "right" in response to it. There is no way to "know" the material world exists. Building evidence for it can only give you assurance to some percentage less than 100%. But there is no logical argument that will allow you to know this for sure.

Your comments in your last post are more of the same comments dealing with common sense notions and and evidence. None of this will give you knowledge of an external material world. I'm sorry I missed your post Flipton, there were so many things being said I had to skim through some sections.

I agree, there is no way to know that the material world exists. My point is that the material world is in fact real, whether or not it exists external to us, because our sensations of it are real. Lifegazer would even agree with this. The reason I reject LG's hypothesis is because he claims to have proven the external world does not exist, while in fact he has not. I am not a materialist and am quite sick of being refered to as one. Somehow these discussions always end up being arguments with an "us verses them" mentality.

Take care. [;)] --Carter

[CJames]

Hello Lifegazer. I would very much appreciate it if you went over my step-by-step analysis of your first post on page 16. Thank you.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's a fatal flaw in your reasoning...
The Mind can only become aware of a sensation through having prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent as 'reality' (as sensation).It is pointless to restate this premise. I already understand what you're saying. I'm pointing out that you have not proven this. The mind does not require prior knowledge of the universe to be capable of learning how to represent it. It must only have the ability to learn how to represent it. Knowledge of the material world is not necessary either for a material or "mindful" universe. If the mind is built to recognize patterns in sensory data, and it recieves sensory data that is patterned, it will eventually recognize those patterns and gain the ability to represent them in an understandable way. This is a very simple concept.


Remember that our sensations must mirror the order inherent within the Laws of Physics. That is why sensation necessarily proceeds knowledge of the Mind which creates those sensations.Did you state this backward?, because you are agreeing with me. The sensation comes before the understanding of it, as I said.


You cannot escape this obvious conclusion.
You infer that the Mind has 'learnt' about the external reality. But 'knowledge' is gleaned through the concious-reasoning of those sensations. It is 'our' knowledge.
And you should not be confusing the knowledge gleaned from concious-reasoning as a reflection of the knowledge required to create the very sensations which all living things do have.
You infer that knowledge proceeds sensory-awareness.No, I do not. I infer that the ability to aquire knowledge proceeds sensory-awareness, and I am almost positive you agree with this. The "knowledge required to create the sensations" doesn't come until quite a while after birth. Pattern recognition is not knowledge, it's an ability.


Yet this is so obviously incorrect for the Mind as a whole. It only applies to conciousness within those sensations. It does not apply to the conciousness which has created those sensations.It is impossible for you to prove that "the conciousness which has created those sensations" is creating them from scratch. You haven't done this, and you can't possibly do so. This subconscious part of the mind is subconscious and there is no way to figure out what it's thinking or doing via your own conscious mind.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No, I can't agree that reality is mindful. That was precisely my objection!

Okay. Then experience of existence is via mind-ful attributes: sensation-upon-awareness; will; reason; emotion. That's an absolute-fact. This is our existence. How can you object to that? Are you not human?
Human existence is within the singularity of its own awareness. It is not sensing external-stimulae. It is sensing (and interacting) with internal stimulae.
Only our inner-existence can be confirmed. But like I said, the argument doesn't finish there.

Two things:

First, there is no reason to suppose that the mind works like that

Would you mind telling me how I feel 'pain'? You know yourself that an aspect of the mind must create this sensation (even if the data is external). Having knowledge that my hand is in the fire is one thing. But that pain thing is something else. You must see that?
Therefore, the fact that the Mind creates its very own sensations is beyond dispute. And if it does this; then it must have knowledge of what it is creating, prior to creating it. And this applies to all sensations.

unless one assumes that the universe only exists in the mind. That makes the argument circular.

I've not assumed anything. Our experience of existence is mind-ful, as explained above. And the fact that the Mind creates its own sensations is true, regardless. Call it the brain if you like; but the fact is that there cannot be sensory-experience unless the brain creates ~a sensory-portrait~ of existence (even as a response to external data). There needs to be a Knowledgable Artist, even in the brain!

Second, you seem to advocating some strange variant of solipsism here after all.

I'm clueless as to what my philosophy represents in established opinion. I'll take your word for it.

Namely, that a universe exists within the mind of each person. There is no need to do that, either. Indeed, it even runs contrary to your ultimate point that god exists.

My philosophy is that a universe exists (singular), within the many shifting-perspectives of One Mind.

What do you mean by 'subconscious mind', and why should one think that such a thing exists?

Do 'you' know how the sensations were created? No. Are 'you' not the awareness of the sensory-experiences you have had? Yes.
When The Mind creates sensation, it also creates 'you'. Or rather, it creates the idea of 'you'. The perception of 'you'.
But clearly, 'you' are not It. There is an aspect of your Mind which has created the existence which you have. It is rightly called the subconcious... since few, if any of us, have ever become aware of it.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My point was valid. The conclusion of my philosophy is one which might be rejected through fear alone. That would be criminal.
My point was that this sort of statement is only made by someone who "knows" he is right. Prior to an acceptance by others, this implies a feeling of faith in one's own theory, and this is never reasonable. You cannot approach a discussion from this standpoint, from which you are unwilling to compromise. The only thing that this road aims for it is a preach. And this has no place in what is reasonable.


Let's just list the points you need to address, to make this clearer.

1. You must PROVE that sensations are purely of the mind. This cannot be self-concluded and used as the basis of an argument.

2. You must PROVE that there is no logical conflict between the perceived objective infallibility of "reason" and the idea of a subjective reality of perspectives. Ie. you must validate your method itself.

3. You must PROVE that external reality cannot co-exist outside of a reality mind, and outside the domain of mindful reason.

4. You must PROVE that perception of reality is equivalent to reality itself. Ie. what is not perceived cannot exist.

5. You must PROVE that external reality does not exist, as well as the assumptions that led up to this. Eg. uniform fabric of reality, uniform = indivisible etc. You must PROVE that mindful reality is not also excluded by this argument.

6. You must PROVE that similarities between mind implies the existence of a "One Mind", and not a matter of a reflection of your mind with your senses.

7. You must PROVE that all minds are real.

There may be others...
Until you PROVE all of the above, your argument does not constitute a proof of god, merely a statement of possibilities. You point is hence invalid.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. Then experience of existence is via mind-ful attributes: sensation-upon-awareness; will; reason; emotion. That's an absolute-fact. This is our existence. How can you object to that? Are you not human?


You are still equating "experience of existence" with "existence", and it is still unjustified. There is nothing in my experiences that rules out the possibility that my existence can still be a body of flesh and bone walking around a mechanical universe.


Human existence is within the singularity of its own awareness. It is not sensing external-stimulae. It is sensing (and interacting) with internal stimulae.


*yawn* Same old assumption, and still no proof.


Would you mind telling me how I feel 'pain'? You know yourself that an aspect of the mind must create this sensation (even if the data is external). Having knowledge that my hand is in the fire is one thing. But that pain thing is something else. You must see that?
Therefore, the fact that the Mind creates its very own sensations is beyond dispute. And if it does this; then it must have knowledge of what it is creating, prior to creating it. And this applies to all sensations.


Again, there is no logical reason why the knowledge must be there. That is an assertion on your part. I don't know how you feel pain, but I do know that this argument has holes in it. I'm skipping over the part about the "Knowledgeable Artist", because I have the exact same objection to that.


I'm clueless as to what my philosophy represents in established opinion. I'll take your word for it.


You mean you're clueless about it after Fliption, heusdens and I went over it in such great detail in this very thread? I guess Mentat was right--you aren't reading other people's posts.

In short, rejecting solipsism is a necessary step to even arriving at the decision of whether or not to argue about god. The fact that you are still clinging to solipsist notions here makes your argument look all the more incoherent.


My philosophy is that a universe exists (singular), within the many shifting-perspectives of One Mind.


Oh, I know the punch line, believe me. It's just that there is no reason to think that it is "The Truth".


Do 'you' know how the sensations were created? No. Are 'you' not the awareness of the sensory-experiences you have had? Yes.
When The Mind creates sensation, it also creates 'you'. Or rather, it creates the idea of 'you'. The perception of 'you'.


I do think that my personal identity comes from the interconnectedness of my thoughts, but I still don't see why I can't also have a material body, nor do I see why a material brain is not the thing that allows those thoughts to transpire.


But clearly, 'you' are not It. There is an aspect of your Mind which has created the existence which you have. It is rightly called the subconcious... since few, if any of us, have ever become aware of it.

I still don't see any reason to accept that I have a subconscious, nor do I see any reason to accept that it contains any universal knowledge. For all your verbosity, at the end of the day a material brain receiving data from a material universe is still a viable option.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Okay. Then experience of existence is via mind-ful attributes: sensation-upon-awareness; will; reason; emotion. That's an absolute-fact. This is our existence. How can you object to that? Are you not human?
This is our awareness of existence. This is not neccessarily our existence in entirity. Experience does not equal reality. You have not shown this. Whether one is human cannot eliminate this logical fallacy.
Human existence is within the singularity of its own awareness. It is not sensing external-stimulae. It is sensing (and interacting) with internal stimulae.
Only our inner-existence can be confirmed. But like I said, the argument doesn't finish there.
But no outer existence cannot be confirmed either. You have asserted we are not sensing external-stimulae invalidly. You cannot assume that internal stimuli does not have an external source.
Would you mind telling me how I feel 'pain'? You know yourself that an aspect of the mind must create this sensation (even if the data is external). Having knowledge that my hand is in the fire is one thing. But that pain thing is something else. You must see that?
Therefore, the fact that the Mind creates its very own sensations is beyond dispute. And if it does this; then it must have knowledge of what it is creating, prior to creating it. And this applies to all sensations.
The data is external. Precisely. You have not justified your assertion that sensations are entirely mindful. It is easy to see that the pain comes as a cause of the electrical impulses from your arm, and the far older external data evolved as a reaction to injury over the ages. The pain is not a phantom, but shares an essential real component. Eliminate the impulses, and you eliminate the pain. This can be easily argued that pain is in essence entirely material, wrapped in a package of emotional interpretation. The data is not created, but transformed. Your idea of the requirement of prior knowledge can be easy used as the need for an external basis to all sensation. You have not proven that the opposite is neccessarily true.
And this applies to all sensations.
And to use the fire, you in fact react to the fire WITHOUT a conscious response. You move your hand away automatically without knowledge of the sensation. This is a direct application of reality directly to reality without perception. In your philosophy, this reaction is entirely illusionary. The heat does not feature in your existence. The motion does not feature in your existence.
I've not assumed anything. Our experience of existence is mind-ful, as explained above. And the fact that the Mind creates its own sensations is true, regardless. Call it the brain if you like; but the fact is that there cannot be sensory-experience unless the brain creates ~a sensory-portrait~ of existence (even as a response to external data). There needs to be a Knowledgable Artist, even in the brain!
You have, right there. You have assumed that experience of existence is equivalent to existence itself. Even the artist needs data. You have not given proof for the neccessary originality of the mind.
I'm clueless as to what my philosophy represents in established opinion. I'll take your word for it.

My philosophy is that a universe exists (singular), within the many shifting-perspectives of One Mind.
That is solipsism, which you make equivalent absolutely to external reality by making the mind boundless. the mind is a fudge factor.
Do 'you' know how the sensations were created? No. Are 'you' not the awareness of the sensory-experiences you have had? Yes.
When The Mind creates sensation, it also creates 'you'. Or rather, it creates the idea of 'you'. The perception of 'you'.
Do you know? You don't. So no proof lies in this thread.
But clearly, 'you' are not It. There is an aspect of your Mind which has created the existence which you have. It is rightly called the subconcious... since few, if any of us, have ever become aware of it.
By definition, the subconscious mind exists outside of perception. It is not a matter that few people perceive it. It is a scientific division between what is of the mind, and what carries functions over and around the mind. By your philosophy, this does not exist.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The existence of the Mind as a creatively-free entity with prior-knowledge of universal-order, is certainly true. If it wasn't, then sensory-awareness would not be possible, since sensory-creation could not happen.

Where did you proof the existence of this Mind? Don't go around the real issue of this thread. All you did was trying to convince us of there not being realy an outside world, etc. Which I sufficiently prooved to be a non-sensical conclusion, which was based on arbitrary assumptions and wrong judgements.

Did you read my post on why there realy is a world in 'The Fundamentel Question' thread?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
You are still equating "experience of existence" with "existence", and it is still unjustified.

Our experience of existence is the basis of our knowledge of existence. For humanity, the experience of existence is the only thing we can actually confirm. From a rational point-of-view, all knowledge is derived from the 'experience of existence'.
Consequently, any philosophical argument which seeks to support materialism or Idealism, must be founded upon this fact.

There is nothing in my experiences that rules out the possibility that my existence can still be a body of flesh and bone walking around a mechanical universe.

There is my argument. And that emanates from human experience. And that is built upon the above-confirmed fact. There was also that other argument I gave, which directly-assaulted the credibility of an external-realm.

You mean you're clueless about it after Fliption, heusdens and I went over it in such great detail in this very thread? I guess Mentat was right--you aren't reading other people's posts.

Why should I be interested in reading about Solipsism? I'm presenting my own philosophy. I take no responsibility for whatever 'they' might be saying; and I make no excuse for making any diversification away from their wisdom. I don't really care what 'they' say, to be honest. My argument is my own. It is wrong for anyone to classify me as a 'whatever', and then to judge my philosophy by the standards of past-whateverers.
You can label me what you like. I was called a 'mystic' by Boulderhead. Wuli calls me a panantheist (sp?), I think. It doesn't matter to me what you label me. It just matters to yourself, apparently. Why should that be?

I do think that my personal identity comes from the interconnectedness of my thoughts, but I still don't see why I can't also have a material body, nor do I see why a material brain is not the thing that allows those thoughts to transpire.

The sensations are not the same as the data. 'Pain' clearly illustrates this. Hence, 'pain' is created in the Mind (even as a response to external-data). Hence, The Mind (or even the brain) would need to understand that data, or even already have knowledge of reality, prior to creating the mirroring-sensation. Either way, the brain/Mind needs to understand the universe on a level depicted within the sensations which it creates. How, for example, could the brain/Mind create the sensations which 'we' all have, unless that brain/Mind already comprehends the universe to a level depicted within those sensations?
A monkey has ears. If we tell it a joke, will it laugh? Of course not. But why not? - Because the monkey doesn't understand the joke. Therefore, there is no laughter.
Similarly, there can be no sensation without prior understanding.

I still don't see any reason to accept that I have a subconscious,

The brain/Mind performs many functions. You are not aware of any of them. Or at least, you are not aware of how the brain/Mind performs these functions. The subconcious is also an integral-aspect of psychology, and of other such practises. The subconcious is under close scrutiny in regards to the 'placebo effect'. The subconcious is
what hynotists utilise to make their own livings. The subconcious is what you slide towards in sleep, wandering through bizarre dreams created by It, in response to your emotional-state.
The subconcious is not some bizarre religious-type character. It is integral to our understanding of the Mind as a whole. It is a scientific term. Your reluctance to accept it doesn't do much for the science which you would have us believe is the road to truth. Does it?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Our experience of existence is the basis of our knowledge of existence. For humanity, the experience of existence [B]is the only thing we can actually confirm. From a rational point-of-view, all knowledge is derived from the 'experience of existence'.
Consequently, any philosophical argument which seeks to support materialism or Idealism, must be founded upon this fact.


Well, there is some progress anyway. You have at least stopped saying that "inner experience of existence" implies "inner existence".


There is my argument. And that emanates from human experience. And that is built upon the above-confirmed fact. There was also that other argument I gave, which directly-assaulted the credibility of an external-realm.


But neither of those arguments proved or disproved anything. There is still no reason to think that "mindful experience of existence" implies "mindful existence". You seem to have softened your stance on that above, but I still think that is your ultimate conclusion.


Why should I be interested in reading about Solipsism? I'm presenting my own philosophy. I take no responsibility for whatever 'they' might be saying; and I make no excuse for making any diversification away from their wisdom. I don't really care what 'they' say, to be honest. My argument is my own. It is wrong for anyone to classify me as a 'whatever', and then to judge my philosophy by the standards of past-whateverers.


So now you admit it--you are ignoring other people's points.

This is exactly why having any conversation with you is like dragging a dead elephant around. You are so resistant to learning new things, that it makes it impossible to refer to other concepts which have bearing on your own ideas. "Solipsist" is not just a label, it means something, and we explored that earlier in the thread.


The sensations are not the same as the data. 'Pain' clearly illustrates this. Hence, 'pain' is created in the Mind (even as a response to external-data). Hence, The Mind (or even the brain) would need to understand that data, or even already have knowledge of reality, prior to creating the mirroring-sensation. Either way, the brain/Mind needs to understand the universe on a level depicted within the sensations which it creates. How, for example, could the brain/Mind create the sensations which 'we' all have, unless that brain/Mind already comprehends the universe to a level depicted within those sensations?


That's an easy one: It could be that the mind is all hardware, and the similarity in the hardware is responsible for the similarity of the experience. You're still just asserting here.


A monkey has ears. If we tell it a joke, will it laugh? Of course not. But why not? - Because the monkey doesn't understand the joke. Therefore, there is no laughter.
Similarly, there can be no sensation without prior understanding.


That's way to simple minded. The complete system of hardware includes the brain. You should know better than that.


Your reluctance to accept it (edit: the subconscious) doesn't do much for the science which you would have us believe is the road to truth. Does it?

That's not it, really. I don't know anything about the subconscious. If I did, I wouldn't be asking you what it is. But I did ask you what you mean by it. I think I know now.

[Lifegazer]

I cannot believe that there are members within this forum who don't have the intelligence to realise that a representational-portrayal (through the creation of sensation) of a reality, cannot happen
unless the Creator of said-sensation(s) has a prior understanding of the reality it is supposed to be representing via sensation.

If we bombard a rock with photons reflected off a specific object (a tree, for example), then you can bet your lives that the rock wont be experiencing the sensations we have of 'a tree' until something within that rock understands exactly what those photons are telling it. Whether the rock ever has the sensory-experiences of that tree is dependent upon it having an understanding of the universe to such a degree that it can actually ~paint an image of a tree, upon awareness~ through the knowledge which it has prior to doing so.
And without this knowledge/understanding, the rock can never create the sensations.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I cannot believe that there are members within this forum who don't have the intelligence to realise that a representational-portrayal (through the creation of sensation) of a reality, cannot happen
unless the Creator of said-sensation(s) has a prior understanding of the reality it is supposed to be representing via sensation.


This is the kind of nonsense that will get this thread locked. LG, you are absolutely the last member here who should be impugning anyone's intelligence. In fact, you have looked like a complete dimwit over the last 18 pages (I should say 18 months!), still having failed to grasp the concept of deductive validity.


If we bombard a rock with photons reflected off a specific object (a tree, for example), then you can bet your lives that the rock wont be experiencing the sensations we have of 'a tree' until something within that rock understands exactly what those photons are telling it. Whether the rock ever has the sensory-experiences of that tree is dependent upon it having an understanding of the universe to such a degree that it can actually ~paint an image of a tree, upon awareness~ through the knowledge which it has prior to doing so.
And without this knowledge/understanding, the rock can never create the sensations.

And there is an alternative explanation:

The rock does not have those experiences because it does not have a nervous system. I just pointed that alternative out in my last post, and we have all been pointing it out throughout this entire thread.

Get a clue.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
So now you admit it--you are ignoring other people's points.

I ignore people who want to bracket my philosophy, and then judge it within those brackets. My philosophy is unique to me. I have not learnt it from any other 'sect'... whether solipsism, mysticism, or panantheism.
When you make judgements about Solipsism, it doesn't affect my argument because I do not classify myself as a solipsist. That's why I disregarded all such conversation.
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I ignore people who want to bracket my philosophy, and then judge it within those brackets. My philosophy is unique to me. I have not learnt it from any other 'sect'... whether solipsism, mysticism, or panantheism.
When you make judgements about Solipsism, it doesn't affect my argument because I do not classify myself as a solipsist. That's why I disregarded all such conversation.
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

This is a total cop out.

It does not matter that you did not learn your ideas from anyone. The point is that your ideas are solipsistic, and they do in fact share the problems of solipsism.

Would you have listened if I had not used the word "solipsism"?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
If you have little time to think, and your life is in danger, what do you think you will do? Our brains are built to deal with that, and don't need 100% certainty. Now the study of the biological organism will tell you that everywhere in nature you will find behaviour that absolute shows that organism behave acoording to their senses and according to the assumption that there is an external reality.

And for supplying even more reasons. Suppose that some biological species would appear, that would not apply this logic/reason and subsequent behaviour that there is an external reality according to their senses. It would not take long for such a species to go extinct. This is true for humans too of course. No matter how consequent an Idealist is in his thinking, he will still take care not to be droven over by a bus.

Your just doing the same thing here. Your using common sense notions about how you believe things work in the external reality to then prove the external reality. This is just not good philosophy. The truth is, that you cannot know what will happen when you get driven over by a bus until it actually happens. To assume your fate would be similar to what you have observed happens to other people assumes that those other people exists to begin with! You wouldn't expect this same thing to happen to you if you were the only mind that existed would you? No matter how hard you try, you will always end up assuming your conclusion on this.

You are going about this the wrong way. You should pick LG's idea apart because he hasn't proven his case. By trying to prove the opposite view, your task is just as difficult. I contend it is impossible.

[Tom Mattson]

Fliption,

I left a post for you in Heusdens' thread ("Proof Against LG's Theory") asking basically: What exactly would you accept as good philosophy?

It seems to me that you would only accept solipsism, and that no inductive logic is allowed at all. If so, then you are always going to be thinking "That is just not good philosophy," no matter who writes what.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
Fliption,

I left a post for you in Heusdens' thread ("Proof Against LG's Theory") asking basically: What exactly would you accept as good philosophy?

It seems to me that you would only accept solipsism, and that no inductive logic is allowed at all. If so, then you are always going to be thinking "That is just not good philosophy," no matter who writes what.

Ok Tom. How many times have you in the past allowed LifeGazer to stray from logic IN ANY WAY to come to his conclusions? How can we hold him to strict logical standards but allow Heusden so much freedom? BTW, I am certainly not saying that solipsism is all thats acceptable. I am claiming that you cannot know what the truth is either way. I have some issues with LG's argument as well. My point to Heusdens has been that it would be much easier to show that LG hasn't proven his case logically, then it is to try to prove the opposite view. He cannot do this in a satisifactory way and there are much more glaring issues with LG's points. He doesn't even need to do this.

And your example of someone manipulating their world with their mind would not be sufficient proof that one lives in the Matrix. You would first have to rule out that such a thing is not possible in a material universe. (Some people believe that it is!) Or I can argue that a mindful world which invokes order consistently with a law of physics wouldn't allow this sort of manipulation unless it too had a lawful explanation.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok Tom. How many times have you in the past allowed LifeGazer to stray from logic IN ANY WAY to come to his conclusions? How can we hold him to strict logical standards but allow Heusden so much freedom?


You're missing a fundamental point here though:

LG claims that he has proven his conclusions, which entails that the negation of his conclusions must be false. That requires absolute adherence to deductive logic from self-evident premises. Heusdens, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged that no philosophical stance can be proven absolutely.

If LG would stop insisting that his conclusion is anything more than a mere possibility, I would stop hassling him (except when he goes loopy with scientific theories, in which case I have to step in not as "Tom", but as "PF Mentor").


BTW, I am certainly not saying that solipsism is all thats acceptable. I am claiming that you cannot know what the truth is either way.


I agree with that.


I have some issues with LG's argument as well. My point to Heusdens has been that it would be much easier to show that LG hasn't proven his case logically, then it is to try to prove the opposite view. He cannot do this in a satisifactory way and there are much more glaring issues with LG's points. He doesn't even need to do this.


That is an equally frustrating route as LG has no recognition of--and sees no need for--logic. If you get the PF v2.0 archives, you will find many instances of people pointing out both formal and informal errors to LG, only to have him shrug it off. This is especially frustrating when LG constantly demands that we address his "logic".

I can completely understand Heusdens' impulse to say, "to hell with it" and try to argue the materialist case. He may not prove it, but he can at least show that an alternative explanation exists, which would show that LG's argument is not valid.


And your example of someone manipulating their world with their mind would not be sufficient proof that one lives in the Matrix. You would first have to rule out that such a thing is not possible in a material universe. (Some people believe that it is!)


It isn't possible in a material universe. Of course, I say that as the conclusion of an inductive argument, which brings me to my other question: Do you accept inductive logic?


Or I can argue that a mindful world which invokes order consistently with a law of physics wouldn't allow this sort of manipulation unless it too had a lawful explanation.

I don't think that would matter, as the mere occurance of it would have no explanation in a material universe.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
You're missing a fundamental point here though:

Heusdens, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged that no philosophical stance can be proven absolutely.


Well Tom then it seems you and I are not so far apart. But you would be right that I have missed one fundamental part. This statement you make about Heusdens has not been my observation at all. I've seen nothing but absolute statements about what is true and what is false from him/her. If I have misunderstood, then I'll bow out with Heusdens because this is my only objection.


That is an equally frustrating route as LG has no recognition of--and sees no need for--logic. If you get the PF v2.0 archives, you will find many instances of people pointing out both formal and informal errors to LG, only to have him shrug it off. This is especially frustrating when LG constantly demands that we address his "logic".

I can completely understand Heusdens' impulse to say, "to hell with it" and try to argue the materialist case. He may not prove it, but he can at least show that an alternative explanation exists, which would show that LG's argument is not valid.


I never understood why you guys don't just ignore him then. If it truly is not worth discussion due to this apparent hard headedness then why don't people just ignore the threads? This would be a much better tactic then to commit the same crimes by trying to prove the opposite view.


It isn't possible in a material universe. Of course, I say that as the conclusion of an inductive argument, which brings me to my other question: Do you accept inductive logic?


Well thats a very open ended question. It depends on what it's being used for. Is it a way to perhaps advance our understanding of how things work? Yes. I think so. Will it give you 100% certain knowledge? No. The conclusions you make inductively could change given more evidence as the years go by. Many conclusions achieved inductively have changed over the years. You cannot be certain that your current inductive conclusions will not also be shown to be false. In fact, one of the few things we can be certain about, is that some of them most definitely will be.

From my perspective, you may actually become 100% certain of how human anatomy works. But you can never be 100% certain that the external world really exists. But I thought we agreed on this and you are saying that apparently heusdens agrees with this as well.


I don't think that would matter, as the mere occurance of it would have no explanation in a material universe. [/B]

Here it is again. You're assuming the current world is all material (inductively I'm sure). No matter how you try to prove external reality, you have to invoke it in an assumption somewhere.

[Iacchus32]

What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.
Now why do I somehow sense this is the furthest thing from everyone's mind, to "prove the existence of God?" Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

What's the difference between the "established view" and an economic cash cow? Not much I suppose? There's a nice profit to be made for those who buy into it (or at least maintain a comfortable living), so long as "nobody" changes the way that it's "set up." Hmm... Now why would we want to do that?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me [:)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me [:)]
That's fair enough. It's just that everyone seems to want to argue about every single last detail, without giving any consideration to the real issue, Does God exist?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well Tom then it seems you and I are not so far apart. But you would be right that I have missed one fundamental part. This statement you make about Heusdens has not been my observation at all. I've seen nothing but absolute statements about what is true and what is false from him/her. If I have misunderstood, then I'll bow out with Heusdens because this is my only objection.

Since I have been mentioned here, and I seem to be the source of the confusion, let me try and explain the issue.

I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge. The position of the other side is and always will be to proof then that there are things we do not know, and cannot know, and therefore we dont't have knowledge at all. This would leave us then just with thoughts, impressions, emotions, etc. but no real and profound knowledge.

I also used the analogy of the computer. Let us make the following steps. The brain and nerve system is the whole computer. The center of our awareness and ratio is the CPU. Knowledge translates into a capacity. Has the computer the capacity to open a Word document? Yes it has. But does the CPU have that capacity? No, all it can deal with are 32 bit words (either as data or operarands). What we define then the capacity of the computer to be, is dependend on our point of view. Does our knowledge reside in the total complexity of our whole system, or do we think it is just this center of awareness and ratio?
That is the crucial point.

We can not deny the fact that our whole system is able to know the material world. All our behaviour just shows and proofs that.
The other thing is wether we can know that from our center of awareness and ratio alone. The answer is probably no, at least not directly. There is one exclusion to this, we can bring our thinking and ratio and awareness in such a state in which it is is confronted with the fact that EITHER also the ratio and awaraness itself does not exist, OR it just has to assume that everything in the whole world, of which it does not has direct knowledge must exist.
(see tread 'The Fundamental Issue' and the thread 'Proog against lifegazers mind hypothese' the intermezzo part).

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge. The position of the other side is and always will be to proof then that there are things we do not know, and cannot know, and therefore we dont't have knowledge at all. This would leave us then just with thoughts, impressions, emotions, etc. but no real and profound knowledge.
Do you believe the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

We have the reasoning capacity to find the truth, and to acknowledge the truth, although truth is something relative. We are able to make a more comprehensible picture of reality, which becomes more and more like the truth, so every step we take will lead us further to the truth. This doesn't mean we may take sometimes mistakes, which lead us further away from truth, but we will find out that we made a mistake.
All I know is that we are able to find a relative better truth, but do not know about the truth in advance (that's why we have to find and research it). We do not always know what paths to take in advance, we may be on a path that leads to nowhere, but we can catch up for that, and take a road that will take us further.
From our past (in the last thousands of years) investigation, I do certainly have the impression that we are advancing and progressing.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
All I know is that we are able to find a relative better truth, but do not know about the truth in advance (that's why we have to find and research it). We do not always know what paths to take in advance, we may be on a path that leads to nowhere, but we can catch up for that, and take a road that will take us further.
Then what is intuition? if not some degree of foresight?

This I would deem comparable to the sun as it begins to rise (better qualify that by saying "appears to rise") and, while it may not have reached the horizon yet, there is evidence--i.e., "pre-knowledge"--that it will, by virtue of the light that precedes it. Perhaps something similar is going on inside our brains? Could that be what they mean by "flash of insight?"

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what is intuition? if not some degree of foresight?

This I would deem comparable to the sun as it begins to rise (better qualify that by saying "appears to rise") and, while it may not have reached the horizon yet, there is evidence--i.e., "pre-knowledge"--that it will, by virtue of the light that precedes it. Perhaps something similar is going on inside our brains? Could that be what they mean by "flash of insight?"

We have partly consciousnessly and partly unconsciously established a model of how reality works. From there one we can in a certain way use that "model" as a way of predicting things. Part of this is done subsconsciously, and therefore we can have in a flash a picture of the immediate or near future.

When I see someone in front of me, which a glas in his hands, and manipulating it in a such a way that I am almost certain it will faal, I can see in a "flash" the glass falling in thousands pieces on the ground, before it actually happens. This information of things about to occur, all happen on know information of how reality works, based on experience. Most of how this is done, is a hidden layer of consciousness. We would realy turn mad if we knew how our brain performs all the numerous tasks it has to perform, for instance only walking is an immensely complex task, or speaking.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
When I see someone in front of me, which a glas in his hands, and manipulating it in a such a way that I am almost certain it will faal, I can see in a "flash" the glass falling in thousands pieces on the ground, before it actually happens. This information of things about to occur, all happen on know information of how reality works, based on experience. Most of how this is done, is a hidden layer of consciousness. We would realy turn mad if we knew how our brain performs all the numerous tasks it has to perform, for instance only walking is an immensely complex task, or speaking.
Yeah, I've had this happen to me numerous times. For example if I was working on something or trying to get something done, and then out of the blue a thought would occur to me, well what if this (or whatever) happened? Which, I would pretty much ignore as it didn't seem all that much out of the ordinary, so I would keep working. But sure enough, only a moment later, there it was all over the floor.

While I eventually learned to acknowledge this, and whenever it occurred I would just stop, reassess what I was doing, and go back to work. And sure enough it went away or, had become incorporated in my "behavior pattern."

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Since I have been mentioned here, and I seem to be the source of the confusion, let me try and explain the issue.

I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge.

Well If Tom read this post from Heusdens, I think he can see why there is so much confusion. I am still not clear on exactly what is being said. The first few words say "we can know" and then the sentence goes on to say that we cannot know for certain. I think we need to be real careful with the words know/knowledge. The way it's being used here is what I would call a belief. I will conceed that some beliefs are backed with much more evidence than others but it is a belief nonetheless. I associate the ability to know materialism with the ability to see your own eyeball with your very own eyes in real time. It cannot be done. As soon as you take your eyes out to look at them, you have nothing to see with.

The analogy with the computer/cpu and brain/awareness just loses me completely. It's just not this complicated. All knowledge must pass through awareness.

I'm beginning to think this is just a combination of semantics and personal taste on how views are presented with "spin". I'm not so sure I think any of it is relevant to the topic. We can critique LG's proof without having to "know" that materialism is correct.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well If Tom read this post from Heusdens, I think he can see why there is so much confusion. I am still not clear on exactly what is being said. The first few words say "we can know" and then the sentence goes on to say that we cannot know for certain. I think we need to be real careful with the words know/knowledge. The way it's being used here is what I would call a belief. I will conceed that some beliefs are backed with much more evidence than others but it is a belief nonetheless. I associate the ability to know materialism with the ability to see your own eyeball with your very own eyes in real time. It cannot be done. As soon as you take your eyes out to look at them, you have nothing to see with.

The analogy with the computer/cpu and brain/awareness just loses me completely. It's just not this complicated. All knowledge must pass through awareness.

I'm beginning to think this is just a combination of semantics and personal taste on how views are presented with "spin". I'm not so sure I think any of it is relevant to the topic. We can critique LG's proof without having to "know" that materialism is correct.

Well the most rigorous statement is that it's either Idealism or Materialism, either belief/religion or science. There is nothing in to choose. Do you realy think there is a material reality outside of your brain and independend of it, or not?

The other thing is if our knowledge ever can be or will be complete. Knowledge is proceeding through history.

[CJames]

I don't even know why I'm saying this, but could you respond to my posts on page 18?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well the most rigorous statement is that it's either Idealism or Materialism, either belief/religion or science.

I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists.
Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-8 I think, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed. If it makes sense, then so would an external-reality. But as an external reality does not make sense (see the argument for details), I can actually conclude (myself) that there is no sense in an external reality.
Hence, I have reason for my own stance... and reason which destroys yours. Whereas you have no reason to destroy the Mind-reality. And you only have beliefs to defend materialism. That's right: beliefs.
My point is that there is nothing which you have said which constitutes a logical argument to support materialism. You either have to do that by the aforementioned method, above. Or you have to build an argument which starts exactly like mine. For, let's be clear about this:- a philosopher who doesn't realise that sensory-experience is the only means of confirming existence (apart from the mind-attributes of reason; will; emotion), can easily start to convince his audience that existence is so-much-more than "sensory-experience".
They'll tell us things like existence is external, because things are interacting independently of 'my' mind. But they're not acting independently to the mind - because they're happening directly within your awareness!
I absolutely-declare that there's not one single statement that can be made for the defense of materialism, which cannot be shown to be a mistake. Tom made the same mistake too, when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.
Everything which you have said is meaningless. Simply because everything you have said is a mistake. It doesn't validate material-reality; no more than the three examples I gave, above, did either.
I an not BSing anyone here. We only have an inner-reality. It's the only thing which can be confirmed by reason.
And from this fact, my argument did proceed. Please address it. Let's forget this defending of materialism nonsense. Because there is no justification for an external reality. None whatsoever.

[FZ+]

Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-8 I think, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed.
Also notice the pages after that post which fully refute it. I don't see anything more in this than beliefs. No proof. Your accusations are getting off topic...

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
The mind does not require prior knowledge of the universe to be capable of learning how to represent it. It must only have the ability to learn how to represent it.

What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.
It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.
Creating sensation is a 'function' which cannot be learned. This is a fact, since there's nothing to learn these things from.

Now, please read the argument again.

[FZ+]

What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.
Assertion.

It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.
Incorrect. Does a french book understand french? No, but reading it can teach you french. Does an atom understand nuclear physics? No, but observing it, or a group of it, can teach you it's secrets. It is possible to generate new ways of thought by the evolution of the mind, and it is possible to be taught by your genes the beginning of sensation. Think about it carefully. The statement that the mind can only be taught by the mind is only neccessary with a proven transcendence of the mind without outside influence. This is not done. So this is not a fact, only an assertion.

(Here we go again...)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Your accusations are getting off topic...
'Accusations'? What I just said in my second-last post is not only fact; but also necessary. If I can get everybody to stop defending materialism (because it has no defense), then people might actually start to take my argument seriously; and we wont have to put-up with the kind of stuff that heusdens (and others) keep posting. No defense of materialism = no defense of materialsm. So why bother?
You can try and destroy my argument, but you will never present a logical-argument for the defense of an external reality. Never. It's just impossible.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You can try and destroy my argument, but you will never present a logical-argument for the defense of an external reality. Never. It's just impossible.

LG, your argument has been destroyed. The only one who doesn't see it is you. And of course one can make a case for external reality. In fact, you are making a case for it. You just think it's god.

All anyone really needs to do to show the invalidity of your argument is show that material existence is tenable, and that has been done.

Why can't you accept that your worldview is just one of many possible worldviews, and not a logical necessity?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.

Assertion.

The explanation is within my reasoning. I make a conclusion - not an assertion.
The actual-sensation of 'pain' is created by the Mind, regardless as to whether the mind/brain receives external-data informing it of structural-harm to the body. It doesn't matter how much data the brain/mind receives (if this is the case). The important point to note here is that the Mind [/B]must transform that data into sensation (of pain) upon awareness[/B].
That sensory-awareness is a creation of the Mind, is certain.
That it can 'learn' (from external data) how to create these sensations, is false. For there is no information (from external data) on how to create sensations. Not unless you believe that all matter can feel, anyway.
Furthermore, a creative representation (sensory) of external-data would require knowledge of that data - in order that the sensations make sense of that reality. So, either the Mind has universal-knowledge, or it instantly-understands universal-knowledge since it can comprehend external-data before creating the sensation of it.

It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.

Incorrect. Does a french book understand french?

No. But the Frenchman who made it does.

No, but reading it can teach you french.

I can promise you that I could read German-books for eternity. The fact is that unless someone translates the meaning of the text for me, that I wont learn a single word of German in the whole of that eternity. The Mind cannot just "read" external-data. It simply must be able to 'translate' the meaning of that data, by itself, and for itself. The Mind must know physics before it can read physics... and then create sensations which mirror those physics.

Does an atom understand nuclear physics?

The actions of an atom are influenced by forces which interact with it. Not by personal information of the Laws of physics.

No, but observing it, or a group of it, can teach you it's secrets.

I have no idea what this implies.

It is possible to generate new ways of thought by the evolution of the mind,

Sounds like a mantra used at a materialist's convention.

and it is possible to be taught by your genes the beginning of sensation.

I see. So 'genes' convert external-data into sensation. Did you mean 'genies'?[;)]

[Kerrie]

i am closing yet another thread due to complaints from a variety of people that this debate is going nowhere...i think what we need to remember is that posting over and over in an argument that appears to be getting nowhere doesn't do anyone or this site any good...if people don't agree with you, move on...

[Lifegazer]

Thanks Kerrie.
I've been given a 48 hour reprieve, it seems. I aim to post my summary before then.

[FZ+]

That sensory-awareness is a creation of the Mind, is certain.
That it can 'learn' (from external data) how to create these sensations, is false.
Assertion.

For there is no information (from external data) on how to create sensations. Not unless you believe that all matter can feel, anyway.
Assertion.

I can promise you that I could read German-books for eternity. The fact is that unless someone translates the meaning of the text for me, that I wont learn a single word of German in the whole of that eternity.
Nonsense. Let's take an example. We all know babies are born without language. Yet they learn without translation to interprete the sounds of the world into language. Part of this may be genetic, but the external learning exists, though language is strictly a human concept. I have learned english without a translator handy. We all learn languages this way.

The actions of an atom are influenced by forces which interact with it. Not by personal information of the Laws of physics.
Exactly. Yet by observing, we extrapolate and derive this proof. We have gained the method of predicting and observing further data from an external source that neither observes, nor predicts. Disproof for your assertion.

Sounds like a mantra used at a materialist's convention.
We serve cake and tea as usual.
Ok, disprove it then.

I see. So 'genes' convert external-data into sensation. Did you mean 'genies'?
I guess the brain is made by magical fairies then. It's almost a shame to ask you to prove it.

[Fliption]

Lifegazer,

I posted my questions/critiques way way back and they seem to have gotten lost so I'll bring this one up again before this thread is gone. I am struggling with some of the same points that others are.

On the issue of the mind having knowledge prior to experience, I think I do understand what you're getting at here. But I think there could easily be other explanations. I think a problem may be when you use the word "create" to describe what the mind is doing with perceptions. Why can't experience or "sensations" be an algorythmic result of living in a universe like this? An example that comes to mind is that of fractal art. If you haven't seen any of these then I'd recommend searching on it. There's quite a bit of stuff out there. These pictures are the result of a simple set of steps that when repeated seem to produce an output that compounds on itself and unfolds these intricate pictures. But it is all "created" with a few simple (non artistic) rules.

Why can't experience also simply be an intricate, determined result of the universe following it's natural law of physics? These simple rules do not have knowledge of art. This art seems to be built into a mindless set of rules. Why can't sensations be built into the mindless laws of physics? I see this as just another alternative.

[jammieg]

I don't think there is any sure way to prove the existence of the creator of everything, people have to find God in their own way.

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, The limits of reason (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1469&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So "abstract" is equal to idealism, and "concrete" is equal to materialism. And there you have it, the "paradox of manifestation." The two exist as correlatives and you can't have one without the other.

And yet, if there was no idea (conceived of the mind = essence) in the first place, there would be nothing concrete to "brag about" in the second place. Which is very interesting (credit to Lifegazer), for it suggests our whole notion of material existence is brought about by abstract thought (or, as Tom would say, the application thereof) and, since we all live in the world collectively (or so materialists claim), then we all must be part of the same "collective mind" as a whole ... Only question is, whose mind is it?

So tell me, what's the difference between a concrete idea and a "solid idea?" Say like 1 + 1 = 2? Is this what an axiom is? (I just looked up axiom in the dictionary for the first time by the way.)

In which case let me restate what I said to Tom:

I guess this has something to do with you telling me in the other thread that the "idea of God" was abstract and that nothing would become of it. And yet, what I'm telling you is that this whole world is built upon nothing "but" abstractions. Therefore it all must have begun with a single "axiom" or idea. Based upon the idea of God perhaps?

So you see that's the whole point, because if God does exist, then this becomes the axiom (idea) by which everything (materially) becomes manifest.

Nope nope ... Shunt shunt! ... Nope nope ... Shunt shunt! ... Yeah, I can see the alarms going off already!
Hey, did you know that the number 432 corresponds to the "Rhythm of the Universe?" Just thought I would toss this in as this is my 432nd post, and indeed the connection has been made to paradox and hence the Yin and Yang (which is an expression of this rhythm).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by jammieg
I don't think there is any sure way to prove the existence of the creator of everything, people have to find God in their own way.

The proof that there exists a God constitutes the proof that there isn't a God, yet there is realy a world, and we happen to live in it!

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lifegazer,

I posted my questions/critiques way way back and they seem to have gotten lost so I'll bring this one up again before this thread is gone. I am struggling with some of the same points that others are.

I apologise for not responding to every statement of every post. When there are over 300 posts in a topic that was only started last Friday, I'm sure you'll understand why this is impossible.

On the issue of the mind having knowledge prior to experience, I think I do understand what you're getting at here. But I think there could easily be other explanations. I think a problem may be when you use the word "create" to describe what the mind is doing with perceptions. Why can't experience or "sensations" be an algorythmic result of living in a universe like this? An example that comes to mind is that of fractal art. If you haven't seen any of these then I'd recommend searching on it. There's quite a bit of stuff out there. These pictures are the result of a simple set of steps that when repeated seem to produce an output that compounds on itself and unfolds these intricate pictures. But it is all "created" with a few simple (non artistic) rules.

I did a quick search on 'fractal art'. Interesting and eye-catching stuff.
But you seem to be suggesting that mathematical data (of sorts) has created the sensation of the art itself. This is not true. What's happening is that the math/instructions have merely orchestrated the way colours and shapes are seen by the mind itself.
I see this as no different to painting-by-numbers. By instruction, a child is able to see the result of colour orchestration (not colour creation). But this doesn't mean that those instructions have created the sensation of the colouring itself. They have merely organised those colours so that the mind sees a particular object or image.

I contend that any specific sensation is a creation of the Mind. By 'orchestration' of needles and matches, for example, I could dictate the pattern and intensity of your 'pain'. But I cannot actually create the sensation of 'pain'. For that, I am dependent upon your Mind creating the sensation - even as a response to the needles and matches. For at the end of the day, if your Mind does not create the sensation of 'pain', my use of the matches and needles will be no more effective in creating patterns-of-pain than it would be upon a rock.
External data is not sensation. And orchestration of external data is not sensation. Only the Mind can create sensations.
Once you realise this, you are forced to reconsider what I have said about the Mind having knowledge/understanding of the data it is receiving.

Why can't experience also simply be an intricate, determined result of the universe following it's natural law of physics? These simple rules do not have knowledge of art. This art seems to be built into a mindless set of rules. Why can't sensations be built into the mindless laws of physics? I see this as just another alternative.
There are no laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation.

[heusdens]

Thinking about prooof of existence.

1. If I state that I do not exist, or if I proof that I do not exist, then all I do is stating and proving that I exist.

2. If I state or I proof that God exists, then all I do is state and proof that I exist.

3. If I would not be existing how could I proof that? How can it be proved that something does not exist? It can not be proved.

4. If somehow God could proof that he doesn't exist, then we would have a proof that God exists.

5. God can not do that, because God does not exist, but this can not be proven.

6. We have then proven that even the absence of God, can not be proven.

7. The essence of existence is that existence can refer to itself. I am because I can refer to myself as I.

8. If the world would not be able to refer to itself, then the world would not exist.

9. If I assume the world would not exist, I would assume the world could not refer to itself.

10. If I assume the world would not exist, the world would not be able to refer to me.

11. If I would assume the world would not exist, I could not assume I exist.

12. If I would fail to exist, I would not be able to refer to myself or to the world.

13. I state my existence. I cannot fail to exist.

14. The world can not fail to exist, cause if the world does not exist, I could not exist either.

15. Therefore I have to state that the world exists.

16. God can fail to exist, cause God did not proof it can refer to itself or to the world.

17. God does not exist.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Thinking about prooof of existence.

1. If I state that I do not exist, or if I proof that I do not exist, then all I do is stating and proving that I exist.

2. If I state or I proof that God exists, then all I do is state and proof that I exist.

3. If I would not be existing how could I proof that? How can it be proved that something does not exist? It can not be proved.

4. If somehow God could proof that he doesn't exist, then we would have a proof that God exists.

5. God can not do that, because God does not exist, but this can not be proven.
Here one day and gone the next. Yes, but where did it go? ... and where do we go when we die?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I apologise for not responding to every statement of every post. When there are over 300 posts in a topic that was only started last Friday, I'm sure you'll understand why this is impossible.

No I understand completely. Especiallly when some people write an entire book in each post.


But you seem to be suggesting that mathematical data (of sorts) has created the sensation of the art itself. This is not true. What's happening is that the math/instructions have merely orchestrated the way colours and shapes are seen by the mind itself.
There are no laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation.

I understand what you're saying. In fact, I kind of expected it. But I think you have taken my analogy to literally. I was just trying to present an analogy that shows something simple and mindless can grow into something intricate and complicated. In a similar way, why can't some basic, mindless law of physics grow into an intricate complicated process like "sensations"? I think the fact that in the analogy the resulting complexity was an art form that needed to be viewed by perception to be appreciated confuses the point and caused you to interpret it too literally.


There are no laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation.


IMO, until we actually "know" all the laws of physics, which we don't, I don't think we can say this. I would be willing to restate it like this:

"There are no known laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation."

But I'm not sure we would know it even if we did know all laws of physics. I would have never thought that 3 simple steps could have produced such pictures either. Boy is my face red. [:)]

If you think about these fractals, you can see that there's no way to look at 3 simple rules and determine that they would result into such complexity. The only way to know is to actually execute them and see the result. Similarly, I wouldn't think you would be able to look at the laws of physics and see "perception" as a necessary result. That's because, like fractals, it could be a compounded result of the laws of physics, much too complicated to be seen in the laws themselves.

I hope this analogy is clearer to you.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Nonsense. Let's take an example. We all know babies are born without language. Yet they learn without translation to interprete the sounds of the world into language. Part of this may be genetic, but the external learning exists, though language is strictly a human concept. I have learned english without a translator handy. We all learn languages this way.

The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
The point is that learning a language either has to be taught, or reasoned. And it is impossible to learn a language merely by reading a book since there are no visual/time/emotional clues within the text itself.

Any Mind which would be observing the external data of the universe, has to reason the meaning of that data for itself. Clearly, the Mind must know universal data before it creates a responding sensation; in the same way that I can only respond kindly to "Guten morgen" when I finally understand what that information means.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Here one day and gone the next. Yes, but where did it go? ... and where do we go when we die?

Where did what go?

When we die then we stop being I, cause then we do not have the possibility to refer to ourselves as I, yet the world itself does not stop having that property to refer to itself. The world will still be.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
IMO, until we actually "know" all the laws of physics, which we don't, I don't think we can say this. I would be willing to restate it like this:

"There are no known laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation."

The laws of physics are about the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields. The point at which these motions are transformed into abstract sensations is not something which the laws of physics can even address. The sensations are abstract experiences which mirror those laws of physics, but which are not the same thing. As such, they are distinct from the laws of physics.
It will never be possible, for example, to explain 'pain' in terms of
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields.". For at some point, we have to address the abstract representationalism which is the mirroring sensation of those physics.

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between sensation and physics. You kind of infer that they are both the same. That somehow
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields." can suddenly yield abstract experience, at a specific point within this process. But I cannot accept this point. The distinction between physics and sensation is not something which fades away as the physics becomes more complex. The distinction is eternally concrete, imo.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The laws of physics are about the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields. The point at which these motions are transformed into abstract sensations is not something which the laws of physics can even address.


Just like adding 2 and subtracting 4 has nothing to do with drawing complex pictures. Yet somehow it does it anyway. I see the above statement as another assumption in your argument.


You don't seem to grasp the distinction between sensation and physics. You kind of infer that they are both the same. That somehow
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields." can suddenly yield abstract experience, at a specific point within this process. But I cannot accept this point.


Oh I do see the distinction. If I didn't then your point would be absolutely absurd. The fact that I DO see the distinction is why I think your point is a good one. It's just that I also see an alternative explanation. Ok you cannot accept it. But hopefully you can see that logically it is an alternative. Otherwise, the idea that perception cannot come from the laws of physics or information should be listed as an assumption in your very first thread. Because it can be demonstrated that complex, holist creations can result from totally simple, unrelated reductive parts.

What I'm seeing the more I read and particpate in these materialism versus non-materialism threads is that regardless of which view you conclude, the conclusion is built into the assumptions. This is what I kept trying to telling Heusdens. That he/she cannot conclude materialism without relying on the material world for evidence. Here it seems you are doing a similar thing. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that no laws of physics or information/complexity can produce the process known as "sensations". You claim this even though this is likely a viable explanation for sensations in science today. With this assumption you are bound to concude that the mind came first and then all the other things that stem from that.

Please understand that I see your point clearly about the mind needing knowledge before perception. It is not something that I have thought about before and I think it is a worthy point. I think if anything it puts even more pressure on complexity/information theories to be correct explanations for things. In an odd sort of way, you might could argue that what I'm saying is not inconsistent with what you are saying. You could argue that the "knowledge" is built into the code and therefore did come before perception. ie. The fractal image is built into the 3 steps before the image was created. So how did this knowledgable code get there?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
What I'm seeing the more I read and particpate in these materialism versus non-materialism threads is that regardless of which view you conclude, the conclusion is built into the assumptions. This is what I kept trying to telling Heusdens. That he/she cannot conclude materialism without relying on the material world for evidence. Here it seems you are doing a similar thing. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that no laws of physics or information/complexity can produce the process known as "sensations". You claim this even though this is likely a viable explanation for sensations in science today. With this assumption you are bound to concude that the mind came first and then all the other things that stem from that.

Have you seen my post regarding the conclusions which you have to make NOT to assume the existence of the material world?
In essence the world comes to this, the world exists because it can refer to itself. The world also can refer to me, that is why I can exist in the world. If the world would not exist, then I could not exist. That is why I HAVE to asume the world exists.


Please understand that I see your point clearly about the mind needing knowledge before perception. It is not something that I have thought about before and I think it is a worthy point. I think if anything it puts even more pressure on complexity/information theories to be correct explanations for things. In an odd sort of way, you might could argue that what I'm saying is not inconsistent with what you are saying. You could argue that the "knowledge" is built into the code and therefore did come before perception. ie. The fractal image is built into the 3 steps before the image was created. So how did this knowledgable code get there?

This is like saying that mutations occur in evolution prior to their persistence in reproduction. If the living thing benefits from the mutation, the mutation persists, and else will exhaust. However, no prior knowledge has to be assumed.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok you cannot accept it. But hopefully yuo can see that logically it is an alternative.

You seem to think that because what we sense can be manipulated/orchestrated, that the manipulated sensation is created externally. This is simply not true. That's like saying that the organisers of a firework display are the creators of the organised-colours which you actually see at the display. Clearly, the firework-organisers are nothing more than the manipulators/orchestrators of colour within your sensation. They have not created the actual sensations of colour which 'you' are aware of.
In exactly the same manner, a set of instructions which manipulate an image to yield 'fractal-art' are not the creators of the sensations of colour which you see when you look at the final product.
I'm sorry to say this, but I do not see your idea as a logical alternative; simply because I think the basis of your idea is wrong.
The creation of sensation - manipulated or not - is a product borne directly of the Mind itself.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
The point is that learning a language either has to be taught, or reasoned. And it is impossible to learn a language merely by reading a book since there are no visual/time/emotional clues within the text itself.

Any Mind which would be observing the external data of the universe, has to reason the meaning of that data for itself. Clearly, the Mind must know universal data before it creates a responding sensation; in the same way that I can only respond kindly to "Guten morgen" when I finally understand what that information means.

Well atually, I have alread learned a language (conversationally) from a book. I don't see how it's really relevant to your hypothesis, that someone can/cannot learn language from a book. After all, your hypothesis dictates that I should already know what it means (or, at least my subconscious Mind should already know).

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You seem to think that because what we sense can be manipulated/orchestrated, that the manipulated sensation is created externally. This is simply not true. That's like saying that the organisers of a firework display are the creators of the organised-colours which you actually see at the display. Clearly, the firework-organisers are nothing more than the manipulators/orchestrators of colour within your sensation. They have not created the actual sensations of colour which 'you' are aware of.
In exactly the same manner, a set of instructions which manipulate an image to yield 'fractal-art' are not the creators of the sensations of colour which you see when you look at the final product.
I'm sorry to say this, but I do not see your idea as a logical alternative; simply because I think the basis of your idea is wrong.
The creation of sensation - manipulated or not - is a product borne directly of the Mind itself.

Lifegazer, I'm afraid that you're still interpreting my analogy too literally. I'll have to think about this some and see if I can come up with another analogy. Also, I would encourage you to re-read all that I've written and think about it some more. I thought after the 2nd post it might have been clearer.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
And how do we do that? Because our genes teach us by instinct. The concept of knowledge did not emerge from the mind, but from material information. There is no way for you to prove otherwise.

[FZ+]

Somethings are best done by a chat. If anybody is interested, turn up to the chat tonight, and maybe we'll set up a sub-chatroom for this discussion, if it still is a discussion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where did what go?

When we die then we stop being I, cause then we do not have the possibility to refer to ourselves as I, yet the world itself does not stop having that property to refer to itself. The world will still be.
You mentioned something about not being able to determine something doesn't exist. Well I'm saying you can, if in fact it "did exist," prior to its being destroyed (or death).

[CJames]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.
It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.
Creating sensation is a 'function' which cannot be learned. This is a fact, since there's nothing to learn these things from.

Now, please read the argument again. It learns by simple trial and error. You are correct in saying that "no thing has taught It these things." It learns it on its own. Before you tell me to read the argument again, please listen to what I am saying. A newborn child has no idea what it is seeing, feeling, smelling. In fact, infants actually interpret smells as sights, noises as feelings. They are clueless. But there are patterns in the data. Once these patterns are sorted out, it can then represent what it is sensing.

You are correct, some things we just know. We are all born with the ability to feel pain. So are all mamals and many other animals. This is an instinct. Where can you possibly prove that this instinct isn't the result of millions of years of evolution?

You can't work with the assumption that the material world doesn't exist while you are trying to prove that it doesn't exist. There are multiple conclusions.

Pain is a sensation that helps protect us from dangerous situations. Situations that are harmful to our bodies. If the external reality wasn't real, why would we have such a sense?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You mentioned something about not being able to determine something doesn't exist. Well I'm saying you can, if in fact it "did exist," prior to its being destroyed (or death).

I was referring to the idea of this topic ('The Mind'), which lacks existence, but which one can not proof. If something had existence, in theory this can be falsified. Because in fact something what had existence leaves traces, cause nothing disapears into thin air, but leaves traces, which can be found.

I was more thinking of issue of existence/inexistence in the theoretical claims. For instance suppose a physicist came up with the thought of postulaing the existence of P particles. The theoretical models prescribes how P particles do behave, but the theoretical claim is that P particles can not interact in any way with normal matter. They can in this theory literally go trough normal matter and be at the same places where normal matter is. Now, one can never disproof the existence of such P particles. Neither can one proof they do exist.

The debate about 'The Mind' which is also claimed on purely theoretical grounds, is like wise. One cannot disproof it, neither proof it. One can just discuss about it endlessly and fruitlessly.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Pain is a sensation that helps protect us from dangerous situations. Situations that are harmful to our bodies. If the external reality wasn't real, why would we have such a sense?

The hypothese of 'The Mind' just asks us to do that. Throw away all the knowledge we have of the material world, including the theory of evolution, which explains how living organisms evolve from simpeler species, and ultimately arive out of dead organic material, and developed sensory organs.

This has to be replaced with an unprovable and absurd thesis about the existenc of 'The Mind'.

Can't see why anybody would buy that.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
A newborn child has no idea what it is seeing, feeling, smelling. In fact, infants actually interpret smells as sights, noises as feelings. They are clueless. But there are patterns in the data. Once these patterns are sorted out, it can then represent what it is sensing.

You're talking about the ability of concious-awareness (of the baby)to understand what it is already sensing. I'm talking about the aspect of the Mind which creates the sensation in relation to the universe; and thus already understands the universe in order to create the sensations of it.

Where can you possibly prove that this instinct isn't the result of millions of years of evolution?

If sensations do not accurately depict what's going on in the universe, then the organism which has those sensations is probably better off without them. If information (contained within the senses) is wrong, then that information is not only useless, but highly-dangerous.
There is no room for the evolution of sensation-creation. Sensations have been accurate for as long as organisms have been having sensations. I don't buy the idea that sensations used to be anything-but accurate depictions of universal-reality, and then slowly evolved towards accuracy. If this was the case, all organisms which acquired sensation would have died-out almost immediately.

You can't work with the assumption that the material world doesn't exist while you are trying to prove that it doesn't exist. There are multiple conclusions.

My argument builds towards that conclusion. I don't assume that at all.

Pain is a sensation that helps protect us from dangerous situations. Situations that are harmful to our bodies.

I remember stating the exact-same thing, several pages ago.

If the external reality wasn't real, why would we have such a sense?
The point is that 'conciousness' believes that it exists within its own perceptions. The point is that there is a point to this perceived existence. A purpose.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My argument builds towards that conclusion. I don't assume that at all.

Not so. It ain't a conclusion, it is the very premise of your hypothese that everything that exists outside of your mind, is 'mind-stuff'. Which you haven't proven in the least, in fact you have not even proved, just assumed, you had a mind yourself.
You can't go around like that building a conclusion into the assumptions that lead to the conclusion, and assuming anything that were not previously proven, while starting criticizing other ideas (materialism) for not having proven it's premises. You have never proven materialism is wrong, and can't proof that. The only thing you done is provide circular reasoning for 'something else' that builds up from the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that what was what assumed. That won't do at all.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Not so. It ain't a conclusion, it is the very premise of your hypothese that everything that exists outside of your mind, is 'mind-stuff'. Which you haven't proven in the least, in fact you have not even proved, just assumed, you had a mind yourself.
You can't go around like that building a conclusion into the assumptions that lead to the conclusion, and assuming anything that were not previously proven, while starting criticizing other ideas (materialism) for not having proven it's premises. You have never proven materialism is wrong, and can't proof that. The only thing you done is provide circular reasoning for 'something else' that builds up from the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that what was what assumed. That won't do at all.
I intend to post a summary later, if I have time. I will try to cover all relevant complaints and confusions which relate to my original argument.
Perhaps you should ponder the fact that despite the large volume of your responses, I will not be including any reference to a single thing you have said. Everything you have said is either incorrect or irrelevant.
For the benefit of my own summary, and to render meaningless everything you have said, I shall repeat a post which I made on page 20 of this thread:-

"I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists.
Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-9, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed. If it makes sense, then so would an external-reality. But as an external reality does not make sense (see the argument for details), I can actually conclude (myself) that there is no sense in an external reality.
Hence, I have reason for my own stance... and reason which destroys yours. Whereas you have no reason to destroy the Mind-reality. And you only have beliefs to defend materialism. That's right: beliefs.
My point is that there is nothing which you have said which constitutes a logical argument to support materialism. You either have to do that by the aforementioned method, above. Or you have to build an argument which starts exactly like mine. For, let's be clear about this:- a philosopher who doesn't realise that sensory-experience is the only means of confirming existence (apart from the mind-attributes of reason; will; emotion), can easily start to convince his audience that existence is so-much-more than "sensory-experience".
They'll tell us things like existence is external, because things are interacting independently of 'my' mind. But they're not acting independently to the mind - because they're happening directly within your awareness!
I absolutely-declare that there's not one single statement that can be made for the defense of materialism, which cannot be shown to be a mistake. Tom made the same mistake too, when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.
Everything which you have said is meaningless. Simply because everything you have said is a mistake. It doesn't validate material-reality; no more than the three examples I gave, above, did either.
I an not BSing anyone here. We only have an inner-reality. It's the only thing which can be confirmed by reason.
And from this fact, my argument did proceed. Please address it. Let's forget this defending of materialism nonsense. Because there is no justification for an external reality. None whatsoever."

If you cannot honestly acknowledge the shortcomings of materialism, as mentioned above, then I can only suggest that your posts are reflective of somebody not interested in 'debate', but in preserving the status-quo which materialism has presided over for the last couple of centuries.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Have you seen my post regarding the conclusions which you have to make NOT to assume the existence of the material world?
In essence the world comes to this, the world exists because it can refer to itself. The world also can refer to me, that is why I can exist in the world. If the world would not exist, then I could not exist. That is why I HAVE to asume the world exists.


I don't understand this. Why does the world need to exist for you to exist?



This is like saying that mutations occur in evolution prior to their persistence in reproduction. If the living thing benefits from the mutation, the mutation persists, and else will exhaust. However, no prior knowledge has to be assumed.

No it isn't like that. The laws of complexity and information are not a product of evolution. They just are. So to the extent that laws have the ability to build complex creations when applied over and over, one can make the argument that the creations themselves are built into these laws.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.


I actually agree with everything you said in this post. I wish Heusdens would have directed his/her attention to critiquing your argument rather than trying to prove materialism. It has wasted alot of space in this thread.

But let me try something with you one more time. Perhaps if nothing else, this will let you see how I'm viewing this "knowledge before perception" thing and maybe you can direct my thinking in a different way if I'm not understanding.

For my analogy, let's concentrate on the minds creation of "words used to describe colors". So, we're talking about the creation of part of our language. We're talking about the "labels" that are going to be used to refer to colors.

Let's say I see a certain color for the first time and I decide to call this color "blue". From now on, whenever I see this color, I will say "BLUE!". This word did not exist for any reason prior to it being used in this way. So my mind "created" this label for this color. I think we can all agree that the color has absolutely nothing to do with the word "blue". The color didn't jump into my mind and suggest that it's name is "blue". My mind completely made the label up on it's on. The only relationship between the color I see and the word "blue" is in my mind.

Now all of this is exactly consistent with the picture you have painted about the experience of pain, for example. The mind has created this sensation to associate with a certain pain causing event. Just like the label "blue, the only relationship between the experience of pain and this event is in the mind. The event doesn't know what pain is. Only the mind does.

So these 2 things seem to be the same. So here's the question. Why does the mind need to have prior "knowledge" of colors to be able to "create" and assign a label like "blue" to them? The label could have been "red" couldn't it? As long as we all call it the same thing the label serves it's purpose.

That same question for the sensations is:

Why does the mind need to have "prior" knowledge of the pain causing event(or the universe) in order to create and assign an experience
to it?

This is where I'm stuck. I don't understand why prior knowledge is needed in order to assign a "tag", if you will, to an event. It seems all you would need is the ability to recognize the event/color and then the ability to create a sensation/label to assign to it.

To go any farther then this would be suggesting that the label "blue" is actually somehow related to the color itself in some way outside of the mind! When we've already established that there is no relationship at all. It's just a label the mind made up for the purposes of assigning it to that color. The same with pain. If the universe doesn't know what pain is, establishing that there is no connection between pain and the universe, then what is it that the mind has prior knowledge of?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
This is where I'm stuck. I don't understand why prior knowledge is needed in order to assign a "tag" if you will to an event. It seems all you would need is the ability to recognize the event/color and then the ability to create a sensation/label to assign to it.
Concious-awareness assigns labels/tags to sensory-experience.
Concious-awareness doesn't assign tags to an external event.
The subconcious-Mind is the source of the sensations. Conciousness is the source of tags, through sensation.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Concious-awareness assigns labels/tags to sensory-experience.
Concious-awareness doesn't assign tags to an external event.
The subconcious-Mind is the source of the sensations. Conciousness is the source of tags, through sensation.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Even if all of this true, the question remains:

Why does the mind need to have prior knowledge of colors to be able to assign a tag like "blue" to it?

[CJames]

Hi LG.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're talking about the ability of concious-awareness (of the baby)to understand what it is already sensing. I'm talking about the aspect of the Mind which creates the sensation in relation to the universe; and thus already understands the universe in order to create the sensations of it.The "aspect of the Mind" creating the sensation doesn't understand the universe. It only understands the five senses. There is no order to it. There is no understanding of the laws of physics in it. The fact that this part of the mind exists does not imply that it has created everything. It implies that we have those senses for a reason.


If sensations do not accurately depict what's going on in the universe, then the organism which has those sensations is probably better off without them. If information (contained within the senses) is wrong, then that information is not only useless, but highly-dangerous.Yes, and only if the universe is real enough to pose a threat.


There is no room for the evolution of sensation-creation. Sensations have been accurate for as long as organisms have been having sensations. I don't buy the idea that sensations used to be anything-but accurate depictions of universal-reality, and then slowly evolved towards accuracy. If this was the case, all organisms which acquired sensation would have died-out almost immediately.The first cells had no sensations at all. They simply multiplied so fast that they survived no matter what. Eventually senses began to form. Those that weren't accurate posed no advantage and, as you said, died out almost immediately. But when a sensation evolved from a mutation that ended up working, it was kept. Of course the theory of evolution has grown quite a bit since than, and there is much more to it than chance.


My argument builds towards that conclusion. I don't assume that at all.Making a statement doesn't change the facts. You are attempting to prove that the external universe does not exist by saying we are born with sensations. You argue that since we are born with these sensations, we have knowledge of the universe before we ever sense it. I counter that argument by saying we are born with these sensations due to evolution. You disregard my argument because it assumes there is an external universe. Therefore, you are attempting to prove there is no external universe by first assuming that one does not exist.


I remember stating the exact-same thing, several pages ago.

The point is that 'conciousness' believes that it exists within its own perceptions. The point is that there is a point to this perceived existence. A purpose.If our minds are made to assume an external universe exists, it must be in our best interests to do so, otherwise we wouldn't have created it in the first place. You would be going against this and threatening all of us by attempting to prove otherwise.

[;)] --Carter

[DR OF DEATH]

ok i dont know how many of you guys were members of physicsforums' last incarnation, but this topic was debated to death and we still couldnt agree but my arguement was that if god exzists why do all the bad things in the world happen, and why does he allow us to sin. also if god is all powerfull can he create a stone he cannot lift. the answer is no as if he can create the stone he is not all powerfull cos he cant lift it, but if he cant create the stone then he is not all powerfull. therefore he cannot possiably be all powerfull. therefore our definition of god is inaccurate. this means our whole belief system is flawed which makes god a flawed being himself. if god is flawed however, he logically cannot be a god and therefore does not exist according to the way we define. so in simple terms god logically cannot exist as we belief in a god that cannot possiablly be the way we define him to be. QED god has left the universe and will not be returning.[<:)]

[Greg Bernhardt]

this topic was debated to death and we still couldnt agree

So lets move on.