Is reality only in the mind?

[Royce]

Does your mind actually experience things - or do you just think that you are in possession of a mind that is experiencing things? How could you tell?

Whatever it is that experiences things and/or thinks is what I call my mind, myself or I. Regardless it I actually experience things or think that I experience things. I think; therefore, I am, or I experience things such as I experience me thinking that I experience things; therefore, I am.

I can tell the difference between thinking and experiencing. Thinking is active. Experiencing is passive.

It proves nothing of the sort. The entire thing could be an illusion created for "your" benefit.

Assuming that it is not an illusion (which we both address below) but if nothing else a mind experiment, it certainly does prove that they exist as I received and experienced something that could not have possibly come from within my own mind. Verifiable information or knowledge that comes from out side is proof that there is more to reality than being only in my mind. It proves that something real is outside of my mind and that I can learn it and experience it.

Not if you are the demon, creating illusions for yourself, with nothing else in existence but you and your illusions. There is simply no way that you can rule such a thing out with certainty.

Best Regards

While I often daydream and create illusions for myself, I always know that it is just a dream, an illusion and not real and I also know that I am creating them. Granted, I could be asleep and dreaming all of this and not aware that I am asleep and dreaming, but even if that were the case, I would have to still exist or at least my mind would. I or just my mind has to exist somewhere, in something, a body, a vat or a matrix necessitating that something real exists outside of my mind, something or somewhere in which my mind to exists.

 

[moving finger]

Whatever it is that experiences things and/or thinks is what I call my mind, myself or I. Regardless it I actually experience things or think that I experience things. I think; therefore, I am, or I experience things such as I experience me thinking that I experience things; therefore, I am.

Thus we have "there is something which exists", and as a result of this something existing there arises a concept of "I" as well as a concept of "I think that I experience things", and you call this thinking your mind. Fair enough.

I can tell the difference between thinking and experiencing. Thinking is active. Experiencing is passive.

Neither shows that there is any reality outside of your thought that you experience.

Assuming that it is not an illusion (which we both address below) but if nothing else a mind experiment, it certainly does prove that they exist as I received and experienced something that could not have possibly come from within my own mind.

I disagree. What is your mind? How do you know that what you call your mind does not produce these things?

Verifiable information or knowledge that comes from out side is proof that there is more to reality than being only in my mind.

How do you know that it comes from outside? Outside of what?

While I often daydream and create illusions for myself, I always know that it is just a dream, an illusion and not real and I also know that I am creating them.

How do you know that you always know when you are daydreaming? How can you be certain that you are always able to distinguish reality from illusion?

I or just my mind has to exist somewhere, in something, a body, a vat or a matrix necessitating that something real exists outside of my mind, something or somewhere in which my mind to exists.

I don't see why this is necessarily the case. Does the universe (which you assume exists external to yourself) exist "somewhere", "in something else"? If your experience is all there is, if your experience is the universe, then why need there be anything external to it, in which it exists?

Best Regards

 

[Royce]

Thus we have "there is something which exists", and as a result of this something existing there arises a concept of "I" as well as a concept of "I think that I experience things", and you call this thinking your mind. Fair enough.

I disagree. What is your mind? How do you know that what you call your mind does not produce these things?

If my mind produced these thing then my mind would have to know these things to begin with. If I know that had did not know these things before then that shows that I received information from outside of my mind i.e. there is something else outside of my mind.

How do you know that it comes from outside? Outside of what?

If I or my mind has no prior knowledge of something and learn something from that which is not me or my mind, that is verifiable, it then must come from other than me, outside of me or my mind.

If it exists, it is real.

If there is that which exist and it is real that is not of me or my mind, then reality cannot be wholly nor only in my mind.

How do you know that you always know when you are daydreaming? How can you be certain that you are always able to distinguish reality from illusion?

Because daydreaming is active. I experience myself creating the daydream actively. Dreaming while asleep is a different situation and I may or may not become aware that it is only a dream while I am well into the dream.

I don't see why this is necessarily the case. Does the universe (which you assume exists external to yourself) exist "somewhere", "in something else"? If your experience is all there is, if your experience is the universe, then why need there be anything external to it, in which it exists?

Best Regards

I would then be God or the entire universe and presumably I would know and experience that fact instead of a mere human being who is a part of something else besides me.

This is simply an exercise in logic. Trying logical to prove that sceptical solipsism is logically self-contradictory and therefore logically absurd. In reality I know without doubt or question that someone else other than myself exists in reality. I experience their existence and uniqueness every time I encounter someone else or look or go outside. I know and experience that this is not me nor it of me. It is other than me.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

To answer this we must first define 'reality' or else the conversation becomes muddied with different views of what reality means. The two common views are:

1) reality is an observer-independent, objective, underlying culmination of all physical properties

2) reality is a subjective, sensory-perceived culmination of all physical properties that we as humans can biologically conceive.


Personally I tend to think 2) is a better definition since there is no way for us to prove or disprove that there is an 'underlying reality' beyond what we can sensorily perceive. Therefore the question has an unattainable answer and in the mind of this writer becomes moot. However, there is tons of room to discuss the reality that we CAN sense and perceive, and so it is semantically accessible to our argumentation and thus worthy for further criticism.

 

[graffix]

The mind does not create the object [O] of reality (e.g., the candy bar), the mind creates a mental image [O-M] where the object and the mind unite to form a dialectic electro-chemical wavefunction within neurons. Thus exists what can be called a veiled reality of [O] within the mind. In this philosophy (called Objectivism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy) both [O] and [M] are real, that is they exist as things independent until united via observation (e.g., perception). Thus we can never "know" pure [O] as reality, we can only "know" the veiled reality of the image [O+M], but the pure reality of both [O] and [M] as objects that exists holds true. Now, do not be confused by those that would claim this is an example of naive reality--this is false. Naive reality holds that pure reality is the image [O+M] and that neither [O] nor [M] are real as independent objects, e.g., that the real emerges from the unreal, naive indeed.

how do you know that
1)both [O] and [M] are real
2)but the pure reality of both [O] and [M] as objects that exists holds true.

aside from this person Ayn Rand saying so?