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 separate minds, which recognize themselves as separate 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 really 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.
.