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 subconscious 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 really 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 really 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 really 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 until 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.
