A proof for the existence of God?

[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
1. True premise.

2. This is another obviously true premise.

3. Again, entirely true. However, this should not be taken as a proof that the external reality does not exist.

4. Here you are assuming that 3. proves the external reality does not exist. You also offer no proof of the subonscious mind.

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]

Lifegrazer 's uni-dimensional paradox

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 http://www.swedenborg.com/" .

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It says in the Bible that we're all brothers and sisters, and yet that separation 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, https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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 a lot for the credibility of your idea.

 

[quantumdude]

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 referred 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 receives 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 acquire 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.