Is reality just a matter of perception?

[graffix]

I've read somewhere around here someone saying that the color red is an abstraction and it does not exist on its own, which is to say, there can be a red car, but the red car is not the thing that makes up the color red.

I went on to think about this, and what is then the color red? First I thought that perhaps it is everything that is red, so in short, red is everything that is red. Then I asked myself, is something that is red, but is outside your field of vision, still red? THere seems to be a great difference between something that you are directly seeing as red, and the redness that associates in your mind with your red car that is outside your field of vision.

This point can be made a bit more clearer with the C note (any one of them, infact let's suppose there's just 1 C note). What is a C note? Everything that includes the C note? A music composition book that has C notes written on it does not contain The C note, and neither does the CD that contains digital imprints that suggest your cd player to recreate that C note. The Real C note is experiencing (hearing) the C note.


So the big Red is really an experience that we get from seeing that color that we call red. Red and the C note do not exist on their own, until it is created in the mind, and can only exist in the now.

now the real question is, what else (or does
everything) simply exist in the mind

 

[moving finger]

I've read somewhere around here someone saying that the color red is an abstraction and it does not exist on its own, which is to say, there can be a red car, but the red car is not the thing that makes up the color red.

I went on to think about this, and what is then the color red? First I thought that perhaps it is everything that is red, so in short, red is everything that is red. Then I asked myself, is something that is red, but is outside your field of vision, still red? THere seems to be a great difference between something that you are directly seeing as red, and the redness that associates in your mind with your red car that is outside your field of vision.

This point can be made a bit more clearer with the C note (any one of them, infact let's suppose there's just 1 C note). What is a C note? Everything that includes the C note? A music composition book that has C notes written on it does not contain The C note, and neither does the CD that contains digital imprints that suggest your cd player to recreate that C note. The Real C note is experiencing (hearing) the C note.


So the big Red is really an experience that we get from seeing that color that we call red. Red and the C note do not exist on their own, until it is created in the mind, and can only exist in the now.

now the real question is, what else (or does
everything) simply exist in the mind

Like most discussions on this forum, it all depends on how you define the term.

If you define red in 1st person perspective (subjective) terms as "the conscious experience that I associate with seeing a particular coloured object" then that "red" exists only in your conscious mind, and does not exist on its own (ie outside of your particular conscious experience).

But if you define red in 3rd person perspective (scientific) terms as "the neurophysiological response within a conscious agent when the visual receptors of that agent are stimulated by electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength" then that red exists in all conscious minds with visual receptors sensitive to such radiation.

So how do you define "red"?

Best Regards

 

[Tournesol]

I think graffix is getting at the problem of universals as well
as the problem of qualia.

"red" exists only in your conscious mind,

And where does that exist?

 

[HallsofIvy]

What do you mean by "exist". Certainly "red" does not exist as a physical object the way a "red car" does- that's obvious- but the concept exists. That's also obvious- we are talking about the concept so the concept exists. I'm not sure what else you could mean by "exist".

 

[selfAdjoint]

What do you mean by "exist". Certainly "red" does not exist as a physical object the way a "red car" does- that's obvious- but the concept exists. That's also obvious- we are talking about the concept so the concept exists. I'm not sure what else you could mean by "exist".

And where does the concept exist? In your head or "out there"?

 

[moving finger]

What do you mean by "exist". Certainly "red" does not exist as a physical object the way a "red car" does- that's obvious- but the concept exists. That's also obvious- we are talking about the concept so the concept exists. I'm not sure what else you could mean by "exist".

if I look at a red object, and I consciously perceive the phenomenon of the colour red as a consequence, where/how does "concept" come into it?

Best Regards

 

[waht]

The frequency of light is there. So if you see a red car, it is light of certain frequency. But your brain interprets this frequency as red. A color blind person might pick up the same frequency, but his brain will interpret it as blue or something like that.

 

[moving finger]

The frequency of light is there. So if you see a red car, it is light of certain frequency. But your brain interprets this frequency as red. A color blind person might pick up the same frequency, but his brain will interpret it as blue or something like that.

Yes, this is looking at and explaining the phenomenon from the 3rd person perspective : "the neurophysiological response within a conscious agent when the visual receptors of that agent are stimulated by electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength"

But this 3rd person explanation does not (cannot) explain the 1st person subjective perception of red as "the conscious experience that I associate with seeing a particular coloured object"

Most confusion about qualia (and inability of many people to understand qualia for what they really are) is caused by mixing up these 1st person and 3rd person definitions of "red".

Best Regards

 

[russ_watters]

And where does the concept exist? In your head or "out there"?

Thoughts exist only in your head, but...

What do you mean by "exist". Certainly "red" does not exist as a physical object the way a "red car" does- that's obvious- but the concept exists. That's also obvious- we are talking about the concept so the concept exists. I'm not sure what else you could mean by "exist".

I think we can be quite a bit more concrete than that: For the purpose of science, "red" can be defined as 620-740nm electromagnetic radiation. So to say "That car is red" means "That car reflects light at frequencies around 620-740nm".

So for scientific purposes, red most certainly does exist. If the OP is asking about the 'experience' or perception of 'red', well...that's something that can only really exist in your head. You can teach a blind person all about light, but that doesn't mean they can picture a red car in their head.

 

[arildno]

Thoughts exist only in your head, but...

Isn't that a nice place to exist, then?

 

[moving finger]

Thoughts exist only in your head, but... I think we can be quite a bit more concrete than that: For the purpose of science, "red" can be defined as 620-740nm electromagnetic radiation. So to say "That car is red" means "That car reflects light at frequencies around 620-740nm".

So for scientific purposes, red most certainly does exist. If the OP is asking about the 'experience' or perception of 'red', well...that's something that can only really exist in your head. You can teach a blind person all about light, but that doesn't mean they can picture a red car in their head.

Hi russ

Exactly my point. The scientific (3rd person perpsective) definition of red can be specified objectively in terms that we can all understand and validate. But this definition of red tells us absolutely nothing about the 1st person subjective conscious experience or perception of red.

What people like Chalmers would like (it seems) is to be able to develop a "whole new science" which would enable us to apply 3rd person perspective definitions to the 1st person subjective experience - but this (imho) is an impossible dream - it mixes fundamentally incompatible perspectives.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Yeah but MF, let's take an example..

I look at a car and I see that it's red, now a bunch of physical events enable me to see this red, but nowhere does my perception of red exist. (Except as an experience in my mind.)

Now as I understand it(and please do correct me if I am wrong) science is also a perspective, it is not a fully objective concept, because by definition something 100% objective has no viewpoint.

But this doesn't mean that science and subjective perception is equal in objectivity of course.
What this means is that the more you understand in a viewpoint, like science, the more objective and accurate it becomes.

Now on to my main point.
The problem with the fact that we cannot evaluate or research/predict subjective experience with science, is that by definition, science is a viewpoint that is created to understand all aspects of reality.

Now, unless we are talking a magical entity, the subjective experience is indeed completely physical in nature, and science is the study of the physical.
So why then are we unable to study it?

I simply do not believe that there exists such a thing as "first person", it's simply our lack of knowledge about how things work..

I'm certain that sometime in the future, when we are able to see things as the emergent patterns they are, that we will indeed be able to read with 100% accuracy, thoughts, emotions and so forth.

I come to this conclusion because if you look at yourself, or any other human, you see that all that is on the surface are physical things.. A brain, a body, a sensosry system, veins, flesh, and so forth.
Either consciousness is something magical and not considered physical, or it is everything we are seeing physically.

Also as a sidenote, what I think Chalmers is trying to get at with the strong emergence thing, isn't that consciousness is outside of the physical realm, but rather that we cannot deduce it to its components.
Like one of those cubes I can't remember the name of, an optical illusion where if you see it from one side you cannot see the other side, and vice versa.

Edit: it's called a necker cube.

 

[moving finger]

I look at a car and I see that it's red, now a bunch of physical events enable me to see this red, but nowhere does my perception of red exist. (Except as an experience in my mind.)

Then it does indeed exist, as an experience in your mind.

On what basis are you suggesting "nowhere does my perception of red exist"?

Now as I understand it(and please do correct me if I am wrong) science is also a perspective, it is not a fully objective concept, because by definition something 100% objective has no viewpoint.

Agreed

But this doesn't mean that science and subjective perception is equal in objectivity of course.
What this means is that the more you understand in a viewpoint, like science, the more objective and accurate it becomes.

Science by definition views the world through the 3rd person perspective, which precludes any understanding of 1st person perspective phenomena.

The problem with the fact that we cannot evaluate or research/predict subjective experience with science, is that by definition, science is a viewpoint that is created to understand all aspects of reality.

No, it is created to understand reality from a 3rd person perspective.

Now, unless we are talking a magical entity, the subjective experience is indeed completely physical in nature, and science is the study of the physical.
So why then are we unable to study it?

Nothing to do with magic. "Physical in nature" is not symonymous with "completely understandable from a 3rd person perspective". The explanation is quite straightforward and simple. Science by definition views the world through the 3rd person perspective, which precludes any understanding of 1st person perspective phenomena.

I simply do not believe that there exists such a thing as "first person", it's simply our lack of knowledge about how things work..

You don't? Then your phenomenal experience of the colour red does not exist?
You will need to define exactly what you mean by knowledge. Knowledge in my book is based on perspective.

I'm certain that sometime in the future, when we are able to see things as the emergent patterns they are, that we will indeed be able to read with 100% accuracy, thoughts, emotions and so forth.

From a 3rd person perspective you can read my thoughts etc yes. But not from the 1st person perspective, by definition.

I come to this conclusion because if you look at yourself, or any other human, you see that all that is on the surface are physical things.. A brain, a body, a sensosry system, veins, flesh, and so forth.
Either consciousness is something magical and not considered physical, or it is everything we are seeing physically.

No magic involved. It is something we see physically. Indeed you see the colour red physically. But not all physical properties are necessarily accessible from a 3rd person perspective. I cannot see what you see as the colour red, by definition, because I am not you.

what I think Chalmers is trying to get at with the strong emergence thing, isn't that consciousness is outside of the physical realm, but rather that we cannot deduce it to its components.

I agree completely. I don't believe consciousness is outside the physical realm and have never claimed that it is. But it does not follow that every physical property is accessible from a 3rd person perspective.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

But it does not follow that every physical property is accessible from a 3rd person perspective.

Best Regards

Hmm, but how can something be physical, yet not accessible from a 3rd person perspective?
How do you create a logical theory that completely covers this subject?

 

[moving finger]

Hmm, but how can something be physical, yet not accessible from a 3rd person perspective?

Why not?

Where is there a law which says everything physical is necessarily accessible from a 3rd person perspective? (this may be an implicit assumption in scientific experimentation - but there is no a priori reason to believe the assumption is always valid)

I believe my consciously perceived phenomenal states are physical, but nobody else can access the same 1st person perspective properties of these states that I have access to.

How do you create a logical theory that completely covers this subject?

By accepting that not all physical properties are accessible from a 3rd person perspective. The idea may not sit well within the conventional scientific framework, but there is nothing at all illogical about it.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Ohh I think I see what you are getting at..

If consciousness is some kind of physical state, then only the state itself can experience that state, right?

But in theory this should be able to be researched from a 3rd person perspective, although, no other FIRST person observer can directly see those states.

Or am I wrong?

 

[moving finger]

Ohh I think I see what you are getting at..

If consciousness is some kind of physical state, then only the state itself can experience that state, right?

But in theory this should be able to be researched from a 3rd person perspective, although, no other FIRST person observer can directly see those states.

Or am I wrong?

That's right. Conscious perception, by definition, includes the perceiver along with the perceived - they form an indivisible whole - you cannot separate the observer from the observed in conscious perception. Unlike the traditional scientific model where you have an observer which is quite separate from the thing being observed (such that in the scientific model you can approximate and say that the thing being observed exists in its own right, independently of the observer). In conscious perception, this separation is impossible.

When you say "only the state can experience that state" it's not quite right, because this still implies there is some kind of observer which can separate itself from the conscious state. There isn't. Within consciousness, the observer does not exist as a separate entity "experiencing" conscious awareness, the observer IS the conscioius awareness. Observer and observed are inextricably bound up together.

Yes it can be researched from the 3rd person perspective, but all you are ever going to "see" from the 3rd person perspective are those properties accessible to the 3rd person perspective, such as the neural corelates of consciousness, and the behaviour and verbal or written reports from the subject. You cannot, from the 3rd person perspective, get inside the conscious subject and experience his consciousness exactly the same way that he is experiencing it, from the inside. Such a thing is impossible in principle.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Yeah but my idea was that if the consciousness is physical in nature, a physical state, then there must be an emergent system that guides how it works.

While I do understand what you are saying, it's kind of like, we know everything there is to know about a car and its physical state, yet we cannot become that car.
We can create a car just like it but we'll end up with the exact same result.
The only way for us to become that car is to have the exact same physical composition, right?

So then in theory, we have lots of isolated humans with sensory systems, neuralnets/brains and bodies that each form their own isolated consciousness, of which is protected in the sense that to read the persons thoughts we would need to have the exact same physical composition..

If I am correct so far, I have one more question..

If we were to simulate planet Earth and a human in a computer, would the computer also include conscious experience, thus enabling us to somehow see it as hard data? Assuming this world and the human is an EXACT 1:1 replica of the real world/human.

 

[moving finger]

The only way for us to become that car is to have the exact same physical composition, right?

If we want to become exactly that car, yes. Which of course makes the experiment impossible (because the only thing that can exactly be that car is that car).

So then in theory, we have lots of isolated humans with sensory systems, neuralnets/brains and bodies that each form their own isolated consciousness, of which is protected in the sense that to read the persons thoughts we would need to have the exact same physical composition..

Yessssss, but. The "but" is that we would need to have the exact same physical composition in order to have the exact same conscious experience, but we may be able to get close to their conscious experience by simply having a similar composition (indeed this is what we normally assume - we assume other humans have similar conscious experiences to ourselves because they have similar compositions).

If we were to simulate planet Earth and a human in a computer, would the computer also include conscious experience, thus enabling us to somehow see it as hard data? Assuming this world and the human is an EXACT 1:1 replica of the real world/human.

Not necessarily, it depends on the nature of the simulation. A simulation is generally not a carbon copy, it is usually simply a mathematical model which approximates some of the properties of the thing being simulated. A simulation of a hurricane on a computer, for example, would not have the same physical properties as a real (physical) hurricane.

Even if we could simulate a conscious human on a computer (such that the simulation reports to us that it is indeed experiencing consciousness), we would still be on the outside looking in - we would still be restricted from our 3rd person perspective from actually experiencing that simulated consciousness "from the inside".

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Yeah but that's there the problem comes in..

Computers by definition are closed systems, and any application running on the computer, in this case, must have been hand coded by a programmer.
This means that unless you create code that transcends the binary file it is run from, the conscious experience will be seen as hard data somewhere in there.

This is analogous to true objectivity to an object, where we ourselves are on a lower emergent level than our subject.
We WILL have complete understanding of the subject application inside the computer by default, because no code can be invisible, nor can its output.

My point here is that this is analogous to somehow getting objective non-perceiver data about something in the universe.
Say take the monitor you are reading this post on, while we may not be able to exactly explain how it can exist, we can without a doubt explain all the emergent properties that WE created, aka the RGB tubes, the pixels, the screen, the plastic around the screen, and how all the data is ported to pixels on our screen.

This is an emergent property of the atoms that make up the monitor.

So my final point is that if we were to run even a remotly close to 1:1 replica of a human and world inside a computer, there would be no way that the conscious experience would not be outputted as pure data in the format we chose.

Theoretically this means that either 1. We cannot make such a simulation ever, even in theory or 2. We can make such a simulation and if we know enough about the world, we WILL one day receive "qualia data" or subjective data, as it were.

 

[moving finger]

We WILL have complete understanding of the subject application inside the computer by default, because no code can be invisible, nor can its output.

I disagree. You are still assuming you can get the internal perspective by looking at it from the outside. Even if you break it down to lines of code, your perspective is external. In the same way, you can dissect the human brain all you like, analyse it down to individual molecular motions, no molecular motion is "invisible" to you, but you will never be able to get inside the same conscious experience that I am having, because you cannot do that "from the outside".

Theoretically this means that either 1. We cannot make such a simulation ever, even in theory or 2. We can make such a simulation and if we know enough about the world, we WILL one day receive "qualia data" or subjective data, as it were.

It doesn't matter how you "output" the conscious data - if you are not "inside" the conscious experience, if you are looking at it from a 3rd person perspective, it will simply seem like a string of ones and zeros.

You need to understand that consciousness is a fundamentally 1st person perspective phenomenon; examining it from the outside, even breaking it down into ones and zeros, does not give you any insight into the true nature of the phenomenon.

Best Regards

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, after some contemplation I've come to the conclusion that I agree with you.

I wrote around 3 larger posts but erased them and started over because something was missing.
But to summarize my thoughts on this..

Conscious experience is an indivisable whole created by the perceiver and the perceived, the sensory input combined with the senses and the brain and the body, creates a conscious experience that while we are able to research in depth from a third person perspective, we can never perceive anyones elses first person experience because that would entail us completely being the emergent 'pattern', all the physical states that make up consciousness.. Right?

And when you think about it that makes perfect sense really, it's like my car example..
You can create several cars almost like it, but never the exact same car, because only one car of that exact kind exists, and that is the car itself.

So in other words, in a way, this room I am sitting in is about half of my conscious experience, while the other half resides in my memories, and my ability to recognize and pattern match what the things in the room mean to me..

Well, to me this makes perfect sense right now so hopefully you agree with me :P

 

[moving finger]

Conscious experience is an indivisable whole created by the perceiver and the perceived, the sensory input combined with the senses and the brain and the body, creates a conscious experience that while we are able to research in depth from a third person perspective, we can never perceive anyones elses first person experience because that would entail us completely being the emergent 'pattern', all the physical states that make up consciousness.. Right?

This is exactly in accord with my belief, yes.

And when you think about it that makes perfect sense really, it's like my car example..
You can create several cars almost like it, but never the exact same car, because only one car of that exact kind exists, and that is the car itself.

Yes

So in other words, in a way, this room I am sitting in is about half of my conscious experience, while the other half resides in my memories, and my ability to recognize and pattern match what the things in the room mean to me..

I wouldn't go so far as to say the room is necessarily "half" of your conscious experience, I don't think we can quantify it so precisely. If there is no external sound, you close your eyes and "listen" to your thoughts, you are still having a conscious experience, but how much does the room contribute to that?

Well, to me this makes perfect sense right now so hopefully you agree with me :P

I am happy that it makes perfect sense to you, because it also makes perfect sense to me, and I am pleased that we seem to agree

Where people like Chalmers seem to come unstuck, imho, is that they seem to insist that every property in the world must be accessible and describable from a 3rd person perspective. This is indeed the premise of science, but there is no a priori reason why this premise need necessarily be true for all properties of the world.

Best Regards

 

[bchmtnedisto]

i enjoyed the volley.research an individual snowflake.no two are ever the same,yet we all see it the same.

 

[graffix]

I also enjoyed reading this. I couldn't post back in here sooner simply because I was waaay lost in contemplation!

I'm not sure if you can experience what someone else is experiencing no matter how similar the physical compositions are. You can take experiment with twins, give them identical environments for a year but still.. there is a huge isolation between the two consciousnesses. They can be similar yes, but they never could BE the other, or replace even in part, what your consciousness is.

But on another subject, I think I've found a reason or a theory that can be behind my first post. I was reading some Zen stuff and it says when you are angry, it is more accuate (from a buddhist perspective) to say "at this moment I am this anger" instead of saying "I am angry."

This made sense. Maybe we won't get to any conclusions as longs as we keep refereing it as a persective from the 1st person or the 3rd person, or holding the observer higher than his observation. What is red? We are red!

Going back to color, we've figured out the primary colors and we couldn't add a primary color to the color wheel just as we couldn't add a new note to the piano. So these things have existed since the beginning of time and exist all the way to the end. The C note is the most pleasant note to the human ear, and was so before we got here.

My theory is that this fuzzy pleasant thing that it is the C note must be an attribute of the mind behind all creation, and our minds ARE this greater mind, but of course it feels like it is our own mind/brain.

 

[Royce]

To a realist, such as myself, red does indeed exist whether or not anyone is there to see it. experience it or perceive it. Does a rose quit being red when we look away? How did we as well as countless other animals adapt to see red or any other color if color doesn't exist. Why would a flower or a bird go to all the trouble to develop red coloring it it doesn't exist long before we existed to have minds to perceive it.

The energy or frequency of the light whether reflected or produced is the way in which the information RED is conveyed. We see a rose or a car as red because it is red, it has the property of red color.

 

[selfAdjoint]

To a realist, such as myself, red does indeed exist whether or not anyone is there to see it. experience it or perceive it. Does a rose quit being red when we look away?

Man, you ARE a realist! The rose continues to scatter light in a way that is interpreted differently by different organisms. Bees, I am told, respond to the ultraviolet spectrum of the scattered radiation. "What is it like to see like a bee?" Red is what a human mind gets out of processing the scattered radiation, if no human is looking at a particular rose, there is no red there. Or so it seems to me, as much a nominalist as you are a realist.

How did we as well as countless other animals adapt to see red or any other color if color doesn't exist. Why would a flower or a bird go to all the trouble to develop red coloring it it doesn't exist long before we existed to have minds to perceive it.

Who says birds see "red"? Prove it! Presumably birds and other organisms responded to some Humean association: such-and-such a distribution of frequencies ("spectrum" is the term physicsts use for that) is frequently found to accompany some particular situation of interest: ripe fruit, presence of nectar, fresh blood indicating danger from a predator, or many many other things. The organisms evolved under selection to take advantage of the situations, and part of that evolution entailed improved perception of the associated spectrum. When human minds came along they gave names and attributed values to these associations (the ones they could perceive) as they did with all the rest of their perceived world.

The energy or frequency of the light whether reflected or produced is the way in which the information RED is conveyed. We see a rose or a car as red because it is red, it has the property of red color.

No. We see them as red because it is the property of our minds to interpret the range of spectra that way.

 

[moving finger]

I also enjoyed reading this. I couldn't post back in here sooner simply because I was waaay lost in contemplation!

I'm not sure if you can experience what someone else is experiencing no matter how similar the physical compositions are. You can take experiment with twins, give them identical environments for a year but still.. there is a huge isolation between the two consciousnesses. They can be similar yes, but they never could BE the other, or replace even in part, what your consciousness is.

But on another subject, I think I've found a reason or a theory that can be behind my first post. I was reading some Zen stuff and it says when you are angry, it is more accuate (from a buddhist perspective) to say "at this moment I am this anger" instead of saying "I am angry."

This made sense. Maybe we won't get to any conclusions as longs as we keep refereing it as a persective from the 1st person or the 3rd person, or holding the observer higher than his observation. What is red? We are red!

Going back to color, we've figured out the primary colors and we couldn't add a primary color to the color wheel just as we couldn't add a new note to the piano. So these things have existed since the beginning of time and exist all the way to the end. The C note is the most pleasant note to the human ear, and was so before we got here.

My theory is that this fuzzy pleasant thing that it is the C note must be an attribute of the mind behind all creation, and our minds ARE this greater mind, but of course it feels like it is our own mind/brain.

This makes a great deal of sense to me, except for the last paragraph.

Best Regards

 

[graffix]

This makes a great deal of sense to me, except for the last paragraph.

Best Regards

I will probably get battered at trying to make this connection but let me try to point out where I wrote, 'What is red? We are red' ... and if you understand that these things have always existed (and we are still talking about this thing as NOT the 3rd person view) then... it is more an attribute of our universe. But let's go back to us being red. then... we are this attribute.

Since I think I have/am a mind, and if I am also these things like color and notes, and the universe, then I can call the universe a mind as well... so that's how I got the 'greater Mind behind all creation.' A bit of a stretch, but this answers if the rose is still red when no one is seeing it... if there is a greater mind behind all of this, red is always red. ... but red is you, you are red, your mind is this greater mind... a bunch of = signs then follow ... = = = =

Ok i know to convey this idea without being assaulted, and being without contradictions is nearly impossible. :)

I guess I'm trying to articulate what I think I know about zen and how they simply say, 'everything is everything...'

best regards

 

[moving finger]

Since I think I have/am a mind, and if I am also these things like color and notes, and the universe, then I can call the universe a mind as well...

That depends on how one defines "mind". To quote Wiki :

Mind refers to the collective aspects of intellect and consciousness which are manifest in some combination of thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

By saying the universe has a mind do you mean that “the universe has a mind by virtue of the fact that I have a mind, and I am part of the universe”, or do you mean that the universe as a whole (independently of your own mind) has an intellect and consciousness manifest in some combination of thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination?

so that's how I got the 'greater Mind behind all creation.' A bit of a stretch, but this answers if the rose is still red when no one is seeing it... if there is a greater mind behind all of this, red is always red. ... but red is you, you are red, your mind is this greater mind... a bunch of = signs then follow ... = = = =

What you seem to be saying is “if there is a greater mind behind all of this”…..

I don’t see that the zen idea that “everything is everything” (whatever that might mean) entails that there is a greater mind behind everything?

Best Regards