Is Reality Merely a Projection of a Singular Mind?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.

Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".
That's what I do. Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical. I have not (directly) proposed a new scientific theory here. I make no predictions about physical reality (though I do like to dabble occaisionally; for example my idea in the theory-room). Therefore, my idea/theory here does not even require experimental verification. It requires reasoned analysis for verification. That's how philosophy works. That's why I present my arguments in the philsophy forum.

What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.

My arguments bring all points (everything) to One point.
Not just one or two points.

Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions.

Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.

It does not produce anything close to a prediction

This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.
Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.

so it cannot be tested for validity.

It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?

The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.

I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.
I fail to see why you would make such a remark.

You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works.

Correct. However, it only 'works' within the confines of what we are actually certain of... of what we already know. The rest of the time, during research into specific phenomena, science is forced to make reasoned-guesses from the knowledge it already possesses. The same as me. But science is looking for a material-cause for everything. Therefore, physical-verification is necessary, to confirm that cause.
I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.

However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results

You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.

and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.

Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself. The spacetwin can leave Earth at a specific moment. The moment he gets back, we can see that he has experienced 20/30 years less time than his brother (a wrinkle comparison). At least, this is what the Lorentz-transformations predict.
As you can see, my idea is dependent upon this scientific presentation of the facts. Why would I try to prove that these things are wrong? I believe them. I need them to be right.

Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?

It affects the future of science (if correct). Not the past. But my philosophy reaches beyond the parameters of scientific consideration. It reaches to life itself. That's why people should listen.

Frankly, not.

Frankly, I don't think you can justify that comment with reason and without exhibiting a specific philosophical bias. Namely, materialism.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?

 

[CJames]

Okay Wuliheron, I looked through The Elegant Universe and got my answer. (Note that the book is, of course, a popular text and not a detailed mathematical paper.)

String theory has shown that a brane wrapped around a collapsing fragment of a Calabi-Yau form is mathematically equivalent to a black hole. Because in string theory the mass of a string or brane is dependant on the tension it is going through, as the fragment collapses, the tension drops, and the mass drops. What they found was that when the tension reaches zero and the black hole has no mass, it goes though a conifold transition and "melts" into a normal string, a massless one, such as a photon. So what they had actually shown was that black holes and elementary particles are composed of the same "stuff." They can phase change between each other. Therefore elementary particles and black holes have now been shown to have a lot in common and can at many times be treated in the same way. But they aren't actually the same thing, rather expressions of the same thing. Make sense?

Thanks for making me look this up, I feel smart again. LOL.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

I did not write this to mock you lifegazer, I did it to show you what you are doing.

Then you've made a fool of yourself. I'll show why...
Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics (as mirroring our perceptions), to show how you made that conclusion.
Have you got any such argument?
I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion. I did not just present a theory/idea which had not considered the knowledge which we have.
Your belief in 'nachos' is admirable. But unreasonably foolish. You have made no dent in my philosophy with your plate of nachos. Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then you've made a fool of yourself. I'll show why...
Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics (as mirroring our perceptions), to show how you made that conclusion.
Have you got any such argument?
I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion. I did not just present a theory/idea which had not considered the knowledge which we have.
Your belief in 'nachos' is admirable. But unreasonably foolish. You have made no dent in my philosophy with your plate of nachos. Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

He presented the logical reason why you can't prove him wrong, and that's good enough, isn't it.

Sure, he didn't attempt to describe popular theories, through use of his Nachos hypothesis, but he's just trying to make a point.

 

[CJames]

How's it hangin' LG.

I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical.

LG, if this is truly what you did, then I would agree with you. If you logically proved your argument, proved that it was compatible with physical laws, and proved it was entirely consistent, then it would be philosophically correct. However, I don't believe you have ever logically proven why your argument is the case, and you haven't proven that it is logically consistent with itself, given some of the contradictions I and others found in your first post in this thread. With that in mind, no, your hypothesis doesn't contradict any physical law. But that is only because your hypothesis requires that all laws are consistent and that they always be as such, but generated by A Mind.

Get rid of the inconsistencies in your argument, and then logically prove that your argument naturally arises from some sound premise. Otherwise, it's just a crackpot theory, and that is all it will ever be.

It can be tested by reason.

Then that is what you must do. The premise that the outside world does not exist has never been backed up with anything other than that it seems unlikely to you that an outside world exists. The fact that we cannot prove an outside world exists is not proof that it doesn't exist.

It affects the future of science

No, it does not. As you have said, "I don't build a scientific-theory." You build a philosophy. And if it is correct, which you haven't proven, then it will not alter or challenge any scientific theory, as you so often say. It makes no predictions about the laws of the universe, and science is about the laws of the universe.

Best wishes.

 

[wuliheron]

But they aren't actually the same thing, rather expressions of the same thing. Make sense?

Thanks for making me look this up, I feel smart again. LOL.

That makes some sense, but also raises the issue of what that same "stuff" is and how it can connect two distinct universes without being a black hole or worm hole or whatever. Nor does it explain how a solitary electron gets around at faster than the speed of light. Some theories still assert that the entire universe is a singularity, and this version sounds like a step in that direction.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That makes some sense, but also raises the issue of what that same "stuff" is and how it can connect two distinct universes without being a black hole or worm hole or whatever. Nor does it explain how a solitary electron gets around at faster than the speed of light. Some theories still assert that the entire universe is a singularity, and this version sounds like a step in that direction.

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on one (or all) of these topics that you mention, in the Theoretical Physics Forum. These are very interesting topics, and I'd like to hear the other members' feedback on this.

 

[CJames]

Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics...

The premise that the Mind is all that exists is in no way derived from the known laws of physics, despite what you said in the relativity thread.

I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion.

No, you've had dozens of topics where you demonstrated that your hypothesis violates no law of physics, and you've had dozens of topics that made reasoned predictions based on unbacked premises all the while avoiding using logic that necessarily implies the conclusion.

Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

Damn, wrong plate of food. Wy do I always have to mess things up? (sob)

My point was that in this thread, you are asking us to assume that the Mind hypothesis has been logically proven, and are simply asking us whether or not it is compatible with the laws of physics. So I'm asking you to assume the Nachos hypothesis has been logically proven, and am asking you whether it is compatible with the laws of physics. It is. So is yours. Can we move on? I know you think you've provided proof, but I don't see it anywhere. Direct me to a logical proof if you have one. A link? Anything? Pages and pages of explaining how your theory works, yes, but no logic necessarily implying the conclusion. Not that I know of anyway. (And of course, no, I have no logical proof of the Nachos hypothesis.)

Goodbye, ttyl, , .

 

[CJames]

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on one (or all) of these topics that you mention, in the Theoretical Physics Forum. These are very interesting topics, and I'd like to hear the other members' feedback on this.

I agree. It's a very interesting topic that's kinda lost in here.

Let's see...WuLi, if you've got PC paint or photoshop I think you can open your avatar and save it as jpg. My version will anyway.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up Mentat.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
I agree. It's a very interesting topic that's kinda lost in here.

Let's see...WuLi, if you've got PC paint or photoshop I think you can open your avatar and save it as jpg. My version will anyway.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up Mentat.

Your welcome, I think you were right.

If you had chose something a little less "off", I might have played Devil's Advocate, and presented an entire case for it. That's just how I am, I guess.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Nice damnation Q. As usual, no justified reason.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.

Nice damnation Q. As usual, no justified reason.

"No reason". Man's downfall.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
He presented the logical reason why you can't prove him wrong, and that's good enough, isn't it.

To be brutally-honest, he presented 'jack'. There's no argument which can use the laws-of-physics to show that a plate-of-'nachos' is the source of all reality. There is only imagination.
I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.
So; he hasn't presented any logical reason. And that's why I don't have to prove that he is wrong. If his logic is nonsense, then what else do I need to prove?

Sure, he didn't attempt to describe popular theories, through use of his Nachos hypothesis, but he's just trying to make a point.

The only point to be gleaned from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.
I was right about you. And it is a shame for one so young (yet intelligent) to have been brainwashed like this, already. A real shame. I mean it.

 

[CJames]

Hey, feel sorry for me too. I'm only a high school senior. What about my fragile mind? Alright, I'll have a go at this.

The only point to be gleamed from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.

Ugh. As I said I can't logically prove my Nachos hypothesis. My point is that you can't logically prove it goes against the laws of physics.

LOGIC must inevitably imply the conclusions. I suppose much of your hypothesis is logical, but only when based on the premise that all of reality is the creation of the mind. You have never backed this premise, and I would really enjoy it if you started a thread logically proving this is the case, or at least presenting why it is sound.

Incidentally, I would like to say that despite you accusing me of it before, I am not a materialist. Sometimes I end up behaving like one, sometimes I forget I'm not. LOL. But my point is not that the material universe certainly exists. My point is that you assume it does not, and there is no reason for that. Not that you have given, anyway.

Take care.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
Hey, feel sorry for me too. I'm only a high school senior. What about my fragile mind? Alright, I'll have a go at this.

You're alright CJ. You're still unsure of yourself. That means you're still 'open' - to some degree, anyway.

Ugh. As I said I can't logically prove my Nachos hypothesis. My point is that you can't logically prove it goes against the laws of physics.

No I cannot. But since it was not founded upon those laws of physics, how can I use those laws-of-physics to disprove it?
Within the realm of reasoned causality, your Nachos-theory doesn't get a look-in. You will need unreasoning 'mugs' to fall for it. Only the reasoning-skeptics will question it. They will ask you how you came to your conclusion. And your explanation will be: "Imagination.".
You're forgeting the all-important point - my argument is founded upon the laws of physics. Not imagination.

I suppose much of your hypothesis is logical, but only when based on the premise that all of reality is the creation of the mind. You have never backed this premise, and I would really enjoy it if you started a thread logically proving this is the case, or at least presenting why it is sound.

Gimme a break... I've been posting here for 18 months... and this is the first topic where I've ever asked the reader to follow-through my conclusions upon the back of an assumption (reality is Mind). The rest of the time, I've asked the reader to follow-through our knowledge to the conclusion which I actually make.
Neither you nor Mentat seem capable of making this distinction. At least, you haven't done so to-date.

My point is that you assume it does not

I don't assume that external-reality does not exist. I try to show that the laws of physics can only apply to a reality that is mindful.
I'm not happy with this response of yours. You accuse me of 'assumption'. Yet the basis of my philosophy is that I don't assume anything that is not 'absolute'. That's why I concentrate my philosophy upon science.

Take care.

You too. Do not think that I despise or hate you because you do not see my philosophy. Far from it. I can sense that you're a ~good guy~.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I try to show that the laws of physics can only apply to a reality that is mindful.

how about metaphysics? (it isn't reality).

I would define reality as your conscious surroundings. Physics describes it all for you in extreme detail.

 

[CJames]

I can sense that you're a ~good guy~.

Thankyou kindly.

Within the realm of reasoned causality, your Nachos-theory doesn't get a look-in.

But I just don't see where the Mind hypothesis is reasoned, not from the beginning anyway. Much of it does follow fairly logically, but I have seen a lot of your posts and none of them really seemed to try to give a real strong sense of why the premise is correct.

You have said that from birth, humans have the potential to reason, and therefore reason isn't based on external data. You argue that this proves mind transcends material phenomina. But in what way? It proves, if it's true, that the mind is capable of thought without knowledge of material. But no knowledge of material certainly does not imply no material.

You have argued that our perceptions of the outside world are built by our minds. But this does nothing to prove that the outside world does not exist, that our perceptions are not based on external phenomina, or that the tangible world is completely and utterly our creation. All it proves is that we can never know. We cannot percieve that which is outside our perception.

You have argued that because every observer has his own unique perception of space and time, he therefore generates that perception unto himself, while ignoring the fact that this can be explained purely in terms of physical laws.

I have been listening lifegazer. I've been listening, and I've been hearing a great deal of creativity and a lot of evidence that the Mind hypothesis can work in conjunction with the laws of physics. But I have not heard a logical proof absolutely proving its truth.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Incorrect.
Religious people assume the existence of God. Materialists assume the existence of an external reality. I can promise you that there is not one jot of proof (observed or reasoned) which supports such an assumption. Hence, this assumption is no more credible than the assumption upon which religious people build their own philosophies.

I've told you this before, but you didn't listen: Just because our inner-perceptions are ordered and consistent (and hence, understood by science), does not mean that they exist externally to the mind.
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

I regard your statements as nonsense. You can not treat religion and materialism on equal grounds. Religion is a belief in something which can not be directly witnessed, which in fact is not there.

There is an outside reality, we are part of it, and also our mind is part of that reality. I do not 'assume' my own existence and that what I perceive, I know it is there.

There is not one jot of evidence for something 'outside' that reality, and/or for some 'cause' for that reality. In fact there can't be a cause to reality, it would mean something would 'exist' outside 'reality' itself. Which is a simple truth, cause everything that exists is part of the reality.

Your hypothesis about a 'Mind' that 'creates' the universe and all there is, is just nonsense. Since, it does not explain ANYTHING.
To explain something, means you explain unknown phenomena in terms of phenomena which are already well understood.
But your hypothesis about 'Mind' is totally dazzling and confusing, in fact the 'Mind' itself is uncomprehensible, we are not advancing one bit in knowledge whatsoever.

Further, this 'Mind' hyopthesis contrasts everything we know of the existing world, which is a form of existence which is in eternal motion, and takes place in space and time. There is nothing beyond that. That is an absolute proof of why your hypothesis does not work.
From nothing comes nothing. The world does not arise out of 'Mind'.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I regard your statements as nonsense. You can not treat religion and materialism on equal grounds. Religion is a belief in something which can not be directly witnessed, which in fact is not there.

Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind. Hence, when you insist on stating that there is an external reality, you do so via pure belief. You are not a witness to such a reality.
There is no more justification for believing in an external reality, than there is for just believing in a God.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind. Hence, when you insist on stating that there is an external reality, you do so via pure belief. You are not a witness to such a reality.
There is no more justification for believing in an external reality, than there is for just believing in a God.

First, explain me what 'God' is or is not, only then I can answer that question. You state that we cannot have knowledge of things outside of our mind. Complete and absolute knowledge is impossible, but this does not contradict the fact that we can know about the world, and do have knowledge about the world.

What I know about the world, is that it is a separate entity, not in any way dependend on my mind, and that the world has an existence on it's own. I know that a tree exists, and has existence on it's own, wether that tree is observed by me, or not. There has not been any proof that has falsified that assumption, so why should I doubt that assumption? For God on the other hand, we have not found any direct evidence, and some ways in which God is defined (f.i. your definition) exclude also the theoretical possibility for ever directly witness God. So, that stricly prohibits this concept of 'God' to ever be part of the reality, it is strictly bound to an abstract category of the mind.

Apart from these fact, people can have their own opinions and beliefs, that have personal value to them, not withstanding the fact that this belief might contrast scientific knowledge and materialistic understanding of the world.

I do not doubt people believe in a God. It does not surprise me that people on some level are tend to believe there is a God. The tendency for people to belief in something that by rational norms and values is absurd, is what makes people human.
But nobody knows if that belief is justified, or if that belief can ever be tested or falsified. That is why it is a belief. And please note, that it is not my opinion that I am against belief. Everyone is entitled to believe in anything they seem fit for them, as long as this occurs on a strictly private level. For all practical purposes we state that 1 and 1 equals 2, wether you belief that to be the case or not. And for all practical purposes, there is an objective reality, which is independend of your mind. Wether your believe that to be the case or not.

What you are trying to do is mix up observed facts about the world as a separate entity independend of the mind, and belief. Those two things are not standing on same grounds. They aren't comparable assumptions. Firstly because all our knowledge about the world is based on the assumption that there is an outside world, which is independend of our mind. You state that this structured way in which we see the world, could as well be caused by 'Mind'. What does that explain? In my mind you explain nothing, cause in stead of explaing the subject to be explained, you direct the issue to explain 'Mind'.
Well, the only way we can know of the 'ways of the Mind', is by explaining reality as we see and can observe, and by doing that, we in fact take into account the fact that we assume there is an objetive reality to be observed in the first place.

Also I have told you many times that the artificial construct of 'Mind' as an entity that accounts for the existence of all of reality, is in fact an absurd thought construct. The 'Mind' entity can not be accounted for anything that happens in the real world, cause by your definition, 'Mind' is not part of that reality.
Your reasoning comes about reasoning in empty space, outside of time, and dealing with abstract categories of the mind, rather then reality.

Let me state it like this. Without any material existence, without the existence of space and time, there is not much reason one can find.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're forgeting the all-important point - my argument is founded upon the laws of physics. Not imagination.

Wrong. It contradicts what you said at the beginning of this thread, and what I have suspected from the beginning. In the first post, you ask us to first accept the idea that all reality eminates from the Mind (the Nacho of your hypothesis (no offense)), and then you attempt to show how it fits the laws of physics. This is how all of your threads on this topic - that I have ever seen (and I did a lot of research on them, on the old PFs) - have worked.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
To be brutally-honest, he presented 'jack'. There's no argument which can use the laws-of-physics to show that a plate-of-'nachos' is the source of all reality. There is only imagination.

But you can't disprove it. Besides, I think CJames is bright enough to make his idea fit the laws of physics. And you'd never be able to prove him wrong, because all of his arguments would require that this first premise (which you can't prove wrong) is true. Sound familiar?

I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.

I did, don't you remember the "Hurdles" thread - which you never did give a good enough reply to, by the way?

Alexander had his causal mathematics hypothesis, I made a "Hurdles" thread, I stopped seeing posts that required the Causal Mathematics premise. This may mean that alexander saw the reasoning in my post - and that of other members, who posted on my thread - and that he couldn't reason past it, (and that Kerrie was locking his threads, because they were leading nowhere - sound familiar?) and just stopped religiously holding to his idea.

I'm not asking that you give up your idea. I'm asking you to prove it past me, not just make it fit the known laws of physics when taken as the original premise to an argument[/color].

So; he hasn't presented any logical reason. And that's why I don't have to prove that he is wrong. If his logic is nonsense, then what else do I need to prove?

What if someone were to walk into one of your threads, declare it nonsensical, and believe themselves to have won? As a matter of fact, a few have done that, but they had never really proved you wrong. They had just proved themselves unreasonable.

The only point to be gleaned from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.
I was right about you. And it is a shame for one so young (yet intelligent) to have been brainwashed like this, already. A real shame. I mean it.

I appreciate your concern, but I haven't been brainwashed as badly as you've brainwashed yourself. You religiously hold to an idea, and won't let go. I, OTOH, would let go of my current stance, and agree with you, if I saw one good reason to do so.

 

[CJames]

Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.

Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

I'd like to add the fact that the assumption of there being an external reality is based on scientific reasoning - even if the Nacho hypothesis is not.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

There is story relating to this.

Once a scientist was telling to a group of nuns, that there hasn't been any proof of the existence of God, and that as far science is concerned, there is no God.
Then a nun stood up, and asked the scientist: "Can you proof that there is no God?".

The scientist continued by telling a story about the Pope, and that the Pope was involved in all kinds of pleasures of the flesh.

The same nun stood up again and asked: "Can you proof that?"

The scientist responded: "Can you proof the contrary?"

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then why were you intent on locking the thread? If my point is valid, you should allow the discussion to proceed. Plenty of people seemed interested.

1. I can only lock threads in Homework Help.
2. Your point was not valid, as usual.

In my first post in that thread, I told you that we expected you to accept correction and not fight us tooth and nail. You didn't hold up your end of the bargain. Since the thread was wearing on and getting nowhere, I asked for something to be done, and either Kerrie or Greg answered by locking the thread.

My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.

Your ideas are not verifiable in any sense. They make no predictions whatsoever. I don't know how you can think that they do.

Look; if my idea was a total crock, then why does it make sense of everything we already know, including the classical:quantum duality of reality? I don't think you give my ideas the respect they deserve.
Honestly, I don't.

To the contrary, I think your ideas have gotten far more attention than they deserve, from me included. Nothing you write here makes any sense of anything we know.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

Huge mistake.

This assumption might have some credibility if there were only one person in the world. However, there are other people, and many of them do science and can compare notes. The fact that they all agree that they are studying the same universe lends itself to the interpretation that there is an outside universe that we are all studying.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind.

Here is the same mistake.

That is not a deductive argument in any sense. The fact that we interpret data with our minds does not imply that everything is going on in our minds. That's just silly.

Originally posted by Lifegazer:
I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.

It sure would help matters if you were not so completely ignorant of logic, because your ideas are logically refuted on a daily basis. You aren't rational, you are only stubborn.

 

[BoulderHead]

LG,
The statement below;

My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.

Have I not seen you write at some time or the other that your ideas/views/philosophy/whateveryouwanttocallit could never be proven by science? I feel quite sure you have and so I am wondering if;
A) You have had a change of mind about this.
B) I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".

He started with Maxwell's equations to derive a new result. Maxwell's equations were verified seperately, and are thus usable as axioms of a new theory.

That's what I do.

Not even close.

Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical.

Your ideas are purely religious. There is no logic, rationality, or philosophy in any of it. Not one of your arguments is even deductively valid, as everyone has been trying to explain to you.

Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.

?

No one except you treats the laws of physics as "malleable". You constantly get it wrong--just wrong enough to support your ideas--and then insist you must be right, because you are, after all, a 'rationalist'.

This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.

This is religion, and you are producing a falsehood from what you don't know. Stop claiming otherwise.

Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.

Your arguments are in direct contradiction to science. You aren't even in a position to assert the contrary, because you have no clue as to what any scientific theory actually says.

It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?

Of course not. What do you think we have been telling you all this time?

I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.

I fail to see why you would make such a remark.

Your philosophy is irrelevant because it has no basis in reality, and because there is no way to verify it. I don't believe you see the significance of those reasons.

I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.

?

This is complete nonsense.

But all you ever do is "assert the nature of reality", and all we ever do is point out that that should not be done.

We cannot assert the nature of reality because it is something we cannot know a priori. That means that 'pure reason' will not yield anything that bears on reality. Reality itself must be referred to, and this is done via experimentation. Experimentation is the only way we can know anything about reality.

You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.

?

More nonsense.

Compatibility does not[/color] entail necessary implication. Compatibility only means that both can peacefully coexist. That was CJames' obvious point with his "nacho" example. Your gross confusion about what logic is prompted you to say...

"The only point to be gleamed from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'."

That is proof positive that your bias has completely closed your mind.

Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself.

No, you haven't. You have paid special attention to the twin paradox as you misunderstand it. You have no clue as to how science interprets it. Stop claiming otherwise.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of total ignorance of science could benefit your understanding of it? Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of total ignorance of logic could benefit your ability to tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one? Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of bias, closed-mindedness, and egotism could benefit your ability to see why you are so badly mistaken?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
LG,
The statement below;
Have I not seen you write at some time or the other that your ideas/views/philosophy/whateveryouwanttocallit could never be proven by science? I feel quite sure you have and so I am wondering if;
A) You have had a change of mind about this.
B) I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

Good question. The ambiguity is easily explained.
What I mean is that science shouldn't expect to see my conclusion under a microscope. Yet I am also saying that scientific knowledge can lead to my conclusion via the use of reason.
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.
People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge. But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.
My philosophy actually benefits from arguing with the likes of Tom & Janus and Ahrkron. Ironically, they have helped me better my understanding of key-concepts, whilst Tom has helped me to structure my arguments a little better, and pay more attention to clarification. I've learn a lot here, believe it or not. And I'm still learning. Maybe one-day, I'll present an argument which knocks everybodys' socks off. That's why I carry on, despite the criticism.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Good question. The ambiguity is easily explained.
What I mean is that science shouldn't expect to see my conclusion under a microscope. Yet I am also saying that scientific knowledge can lead to my conclusion via the use of reason.
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.
People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge. But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.
My philosophy actually benefits from arguing with the likes of Tom & Janus and Ahrkron. Ironically, they have helped me better my understanding of key-concepts, whilst Tom has helped me to structure my arguments a little better, and pay more attention to clarification. I've learn a lot here, believe it or not. And I'm still learning. Maybe one-day, I'll present an argument which knocks everybodys' socks off. That's why I carry on, despite the criticism.

Whatever you yourself claim, it is a fact that your 'philosophy' is nothing new, and has been dealt with innumerable times in the past history of philosophy.

But some people are too stubborn to learn from history...

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.

That's just the problem: You do not start from scientific facts, and you do not deduce anything. This is what everyone keeps explaining to you. A prime example is your argument that you keep repeating:

"Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind."

That's not a deduction! It remains entirely possible that it is a material universe feeding the information into your brain. And when one considers that all scientists agree on the results of experiments, it becomes more plausible that that is the case.

People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge.

You draw flak because you keep getting the science wrong to suit your needs, and then you proceed to use bad reasoning to reach the desired conclusion.

But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.

Of course, that's not how it works.

Philosophers of science are typically highly trained in both philosophy and science. There's a philosophy professor at my school who is concerned with the philosophy of space and time. In addition to his PhD in Philosophy, he as an M.Sc. in Physics. He knows General Relativity better than I do.

Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

If you want to know "how philosophy works", then it would be wise to look at what philosophers do.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Tom
Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

The Encyclopedia is here, and an example of what I am talking about is the entry for Quantum Mechanics.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
Philosophers of science are typically highly trained in both philosophy and science. There's a philosophy professor at my school who is concerned with the philosophy of space and time. In addition to his PhD in Philosophy, he as an M.Sc. in Physics. He knows General Relativity better than I do.

Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

If you want to know "how philosophy works", then it would be wise to look at what philosophers do. [/B]

I suspect Mr Lifegazer of not listening to any reason, and not willing to accept any counterarguments that many philosophers in history have made against his 'theory of the Mind'.

There is no reasoning possible against the arguments LG uses. He has made his own 'closed' system, that is immune against logic, reason and knowledge.

If he is happy that way, why not leave hem there, in his self-created world of 'The Mind' ...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Your ideas are not verifiable in any sense. They make no predictions whatsoever. I don't know how you can think that they do.

I gave everybody my predictions earlier. I suggested that science would have to discard of 'materialism', and take account of the Mind in future-research. The other predictions probably don't concern you, because you're not interested in world-unity.
I haven't presented myself as a materialistic-scientist. I'm not here to make predictions about matter.

Huge mistake.

This assumption might have some credibility if there were only one person in the world. However, there are other people, and many of them do science and can compare notes. The fact that they all agree that they are studying the same universe lends itself to the interpretation that there is an outside universe that we are all studying.

No Tom. The only conclusion which can be derived from your reasoning, is that we all share the perception of a singular-reality. At what point, from this axiom, do you find the bridge which takes your reasoning to an external reality? There is no such bridge of logic.
It is as easy to comprehend that each 'thing' is an espect of a singular-mind, as it is to attribute this understanding to an external reality.
Your reasoning just exhibits material bias. Mine however, acknowledges the possibility of an alternative. That's why I explore it, continually. If you can't drop the absolute-belief in this materialism, then how can you explore the alternative possibility?

Here is the same mistake.

That is not a deductive argument in any sense. The fact that we interpret data with our minds does not imply that everything is going on in our minds. That's just silly.

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion, which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.
These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each idividual, is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own existence. And our own existence is an inner-existence. A Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Not even close.

Your ideas are purely religious. There is no logic, rationality, or philosophy in any of it. Not one of your arguments is even deductively valid, as everyone has been trying to explain to you.

?

No one except you treats the laws of physics as "malleable". You constantly get it wrong--just wrong enough to support your ideas--and then insist you must be right, because you are, after all, a 'rationalist'.

This is religion, and you are producing a falsehood from what you don't know. Stop claiming otherwise.

You're not even talking to me now. You're talking to yourself. Each one of these responses says nothing about anything I actually said.
You just coldly condemn my statements here.

Your arguments are in direct contradiction to science.

My arguments are in direct contradiction of materialism. When was the last time you saw me say that "therefore, Einstein's laws are incorrect."?
I don't do that. I just try to show that the Laws of science fit the reality of Mind.

You aren't even in a position to assert the contrary, because you have no clue as to what any scientific theory actually says.

I work off base-axioms Tom. Even a kid might understand that all observers will measure the same velocity for light, for example. But he won't have a clue how we know it. Such axioms are understandable without knowing the math. You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science. That's why scientists such as Hawking make an excellent living from their books. People are able to engage in an understanding of the main concepts of science, without being a mathematician. Indeed; if this was not possible, it would be impossible to teach science to anyone, let-alone a mathematician.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion, which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.

How do we know that fire causes pain? Well, at first we don't know that, until we put our hand into the fire, and feel the pain.
That is the way we have learned, in our childhood, and throughout human history. We have learned from our mistake.
It is because of this learning that we have acquired knowledge about the world, and not only know that fire causes pain, but know of the chemical processes that take place, causing this release of energy, we call fire, and have been able to use it for our benefit.

You should try to re-write all of history, based on your false hypothese. I wonder how the LG version of human history would look like, in the hypthese of 'The Mind'.

These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself.

The sensory-experience are 'created' in the interaction of outside stimuli with the nerve system, which are attached to your brain.
In the brain itself, those signals are then transformed into our senses. The 'mind' does not create those senses, but experiences them.

For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.

Where do you think that perceptions in general have come from?
'Created' from the mind itself? You are completely and totally encarsenated in your own concept of mind. Before the evolution of life (living organisms, that could reproduce) there was no mind, so how could awareness arise out of the mind itself?
The materialist explenation is quite simple. From the way matter interacts, and due to a long historic process of interaction of matter, a new quality was formed, which was not there before, in every stage of evolution. It began with complex organic macromolecules, which evolved out of natural processes, and which had the ability to self-reproduce. Not all copies were exact copies, so slight mutations happened in this copying process. If this was beneficial for the copying process, this new slightly changed copy would win over other mutants, and so began the cycle of life and evolution. Each and every property of our human life, is based on a long historic chain of evolutionary processes.
Our consciousness has been formed out of a process that lasted over 3 billion years, and each layer of our consciousness, is built on top of another layer. At the basis, there are just the physical and chemical processes. It's a very complex job to break our consciousness down to the interactions of chemical and physical substances, and to explain the phenomena on the top on the basis of such physical/chemical reactions. Not that this could not be done, but the amount of layers in between are too numerous, and each has it's own level of complexity, that this would outdue our understanding of how our consciousness works, but in principle this could be done.

And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each idividual, is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own existence. And our own existence is an inner-existence. A Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason. [/B]

Which of course explains totally nothing of the complexity of our consciousness, and tells nothing of the process that has formed human minds and consiousness in billions of years of evolution, or in other words: these are statements that are based on total ignorance of all the billions and billions of complex processes that took place and are involved therein.

It's the simplistic way of reasoning of the fundamental religious fanats that explain the world and all life to have arisen out of nothing, just by a snap of the finger of a great Deity or so.

But if you insist on this, stay stubborn and ignorant about the real facts of (human) existence, if that suits you better as knowledge.

And of course you can claim that even without understanding how an engine works, one can still learn to drive.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
How do we know that fire causes pain? Well, at first we don't know that, until we put our hand into the fire, and feel the pain.

"Fire" is known by the sense of sight and the sense of touch. Actually, you can even hear and smell a fire. The knowledge of "a fire" is gleaned from inner sensations. Even a fire which appears to be several feet from you, is actually being seen upon/within your awareness. It's impossible to see something several feet outside of your awareness. You can only see it within your awareness. And so, a visual understanding of there being a fire several feet from you, is actually happening upon your singular awareness of the events (and not several feet outside your awareness). Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

fire causes pain

No doubt. But how do you take this across the bridge to an external reality? In this specific example, you have an inner-sense of "a fire", followed by an inner-sense of pain. I can show for certain that these inner sensations are created by an aspect of the mind itself (subconcious). It's obvious. Like I said, the universe does not know what 'pain' is. Nor does the universe know what any other sensation is like. Not unless that universe is alive itself.
It is clear that our sensations have been created by artistic intelligence, since those sensations are subjective-representations of the order present within reality. I.e., the mind understands that fire will burn the skin even before the experience of 'pain' became apparent. Clearly, the existence of 'pain' was created by the Mind for a purpose (survival). Therefore, the Mind knew the effects of fire ever-before it became aware of pain.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"Fire" is known by the sense of sight and the sense of touch. Actually, you can even hear and smell a fire. The knowledge of "a fire" is gleaned from inner sensations. Even a fire which appears to be several feet from you, is actually being seen upon/within your awareness. It's impossible to see something several feet outside of your awareness. You can only see it within your awareness. And so, a visual understanding of there being a fire several feet from you, is actually happening upon your singular awareness of the events (and not several feet outside your awareness). Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

No doubt. But how do you take this across the bridge to an external reality? In this specific example, you have an inner-sense of "a fire", followed by an inner-sense of pain. I can show for certain that these inner sensations are created by an aspect of the mind itself (subconcious). It's obvious. Like I said, the universe does not know what 'pain' is. Nor does the universe know what any other sensation is like. Not unless that universe is alive itself.
It is clear that our sensations have been created by artistic intelligence, since those sensations are subjective-representations of the order present within reality. I.e., the mind understands that fire will burn the skin even before the experience of 'pain' became apparent. Clearly, the existence of 'pain' was created by the Mind for a purpose (survival). Therefore, the Mind knew the effects of fire ever-before it became aware of pain.

What 'Mind' are you talking about in this context? The human mind?
It's the only sensible mind to talk about anyway.

Well I think your point is wrong. We don't have a-priori knowledge of the pain caused by fire, only by prior experience (wether self-experience, or based on knowledge of others).

Your 'acts of creation' which imply prior knowledge about pain for instance, don't explain anything in my mind. Where should that knowledge reside?

To explain why fire causes pain, requires one to explain how the nerve system and brain work, and both how these organs evolved through the history of evolution.

But it can be brought down to rather simple facts of how the material world works.

How does a stone know it should fall to eart when not upheld by any force? Do you call the stone 'intelligent' cause it knows how to react to forces acting on the stone?

 

[CJames]

Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

Alright LG, let's talk about it. I can't prove it does exist outside our awarness, since I am unaware of anything that is outside of my awarness. Now, can you prove that the fire does not exist outside of my awarness. Can you prove that there is nothing there other than my own perception? I don't believe that you can, and this is why you never have. Instead, you simply assert that it must be unlikely to actually exists since you can never see it without seeing it. That is not a proof. It is not logic. It is not deductive. It is an assumption, just like the assumption that the fire does exist.

Incidentally, you ignored the post I made on the previous page explaining that I have been listening to your posts since I first heard them, and that they have never proven the fire doesn't exist.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I work off base-axioms Tom. Even a kid might understand that all observers will measure the same velocity for light, for example. But he won't have a clue how we know it. Such axioms are understandable without knowing the math. You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science.

The problem here is the ambiguity of the description.

"You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science"

The truth of this statement depends strongly on what you mean by "understand".

If by "understand" you mean
"have a general idea of what those concepts refer to", it may be ok,

but there is a big difference between such meaning and
"grasp the relations they have with other concepts strongly enough as to be able to do research on their implications to reality"

A kid surely can "understand" in the first sense. A well trained physicist may still be far from understanding in the second sense.

And you have shown repeatedly, clearly, leaving no doubt on all mentors' minds, that you do NOT understand the "axioms" of relativity (as you call them), anywhere close to the second sense.

They are indeed hard to grasp (in this stronger sense). You need to understand many things quite clearly before you can really use relativity correctly, especially if you want to work out its epistemological implications, and its impact on our interpretation of the concept of measurement and reality.

This is a cliche, but it *really* applies to you, LG: just try to walk decently before you try to run.

 

[Lifegazer]

I know what I know. I certainly don't know everything about anything.
I just get bored of some people who repeatedly tell me that I don't know anything about anything. Can we stick with the discussion at hand please.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I suspect Mr Lifegazer of not listening to any reason, and not willing to accept any counterarguments that many philosophers in history have made against his 'theory of the Mind'.

... There is no reasoning possible against the arguments LG uses.

You need to concentrate more on what you write.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
Alright LG, let's talk about it. I can't prove it [a fire] does exist outside our awarness, since I am unaware of anything that is outside of my awarness. Now, can you prove that the fire does not exist outside of my awarness. Can you prove that there is nothing there other than my own perception? I don't believe that you can, and this is why you never have.

To do this, I would have to discuss space & motion in-detail. I might have a crack at it later. Or maybe start a topic about external-reality, later this week.

Incidentally, you ignored the post I made on the previous page...

My apologies. I will respond later, also.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I know what I know. I certainly don't know everything about anything.
I just get bored of some people who repeatedly tell me that I don't know anything about anything. Can we stick with the discussion at hand please.

Sure, as long as, in the discussion at hand, you stop presenting misconceptions as if they were the accepted interpretation of physical theories. This makes a disservice to your position and confuses readers of the forums.

What I am telling you is that in order to "build upon the axioms of science" you need a deep understanding of what those "axioms" mean.

You cannot start from the watered-down versions you use. They are fine to give a general flavor of what relativity says, but are definitely not enough for any serious discussion.

Phrases like "all observers will find the same speed of light" are useful, but they are definitely not the full story; you need to supplement them with Mawell's equations (and hence calculus, algebra and the concept of measurement), geometry, and a detailed discussion of simultaneity in order to get relativity.

Relativity does NOT equal just "two simple axioms plus logic".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Phrases like "all observers will find the same speed of light" are useful, but they are definitely not the full story; you need to supplement them with Mawell's equations (and hence calculus, algebra and the concept of measurement), geometry, and a detailed discussion of simultaneity in order to get relativity.

Relativity does NOT equal just "two simple axioms plus logic".

You miss the point. Indeed, within 150 posts of my relativity-thread, there wasn't even the need to raise mathematics. No precise detailed mathematical-analysis of anything (including the radial-orbit example I presented), was ever required to discuss the issues I had presented.

I was specifically interested in linking the mind of the observer to the fact that his space & time were distorted by his own velocity (which I think is gleaned wrt Earth itself, since man's understanding of velocity is gleaned wrt the dirt which he stands upon). I also tried to show that such distortion is not yielded from any external stimulae (since lightspeed is constant). This was the ground-basis of my discussion. There were details.
There is merit in such a discussion. And I don't need to be a math-genius to have that discussion.
If you ever acknowledge the real intent of that thread (to oppose materialism by announcing the reality of 'Mind'), and if you can come to understand that math aren't needed to have that discussion, then you might recognise that the discussion should be had without all this "challenge to scientific-law" politics. For at the end of the day, half of my posts deal with such politics, and of the berating of my credentials.

I have no regrets about my philosophy. I think that my underlying conclusions about many things have strong-merit. I just regret that I feel as though I'm in a boxing-ring every time I start a thread, as people want to box my ears off because I won't listen to them.
Maybe they should realize that I too was once a materialist and that my philosophy is relatively-new. I totally understand the attitudes and beliefs of a materialist. I've had the same beliefs. I have that t-shirt. But now, I want to show people why these beliefs are questionable, and ultimately incorrect.
But it's not easy speaking to an audience who are boxing your ears off all the time...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Maybe they should realize that I too was once a materialist and that my philosophy is relatively-new. I totally understand the attitudes and beliefs of a materialist. I've had the same beliefs. I have that t-shirt. But now, I want to show people why these beliefs are questionable, and ultimately incorrect.
But it's not easy speaking to an audience who are boxing your ears off all the time...

Your philosophy relatively new? In what way? What have you added to the philosophy of Idealism that is new?

I showed you before, that part of your statements have been put forward long times ago by other philosophers.

And for my understanding, you never showed that the assumptions of materialists are incorrect. You just question the premises put forward by materialism, and replaced them with another premise (Mind).

But I never found any reasonable arguments in what way the materialist assumptions were incorrect. You just state that the premise is unprovable, and then replaced that premise with an even (or more) unprovable premise.

If you are just talking about the initital premise of materialism, which is the assumption that there is in primary instance a material world, and we (our mind) is part of that and has arisen out of the material world, then I am just wondering what your argument are against it. And if not the premise, what conclusion based on the premise you find inconvincing?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
But I just don't see where the Mind hypothesis is reasoned, not from the beginning anyway. Much of it does follow fairly logically, but I have seen a lot of your posts and none of them really seemed to try to give a real strong sense of why the premise is correct.

What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it. And since you give me no examples of what you mean, there is nothing here for me to address. You're just passing-on your feelings here.

You have said that from birth, humans have the potential to reason, and therefore reason isn't based on external data.

My reason thread was good. Maybe I'll start another. Are you referring to that? Or are you referring to the stuff I said to Tom?
I'm saying that 'Mind' exists, and that it has an awareness of itself (God), and an awareness of many (perhaps countless) finite awarenesses (observers). There is a duality of awareness (of the mind itself; and of what the mind is perceiving). 'You' are an individual aspect/perception within that Mind. Your ability to reason comes from the Mind. What you have reasoned, is related to what you perceive.

You argue that this proves mind transcends material phenomina. But in what way? It proves, if it's true, that the mind is capable of thought without knowledge of material. But no knowledge of material certainly does not imply no material.

If this relates to the post about 'pain'...
It is possible to show that 'Mind' creates its own subjective-representations in its own senses (mind senses). All sensation happens upon your awareness (of Mind). And it is also created by that Mind. Read that post again, to see how I show this.
But from this, we can proceed further. We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent. Remember, our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course). Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe[/color]. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, our minds possessed universal-knowledge before that mind could ever come to 'sense' the universe.

You have argued that our perceptions of the outside world are built by our minds. But this does nothing to prove that the outside world does not exist,

Aside from the fact that existence is reduced to singularity (see first post), and aside from the fact that my philosophy advocates the existence of an all-knowing mind (prior to having 'awareness'); what other proof do you want?

You have argued that because every observer has his own unique perception of space and time, he therefore generates that perception unto himself, while ignoring the fact that this can be explained purely in terms of physical laws.

But why do you insist that the physical-laws apply to a reality beyond perception? And if you don't, then why do you not see that the physical-laws can exist - as laws of perception.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it. And since you give me no examples of what you mean, there is nothing here for me to address. You're just passing-on your feelings here.

In other words, if you don't see it, you have to believe it. That is the fundamental doctrine.

And THAT is what the premise of materialism is asked to be replaced with. If you and I both see a chair, we can feel, see, hear and maybe even smell, then this kind of knowledge about this real object, which is there independend of our mind, is asked to be replaced with a premise that says the chair is not even really there, but just an image that exists in our head. And because the image is in both our heads, that explains God, who creates the images in both our head simultaniously...

It would for this 'Mind' philosophy be life threatening to conclude from this simple experiment, that the cause for both of us, having a similar perceptory image of the chair, was the real existing chair itself. Because how can such a simple solution be true, and not even mentioning God as a cause for this happening?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
In other words, if you don't see it, you have to believe it. That is the fundamental doctrine.

No. If he doesn't see it then he doesn't see it. That's it. But I can only adress direct statements. I cannot address his feelings. If he wants me to address specific points of the things he doesn't 'see', then he should give examples.

And THAT is what the premise of materialism is asked to be replaced with.

The premise of materialism is asked to be replaced by an understanding of my philosophy. Not by a non-understanding.

If you and I both see a chair, we can feel, see, hear and maybe even smell, then this kind of knowledge about this real object, which is there independend of our mind

That's the point. An image (and feel, and smell) of a chair is something that can only happen within the mind. Firstly, sensation is given by the mind, and then felt by 'awareness'. Secondly, the judgement that "This is a chair." is formulated via reason, which like emotion, is just another facet of the mind.
So; the experience of 'a chair' is a completely-mindful experience; since it is given by the mind, and reasoned by the mind.

is asked to be replaced with a premise that says the chair is not even really there,

It exists as a real perception. That is a fact.

but just an image that exists in our head. And because the image is in both our heads, that explains God, who creates the images in both our head simultaniously...

More-or-less.

It would for this 'Mind' philosophy be life threatening to conclude from this simple experiment, that the cause for both of us, having a similar perceptory image of the chair, was the real existing chair itself. Because how can such a simple solution be true, and not even mentioning God as a cause for this happening?

A Mind which has universal-knowledge before it senses anything, is indeed the mind of God.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's the point. An image (and feel, and smell) of a chair is something that can only happen within the mind. Firstly, sensation is given by the mind, and then felt by 'awareness'. Secondly, the judgement that "This is a chair." is formulated via reason, which like emotion, is just another facet of the mind.
So; the experience of 'a chair' is a completely-mindful experience; since it is given by the mind, and reasoned by the mind.

It exists as a real perception. That is a fact.

More-or-less.

A Mind which has universal-knowledge before it senses anything, is indeed the mind of God.

If you don't mind, in my mind I still adress the cause of why I and someone else see and experience the same image of the chair, the chair itself, and not God.

But this shows in most simple terms in what ways the explaining of these opposing philosophies work out in real life experiences.

I hope you don't mind that I call the chair I am sitting on, a real chair, which exists independend of my mind and of my experience of the chair, and that my explenation of this real chair, does not involve or need the existence of an entity named God for which there is not and can not be any direct evidence.