Is Reality Merely a Projection of a Singular Mind?

[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 address 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 address 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.

 

[CJames]

Thank you for replying to my post lifegazer.

And since you give me no examples of what you mean...

? That's what the rest of the post was, wasn't it? I thought it was.

'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.

Yes, that is undoubtedly what your hypothesis says. But why? How can you prove that my ability to reason comes from "The Mind" (God) rather than simply my own mind. And how can you prove that my mind is not a function of the brain?

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.

Yes, but you can't prove the knowledge knowledge does not come from prior trial and error. Computers now built to learn operate in this manner. They need no knowledge of how the world works to be able to learn how it does. They start as a plain slate, and evolve from there.

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.

You cannot prove that the mind had an awarness of the universe before it sensed it. An infant has no idea what is going on when it is born. It doesn't even seem capable of understanding space and time.

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.

Even if the conclusion was correct, you cannot disprove that this is due to the genetic information we are born with, unless you assume or prove that material doesn't exist first.

Aside from the fact that existence is reduced to singularity

On of my responses added that a singularity is by definition a point in spacetime. The universe contains a nonzero amount of spacetime, and therefore is not a singularity.

But why do you insist that the physical-laws apply to a reality beyond perception?

I do not. I insist that relativity is entirely consistent and does not require the statement that:

each observer distorts spacetime with his mind.

Nor does it imply that this is the case, unless you again assume or prove that the mind creates it in the first place.

And if you don't, then why do you not see that the physical-laws can exist - as laws of perception.

I never said they couldn't. That's not the point. The point is, special relativity does not in any way imply your hypothesis. You have only shown that your hypothesis can be consistent with the laws of special relativity. That's fine for somebody who wants to know if their ideas fit with reality, but not for somebody who wants to prove their idea is a necessary part of reality.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Thank you for replying to my post lifegazer.

? That's what the rest of the post was, wasn't it? I thought it was.

Yes, that is undoubtedly what your hypothesis says. But why? How can you prove that my ability to reason comes from "The Mind" (God) rather than simply my own mind. And how can you prove that my mind is not a function of the brain?

Yes, but you can't prove the knowledge knowledge does not come from prior trial and error. Computers now built to learn operate in this manner. They need no knowledge of how the world works to be able to learn how it does. They start as a plain slate, and evolve from there.

You cannot prove that the mind had an awarness of the universe before it sensed it. An infant has no idea what is going on when it is born. It doesn't even seem capable of understanding space and time.

The statement of LG in sentences as "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." just sound utterly blasphemic and non-sensical to me, but in trying to remove the blasphemic and non-sensical part, I think he wants to make the point that a new born individual, or even before it is born, has as first experience of his/her mind that "he/she is there", and that experience might reside before any actual experience with the sensory system.
In that way the self-epxerience of mind comes before the experience of the outer world.
Wether or not this is correct, is something that perhaps never can be tested directly, because we don't know what goes on in the minds of babies before they are even born.
But in some ways it is likely that the growing foetus, which has grown from one cell, in it's formation and becoming a fully equipped human being, at some point of it's evolution starts to be aware of itself, and of it's surrounding environment. And it could well be that the awareness starts with self-awareness "me being there" before awareness of the sensory system.

Nevertheless it is utterly non-sense what he claims about universal-knowledge (where would that 'knowledge' reside then, other then in the matter itself?) being there, before it 'creates' (does he mean the evolutionary development of sensory perceptions?) it's own sensory-awareness of the universe.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I haven't presented myself as a materialistic-scientist. I'm not here to make predictions about matter.

You said that your ideas are verifiable by the laws of physics. If your ideas make no predictions about or comment on matter or spacetime, then the first statement is not true.

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.

At that point, one has to make an assumption. I assume that whatever it is that provides the stimulus to my mind is a material entity whose mechanical properties give rise to that stimulus.

You, on the other hand, assume that it is a figment of God's imagination.

I take the first one because I do not have to assume the existence of something for which there is zero evidence.

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.

Only if one is completely ignorant of cognitive science. If not, then it is not so easy to conceive of a mind without a material brain.

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?

My bias against The Mind, God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all come from the same reason: total lack of evidence. When that changes, then so will I.

Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind[/color] 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[/color] which ~painted this picture~.

You are very subtle about making the transition from the mind (as in my mind) to The Mind (as in god) here.

It is true, I know of things only through my senses. Given only that, I might be able to reasonably reach the conclusion that it is all happening in my own head. However, there are other people who I can talk to, and who can confirm that they, too, have the same experiences. So it most definitely is not all going on in my own head (unless I assume that the other people only exist in my head, which is absurd).

So, I now have two choices:

Assume an external, objective reality of material existence that is consistent with the stimuli I receive.

or

Assume an external, objective reality of spiritual existence for which there is no evidence.

I choose the first.

 

[Kerrie]

not sure this thread is going anywhere...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
You said that your ideas are verifiable by the laws of physics. If your ideas make no predictions about or comment on matter or spacetime, then the first statement is not true.

At that point, one has to make an assumption. I assume that whatever it is that provides the stimulus to my mind is a material entity whose mechanical properties give rise to that stimulus.

You, on the other hand, assume that it is a figment of God's imagination.

I take the first one because I do not have to assume the existence of something for which there is zero evidence.

Only if one is completely ignorant of cognitive science. If not, then it is not so easy to conceive of a mind without a material brain.

My bias against The Mind, God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all come from the same reason: total lack of evidence. When that changes, then so will I.

You are very subtle about making the transition from the mind (as in my mind) to The Mind (as in god) here.

It is true, I know of things only through my senses. Given only that, I might be able to reasonably reach the conclusion that it is all happening in my own head. However, there are other people who I can talk to, and who can confirm that they, too, have the same experiences. So it most definitely is not all going on in my own head (unless I assume that the other people only exist in my head, which is absurd).

So, I now have two choices:

Assume an external, objective reality of material existence that is consistent with the stimuli I receive.

or

Assume an external, objective reality of spiritual existence for which there is no evidence.

I choose the first.

Very excellent post!