The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis.

[Mentat]

The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis.

Did you miss me?

I, unfortunately, could not post all of the replies to the original thread. In fact, I have posted here only the first two posts (which explain the Hurdles). However, I still believe there is much to be discussed, with regard to every one of these hurdles, so here they are:

1) The Causality/Originality Hurdle:

You see, it is my understanding that the Mind hypothesis relies on the idea that all supposed external phenomena are in fact, produced by the Mind. However, it fails to address where the Mind itself comes from. You cannot state that it is inconceivable for the "external realities" to exist appart from the Mind, and not run into FZ's arguments (or, at least his arguments in some of my threads) on the fact that the supposed cause must have been caused.

2) The Seperate Realities Hurdle:

Lifegazer has professed that dreams are produced by the subconscious mind (and I agree with him on this). This is, of course, the same Mind that is supposed to be producing external reality. So why is it that external reality is not as far "out of the box" as dreams are? Why is one person's perception of reality not dramatically (and universally) different than another's?

3) The Wrongful Assumptions Hurdle:

There was a time when people knew that the Earth was flat (and I'm just using this as an example, there are probably numerous other examples that I could have used, but this one fits the need). At that time, even the subconscious minds of the people accepted this as a fact, without any doubt. So why is it that the Greeks would start realizing that one part of the ship disappeared before the other (when such thing contradicted their mind's perception of reality)?

4) The "Party Rocks On" Hurdle

I attribute this one to a comment made by carl, on another thread (I just want to make sure you know, I didn't think of this one by myself). Things are occurring, right now, that you know nothing about. In fact, if QM is correct, there are numerous things that nobody can know. Thus, how can reality be only a production of a mind, when that mind leaves "holes" in it's knowledge of the universe? "Swiss cheese reality" doesn't seem logical.

Any replies will be appreciated (as always).

 

[chosenone]

I think what you must realize is that the mind accepts what it see as its reality when you grow up.you understand it because it make sense to you as you see it that it could'nt be anymore perfect that it is,by how the laws of physics work to create the Earth and gravity and life and how we make use of it to create our existence.but if you change the universe to other laws of physics than our own(could'nt ,would'nt, and would'nt want it)as you grow up in that universe, everything would be your reality in that one and we would still be having this discussion,and everything would make a logically existence just like this one does.and that is all the mind see when it trys to interprete it world and accepts only that,because it all what it sees,and understand about its life.so if you can create in your mind another existence by other rules other that our own ,then they world exist in this one,but that you can't think of anything they could be and still work like our own world and still make sense to you, would then understand a new type of universes laws of physics not of our own,can you do that?better stay in reality because your gone if you can!

 

[Mentat]

Thanks for the response, chosenone.

Are you familiar with lifegazer's hypothesis? (Man, this is why I want lifegazer to give a full summary of it.) Lifegazer's reasoning leads up to the idea that the Mind of an omnipotent, omniscient, and otherwise omnipresent God is responsible for our perceived reality. In his/her hypothesis, there is no external reality, but everything is merely a product of the subconscious Mind, which imposes it's "reality" on our conscious awareness.

This hypothesis appears (to me) to have quite a few holes (or, IOW, it has some hurdles to get over, before it could become a theory), and I have tried to point them out (as in the original post of this thread).

 

[chosenone]

well where not suppose to talk about god on this forums,you have to debate the existence of god on the sub forum "god and religion"but if were pure energy with consciousness and converted himself into matter and was infinity aware of every particle that exists because it was just himself anyway the whole universe is moving into the future as god disigned his plan to create everything the way he wanted it in the begining,then our thought are when god uses time to cause a synaptic pathway to fire in the brain,to bring thoughts he wants to happen to consciousness for us to be aware of as he does it along with the rest of the universe at once,that would be how he gives us awareness of our reality!

 

[Mentat]

Be careful

Originally posted by chosenone
well where not suppose to talk about god on this forums,you have to debate the existence of god on the sub forum "god and religion"but if were pure energy with consciousness and converted himself into matter and was infinity aware of every particle that exists because it was just himself anyway the whole universe is moving into the future as god disigned his plan to create everything the way he wanted it in the begining,then our thought are when god uses time to cause a synaptic pathway to fire in the brain,to bring thoughts he wants to happen to consciousness for us to be aware of as he does it along with the rest of the universe at once,that would be how he gives us awareness of our reality!

I have tried to suggest that lifegazer's ideas belonged in another forum before, beware. It is his/her firm stand that rational arguments, about the existence of a Mind that produces our perceived reality, belong in the Philosophy Forum. The fact that he/she calls the being that posesses this Mind, "God", doesn't change the fact that this is not a Religious discussion.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
I have tried to suggest that lifegazer's ideas belonged in another forum before, beware. It is his/her firm stand that rational arguments, about the existence of a Mind that produces our perceived reality, belong in the Philosophy Forum. The fact that he/she calls the being that posesses this Mind, "God", doesn't change the fact that this is not a Religious discussion.

A religion is a belief in a 'God' of sorts.
Such a belief requires no empirical or reasonable ratification of its main premise. The individual lends his faith to that premise and readily builds his philosophy of life upon it.

My philosophy asks nobody to 'believe' in anything which is not directly experienced, or reasonably seen to be true. Nor have I imposed moral judgements upon anyone. Nor have I preached "The end is nigh.".
My philosophy is founded upon reasoned analysis of experience and knowledge (scientific). And it concludes by presenting a concept which is easily comprehended by reason - i.e., 'God' - as the source of all material existence.
My philosophy honours philosophy, in that I refuse to 'believe' anything which cannot be reasonably susbtantiated as true.
And my conclusion is not beyond the comprehension of reason. The concept of God is readily definable without regards to God's actual existence.
My philosophy belongs here. I'm not asking anyone to 'believe' anything. I'm asking that they reason with me. And that's what philosophy is all about.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

The difference between the mind and brain

Hmm...this reminds me of a philosophical term...but unfortunately, I have completely forgotten what it was called(i found it while skimming thorugh the dictionary). Anyhow, it proposes that the mind is separate from the brain. And here are some interesting ideas about it. We should, of course differentiate the mind and brain. First off, the brain:

Gall reports that the object of all his researches is 'to found a doctrine on the functions of the brain. The result of this doctrine ought to be the development of a perfect knowledge of human nature.[1] He bases his psychophysiological system on the following suppositions:

1 That moral and intellectual faculties are innate.

2. That their exercise or manifestation depends on organization

3. That the brain is the organ of all the propensities, sentiments, and faculties.

4. That the brain is composed of as many particular organs as there are propensities, sentiments, and faculties, which differ essentially from each other.[2]

As a methodological corollary to these suppositions, Gall makes a fifth assumption:

And as the organs and their localities can be determined by observation only, it is also necessary that the form of the head or cranium should represent, in most cases, the form of the brain, and should suggest various means to ascertain the fundamental qualities and faculties, and the seat of their organs.[3]

the mind:

Even so, it is in the writings of Descartes that we find the full-blown paradox of the mind-body dichotomy. His method of radical doubt led to a single certainty: 'I think, therefore I am' — a theory of knowledge based on subjectivity linked to a theory of ultimate reality based on 'thinking substances' as one class of existence. Mind was being put forward as a self-contained sphere of enquiry.

that's the best I could find.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
A religion is a belief in a 'God' of sorts.
Such a belief requires no empirical or reasonable ratification of its main premise. The individual lends his faith to that premise and readily builds his philosophy of life upon it.

My philosophy asks nobody to 'believe' in anything which is not directly experienced, or reasonably seen to be true. Nor have I imposed moral judgements upon anyone. Nor have I preached "The end is nigh.".
My philosophy is founded upon reasoned analysis of experience and knowledge (scientific). And it concludes by presenting a concept which is easily comprehended by reason - i.e., 'God' - as the source of all material existence.
My philosophy honours philosophy, in that I refuse to 'believe' anything which cannot be reasonably susbtantiated as true.
And my conclusion is not beyond the comprehension of reason. The concept of God is readily definable without regards to God's actual existence.
My philosophy belongs here. I'm not asking anyone to 'believe' anything. I'm asking that they reason with me. And that's what philosophy is all about.

You are, of course, expecing that those that reason on your idea, will agree with you (and thus believe as you do), right? However, I can see the difference between your philosophical hypothesis, and a religious faith. "Faith is the assured expectation of things longed for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1). This does not apply to your hypothesis - which requires that we reason it out for ourselves, as opposed to having faith in it.