Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis.

  1. Mar 17, 2003 #1
    The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis.

    Did you miss me? :wink:

    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:

    Any replies will be appreciated (as always).
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 18, 2003 #2
    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 existance 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 existance 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!
  4. Mar 18, 2003 #3
    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 percieved 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).
  5. Mar 18, 2003 #4
    well where not suppose to talk about god on this forums,you have to debate the existance 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!
  6. Mar 18, 2003 #5
    Be careful

    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 percieved 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.
  7. Mar 18, 2003 #6
    Re: Be careful

    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.
  8. Mar 18, 2003 #7
    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 seperate from the brain. And here are some interesting ideas about it. We should, of course differentiate the mind and brain. First off, the brain:

    the mind:

    that's the best I could find.
  9. Mar 19, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Be careful

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook