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

The reality of 'Mind'.

  1. Apr 11, 2003 #1
    I wanted to give the readers (several did ask me to do this) a more direct understanding of my philosophy - which advocates an ultimate reality of a single Mind - and of how the universe we perceive fits-in, perfectly, with this idea.
    Instead of trying to prove that this is the ultimate-reality of 'everything' (which is what I always try to do), this particular post will ask the reader to accept-as-true the premise that [color=royal blue]Ultimately, there is only a Mind.[/color]

    1. A Mind exists.
    This isn't a difficult concept to understand. By direct experience, the reader can identify this premise via its attributes: reasoning-power; knowledge; emotion; will; desire; purpose; imagination; etc..
    I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.
    Some readers will complain that nothing can exist within a singularity as a singularity is a place of zero-time & zero-space.
    Actually, such a complaint is null & void, since a singularity is a place of whole-time and whole-space. Or rather, a singularity is a 'place' of absolute-time and absolute-space (as opposed to fragmented-time and fragmented-space).

    2. The physical-universe was borne of this Mind.
    Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The reader has direct experience of fantasising/dreaming about whole realms of existence within his/her own mind.

    3. This Mind is omnipresent. I.e., the Mind is all 'things'.
    Whatever the mind thinks about is an extension of its own self... an expression of its own self. Each 'thing' can be considered a finite-aspect of the whole.
    This may take a little more consideration. But any form residing within the mind is of the mind.
    Therefore, I ask the reader to grapple with the idea that all forms of life within The Mind are expressions of that Mind itself, in a finite & relative environment (which has been created by the The Mind).
    Therefore, I advocate that ~each individual~ is The Mind itself - seeing itself from many diverse & relative perspectives with regards to the whole.

    4. The duality of existence is finally understood.
    Here, I of course refer to the duality which exists with regards to classical-physics and Quantum-mechanics.
    In remembrance of premise-1, above, where I stated that a singularity is not a place of fragmented time & space; the reader should now realise that any fundamental-energy of the Mind does not reside within such time & space. Such energy emanates from singular-time and singular-space... absolute-time and absolute-space.
    It is important that we consider what I mean by these concepts:-
    Singular-time is self-explanatory. It speaks of an eternal moment.
    Singular-space is a little more complex to consider. It is non-relative space. Non-finite space. But the essential thing to consider is that it is not limited or bounded in any way whatsoever. In fact, a singularity can be considered as an infinitessimal-point inwards OR as an infinite sphere-of-existence outwards (from the mind's eye)... whereby the observer of such a realm is free to move his mind within such an abode, but doesn't seem to get anywhere.
    Hence, fundamental-energy of the Mind cannot truly be observed (by the mind) as a point within fragmented-time and fragmented-space, simultaneously... since that's not where it comes from, nor where it truly exists.
    And this explains the fundamental indeterminism exhibited by 'fundamental energy'. The closer we look at it in the moment, the more it looks like a particle. The more we try to observe its motion through space, the less-likely are we to observe it. Basically.

    5. Relativity explained.
    My recent topic about Relativity has been locked. But those that are interested can still browse through it. The bottom-line is that this Mind-hypothesis is fully-compatible with the fundamental-axioms of Einstein's work. I can explain why each observer sees the same universe from a different perspective of time & space. The establishment decided to lock that topic, despite the fact that not a single person showed that my hypothesis was not compatible with Einstein's work. That challenge remained unanswered.

    I could discuss many things here. But then it would turn into a mini-book. But here's the bottom-line for your own perception of the universe:-
    1. The Mind has created it.
    2. It resides at your own point of awareness, and you are its judgements made in relation to the whole. It is not aware of its wholeness here. Its awareness has become fragmented and finite.
    Hence the perception of 'you'.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 11, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    How did the mind come into existence?

    What was there before the mind existed?

    How is it possible that the mind exists when the mind must be a function of itself?

    Why did the mind not exist with unlimited and ultimate intelligence? Why was the mind ignorant in the past and must continually learn?

    Why cannot some part of the mind which are still ignorant learn from the more intelligent parts of the mind if, as you say, the mind is singular?

    Why is the mind limited to Earth?

    Were dinosaurs once part of the mind? Are all other creatures on Earth part of the mind?

    Why can’t the mind stop wars, famine, greed, murder, etc.?

    Why does the majority of the mind believe in gods and religions while other parts do not?

    Why do some parts of the mind want to kill other parts? Why do some parts kill themselves?

    Does the mind exhibit gender separation?

    Does the mind act like a colony of ants or a beehive? Is there a “queen” mind?

    Why does the majority of the mind view reality for what it is and other parts do not?

    Why does the mind exist and reality does not?

    I wouldn't be surprised that you ignore answering these simple questions as you did in the other thread. I know you cannot.
  4. Apr 11, 2003 #3
    I have trouble wrapping my mind around the singularity of space concept.

    Take 3-dimensional space, the entity residing there would be free to move around in 3 dimensions. Now take that and remove one of these dimensions. In the 2 dimensional space the entity would only be able to move about the plane. Similarly, in one dimensional space you would only be able to move along a line. Now remove that one dimension, and you are left with no freedom at all.

    no, it would just be a an infinite sphere-of-existence outwards
    with all dimensions equal 0.
  5. Apr 11, 2003 #4
    I have a reasonable answer to every one of your questions. But one or two at a time please, in future. They may be simple questions, but my answers must be clear.
    I'll just answer a few right now...

    1. How did the mind come into existence?
    - Existence is eternal. The reason for this is quite simple:-
    Something cannot emanate from and after a state of absolute nothingness... nor can something reside ~within~ the 'nothing'
    that preceded it. Thus, existence is eternal. There has always been Something.
    I am in a position to equate The Mind with this absolute-existence (this something), because my philosophy deduces thatThe Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity (please refer to previous post), I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.

    2. What was there before the mind existed?
    - The question is meaningless. Senseless. For it takes no account of the eternal nature of existence (whatever that existence may be).
    I cannot answer the question; except to tell you that there was never a moment prior to an eternal existence.

    3. How is it possible that the mind exists when the mind must be a function of itself?
    - What do you mean, exactly, when you say "a function of itself."?
    Are you asking me what the cause of existence (Mind) was?
    If so, then like above, the question is revealed as senseless. For there can be no cause for any entity which is unveiled as 'eternal'. Think about it.

    4. Why did the mind not exist with unlimited and ultimate intelligence? Why was the mind ignorant in the past and must continually learn?
    - 'The Mind' was not ignorant in the past. Remember, this Mind is an embodiment of The Whole at the eternal moment I spoke of in my previous post. You are forgetting the ~duality of awareness~ which has been advocated here (by myself), as the reality of existence:-
    1. The Whole is the Mind which sees all things as itself, in the eternal moment.
    2. This Mind has the ability to fragment itself into many different perspectives of itself (life), which all share the same Laws of Physics. Yet within our own individual lives (finite, relative awarenesses), we have a unique perspective of existence. Firstly, we all have different perceptions of time & space when there is only one reality of existence. And secondly, our emotions wreak havoc upon what we are seeing. Love; hate; religion; science; death; life; beauty; ugliness: all play a decisive role in determining what 'reality' we all see. Hence the diversity of human beliefs. Knowledge is unique for each individual.
    But the only absolute-certainty in this existence, is that we are all looking at (aware of) a singular reality. The Laws of physics will testify to that. We all have different perspectives of a singular existence of Mind.
    Thus, there is a duality of awareness:- That of all things existant, together, at a singular perception of the 'self'. An awareness of that Self. And; there is also an awareness from within the universe itself: 'our' awareness.
    It is 'our' minds which have been ignorant in the past. The Mind, as a whole, has not been so.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2003
  6. Apr 11, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    There is nothing wrong with the "mind ontology" but I would argue there are much simpler ontologies. One can just as easily say physical fields of nature are literally all of of existence. But the question should be, why is one ontology superior to others? In other words, what does the idea of an eternal mind explain that physicalism can't?
  7. Apr 11, 2003 #6
    Please remember that I'm talking about dimensions of the mind here. Remember also, I did ask the reader to accept this premise as the base of my post: That reality is Mind.
    Given that, my response to you is: Whom exists to take away the motion of The Mind? In what sense can we take away the mind's ability to move amongst itself?
    The Mind itself is the true dimension of existence. It is.
    The dimensions you're talking about, are dimensions of existence which apply to fragmented existence (change/time). If you take those away, you are left with the existence of the Mind itself, which creates those branch-dimensions.
    Yes you are. You're left with the freedom to move within the mind itself (through an infinite yet-singular space of the mind).
    Imagine riding a bike as fast as you can. Imagine as though your life depended upon it. Now... was your mind moving through space, or not? What was you looking at? Through which medium? How did you imagine motion without also imagining the experience of space?
    It is the ability to move our minds through space which enables us to perceive of motion through the singular whole. Our minds feel complete (singular). But they are not chained and bounded. If you look for something within your mind, then your mind has moved within itself. If you look for an edge to the mind itself, your mind moves through itself, once more.
  8. Apr 11, 2003 #7
    Because there is a duality of awareness, as I mentioned in my last post. The whole is not unaware of its parts. But the parts are unaware of the whole. At the moment, anyway.
    Why do we have to live on Earth? Because our awareness would see that flesh would freeze or fry elsewhere. Our perceptions of matter are consistent. I know that my body would cease to function if I lived elsewhere. Therefore, I know that 'my' perception (from within my body), would also cease. The Mind of the whole, however, does not cease. It's eternal.
    Anything which is thought to exist is part of the Mind. Dinosaur too.
    No doubt it can. But do not forget the apparent freedoms of 'our' awareness. 'We' are responsible for what we do. Therefore we are responsible for what we see in the world. It just requires a singular-effort from realisation, by the whole of humanity, and our wars will be no more. We should not fight against ourselves if that self is One.
    My philosophy states that this is the case.
    Freedom of mind. Believe in what you want. Science once offered a reasonable alternative to Gods. Science suggested that it could explain everything, without any mention of a God. However, last I heard, science was looking for a 1-dimensional string in an 11-dimensional swamp, to explain this existence. Is God thus dead?
  9. Apr 11, 2003 #8
    This is where I start disagreeing with you. You have to prove this premise, or at least make it seem likely.
  10. Apr 11, 2003 #9
    Re: Re: The reality of 'Mind'.

    I explicitly asked the reader to accept as true that "reality is Mind", in order to follow the rest of my post(s) here (so that they may better understand my philosophy as a whole). So, bare in mind that when you make comments here, you should be judging such axioms as you mention upon the premise it is built opon: The Mind.
    You should be judging my proceeding logic upon this premise itself.

    ... When the only reality is that of an omnipresent singular-mind, then the conclusion "I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.", is seen to be an absolute-certainty.

    What you're basically asking me to do here, is prove that my initial premise is correct. I've been trying that for over 18 months. I'm hoping this topic will shed a little light upon those past topics/threads.
  11. Apr 11, 2003 #10
    I have to agree, not only does it provide a simpler explanation, but a more broadly useful one from a scientific perspective. However, this does not discount the enormous utility of such philosophies. Heisenburg, for example, had this kind of philosophy and it helped him to formulate the Uncertainty Principle. Likewise, some of the most famous physicists today like John Wheeler have such beliefs and investigate them in their work.

    The real difficulty with such philosophies in my opinion, is integrating them with scientific research without sacraficing either the integrity of the philosophy or that of science. Spinoza's Pantheism was culturally unacceptable, for example, and so was neglected for centuries. On the other hand, Hegel's infinity was much more compatable with Christianity and flourished but led to a ressurgance of attempts to use science to prove the existence of God.

    This is what I see missing from LG's philosophy. Clear lines or at least guidelines as to what science can and cannot address using his philosophy. Without such rigor it seems a bit hypocritical and anti-scientific to begin quoting scientific evidence to support his philosophy.
  12. Apr 11, 2003 #11
    I've never been asked that question before. Far be it for me to impose Laws and direction upon the establishment of science. However, if we were to accept my premise as true, I would make a few suggestions:-
    1. Bare in mind that The Mind is the source of 'fundamental-energy'.
    2. Bare in mind that any evolutionary-processes (of time), start with the Mind.
    3. Bare in mind that 'thought' starts in 'the Mind', and not in matter.
    Other than that, there's not alot wrong with science, even in the light of my philosophy. It just needs to ditch its materialistic bias.
    At the end of the day, a fragmented and ordered-universe can be understood, using reason. We see a fragmented and ordered-universe. Therefore, we can try to understand how it works. The Laws of physics don't become null & void, just because our understanding of Reality might.
    But perhaps the future direction of science is affected. Only science can answer that.
    I've got nothing against science. My grudge is about materialists who use science as the basis for their beliefs.
  13. Apr 11, 2003 #12
    Which is of course a wrong assumption, cause a mind does not exist without it's material formation, thus ultiumately there exists only moving matter, and only secondary a mind.

    No mind has ever be accounted for, that exists entirely on it's own, that is without it's material existence.

    Take the brain away of a human mind, that is take it's material beingness away, and the mind will cease to be.

    There is not one bit of evidence for a concept of 'mind' that is not founded on material bases.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2003
  14. Apr 11, 2003 #13

    Three times wrong. Any source is based upon material existence.
    Thoughts are material processes that take place in the brain.

    Your attack on materialism is an attack on science too, cause science would not have been rooted and developed the way it did, witthout their principal philosophical understanding and foundation on materialism.

    Materialism is the foundation of science. Idealism is the foundation of religion.
    And these two thing fundamentaly don't go together.
  15. Apr 11, 2003 #14
    Re: Re: The reality of 'Mind'.

    This only relates to the perception of 'we'. It does not relate to the singular reality of 'Mind'.
    Which particle would be responsible for determining that 'you' imagine realities that cannot be seen via the laws of physics?
    You do an injustice to the experiences of your mind.
  16. Apr 11, 2003 #15
    Is yours a philosophy of mind, or a philosophy of anti-materialism? There are countless philosophies claiming scientific proof for their basic assertions, what's so special about materialism? Whatever the case might be, if you are going to fight with materialists over the issue of scientific support for their beliefs you must at least have a well defined philosophical approach to the issue of science.
  17. Apr 11, 2003 #16

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I know heusdens already pointed this out, but...

    You've got it totally backwards. The 'mind' that you are using to come up with this is borne of the physical universe. I don't understand how you can keep brushing off the question, "How does a mind exist without a brain?" There is absolutely no reason to think that it can.

    Do you know what that means? It means that we are finished explaining to you how your hypothesis does not explain relativity. It does not mean for you to pick up that discussion here.
  18. Apr 11, 2003 #17
    Re: Re: The reality of 'Mind'.

    My thread here is based upon the reality of Mind, remember. My logic here proceeds that premise.
    I wasn't aiming to explain Relativity. I was aiming to show how that Law was compatible with my hypothesis (of Mind). For this, you had no rebuttals.
    And for that reason, you were wrong to lock the thread. But I wont push it. I know I'm wasting my time with you.
  19. Apr 11, 2003 #18
    Re: Re: Re: The reality of 'Mind'.

    No, you may have started out/intended to prove your premise, but that is not what you ended up doing (in any of your threads). You always seemed to end up just explaining the consecuences of such a reality. I presented the Hurdles thread in order to counter the very premise. Until there is proof that this premise is even valid beyond my counter-arguments, I don't see any reason to pursue it.

    Yes I know that you are asking us to accept that premise (finally, s/he admits it!), but I don't want to accept that premise, without some reasoning to back it up.
  20. Apr 11, 2003 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: The reality of 'Mind'.

    By construction, you hypothesis is compatible with every confirmed physical law, relativity included. This does not give any support to your hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable (and hence, scientifically, it is utterly irrelevant).

    To make it clearer: your hypothesis was built that way; you start off making it consistent with every physical law, and then claim that such compliance gives support to your ideas. Of course it does not.
  21. Apr 11, 2003 #20
    I could make any assumption, and apply it to all known phenomena, that doesn't make it true/practical/good.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook