The true nature of 'I'

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #1
I posted this at Mentat's "I think, therefore I am" thread:

As I see it, 'thinking' is how existence is assertained - along with 'sensation-of-awareness'. Thus thinking is the source of knowing that 'existence is'.
Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is.
Therefore, since am-ness equates to existence, we can definitely say that "I think, therefore I am.".
Descartes was correct I think, about this. The only talking-point is the meaning of 'I'. "Who exactly am I?", is the only thing left to ponder.


My last sentence is the reason for this thread. Can we identify 'I' in relation to its sensations and its ability to think & feel & will?
Actually, this is exactly how we define ourselves - relatively to the things which we sense. But if we accept that existence can only be ascertained through ones own self (ones sensations; ones ability to think/reason; and ones emotions), we observe that things are identified within our own sensations - within ourselves. I.e., we see things within 'I'.
This is significant. From the whole of I's sensations, the identity of the self is ascertained by regarding some parts of those sensations in relation to others. For example, your sensation of sight, which clearly exists within 'you', tells you that 'you' are separate from all other things within that sensation. But such knowledge is clearly nonsense; for how can 'you' be separate from something-else which resides within your own sensation?
Awareness is not separate from itself. It is singular. And any thing which is seen within that awareness is clearly existing as a part of that awareness. Not separate to it.
So; if 'I' is to make a true judgement of the self, then it clearly needs to encompass the wholeness of its sensations. The wholeness (fullness; truth; absoluteness; richness; whatever... ) of I resides within the wholeness of its sensations.
I contend that if the mind can see a universe within itself, then that mind is the wholeness of that universe. Not a finite part of it.
Hence, 'I' is the absoluteness of existence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
FZ+
1,599
3
Actually, this is exactly how we define ourselves - relatively to the things which we sense.
Agreed.
But if we accept that existence can only be ascertained through ones own self (ones sensations; ones ability to think/reason; and ones emotions), we observe that things are identified within our own sensations - within ourselves.
Nope... Notice word "through". That's how I see it. Suppose our senses and sensations, our axioms of reason etc are telescopes. Though these items may be considered constructs of the mind, the things we see with them are not. They provide instruments, but do not limit the existence of what we see with them. With these instruments, we can see outside of our mind, and create an internal image, a sensation, of what is external. So we do not neccessary see things within "I". We see things through "I". This is very significant.

But such knowledge is clearly nonsense; for how can 'you' be separate from something-else which resides within your own sensation?
Some have postulated that there are in fact two selfs, an internal essence which represents the entity of awareness itself, and an external amalgamation of the consciousness, and the percetions with which it had control. It is hence possible for a self to be sensed within the self.
There are other alternatives. One is the concept of self-awareness as a sensation outside that of sight. This is shown to be largely genetic a trait, and this is what identifies a self aside from the other information. But note this, that which you find within the sensation is your mental image through the telescope, not you itself. In this case, the telescope is also a mirror. Your reflection is you, yet it is part of the mirror. It is a virtual image. Hence awareness is as an abstract concept possibly singular (though some evidence cast doubt on this, from neuroscience), but an image of awareness may exist to be apart from the awareness itself. While the image is within the awareness, the awareness in reality is not within itself.
So; if 'I' is to make a true judgement of the self
Interjection: What makes you think "I" can make a true judgement of the self? How will you know this truth?
And any thing which is seen within that awareness is clearly existing as a part of that awareness. Not separate to it.
Hence this is true, and also false. An image of thing that is observed must exist within the awareness, but an actuality of thing can exist outside. These two are separate but joined by mental association. This is what I term the essence and the form.
I contend that if the mind can see a universe within itself, then that mind is the wholeness of that universe. Not a finite part of it.
Hence this statement is non sequiter. The sight of the universe is an internal image, but the actuality of the universe, it's form, may exist outside. The mind may be part of the universe.
Hence, 'I' is the absoluteness of existence.
Actually, this does not follow. Didn't you begin by stating the self is defined in relative terms? And as the mind senses not the universe, and sees not the truth, is the "I" not undefinable?
 
  • #3
Originally posted by FZ+
Nope... Notice word "through". That's how I see it. Suppose our senses and sensations, our axioms of reason etc are telescopes.
Though these items may be considered constructs of the mind, the things we see with them are not.
Let's consider a 'red ball'. What is it?
Firstly, your awareness of the ball comes in the shape of a form (within your awareness) which our reason has defined as 'a ball'. Secondly, the sensation of 'red' is definitely an inner sensation. Thus, knowledge of a 'red ball' is gleaned through the reasoned analysis of sensation.
You say that our sensations are looking outwards (like telescopes). But it is quite evident that when you become aware of a 'red ball', that you're looking directly within yourself. You are not looking outwards at anything. You are looking at the sensation-of-colour, and the sensation-of-form - both of which are a part of your own being.
Hence, you are looking within yourself and thinking that you are seeing an external reality. But in actual fact, your are definitely observing an inner-reality (of the sensations of the self). And it is only your judgement of these sensations which has led you to believe that you are looking outside of yourself.
They provide instruments, but do not limit the existence of what we see with them. With these instruments, we can see outside of our mind, and create an internal image, a sensation, of what is external. So we do not neccessary see things within "I". We see things through "I". This is very significant.
The subconcious-mind needs to understand external-data (if indeed there is any external-data), in order to create a representation of 'reality' through the senses. But the aspect of the mind which is lost within its own sensations ('you'), have no idea what external-reality is like. You only understand what your own being-of-sensation tells you, through your reason. In other words, 'your' whole understanding of existence comes directly from within your own being, through subjective-sensation & reason. Not from without.
Some have postulated that there are in fact two selfs, an internal essence which represents the entity of awareness itself, and an external amalgamation of the consciousness, and the percetions with which it had control. It is hence possible for a self to be sensed within the self.
I agree with that final sentence. Exactly like dreams. But this doesn't make awareness a plurality. It just means that the mind has the ability to shift perception.
Interjection: What makes you think "I" can make a true judgement of the self? How will you know this truth?
As I said in my first post: the true self can be identified in relation to the whole of its sensations, and other attributes. Rather than as just a finite-speck observed within its own sensations.
The true self is absolute in relation to known existence. Not 'relative' to known existence.
Didn't you begin by stating the self is defined in relative terms?
At-present, this is the case. But it doesn't mean that this method of defining the self is correct. Hence my argument.
And as the mind senses not the universe, and sees not the truth, is the "I" not undefinable?
Within the self, resides a whole universe-full of existence. The mind senses a universe within itself. And "the truth" of identity cannot be seen within the 'relative' - but within the 'absolute'.
 
  • #4
FZ+
1,599
3
You are not looking outwards at anything. You are looking at the sensation-of-colour, and the sensation-of-form - both of which are a part of your own being.
But, you see, this part of myself is not the ball. It is the virtual image of the ball within my brain. If I alter my perceptions which produce this image, with drugs for example, I can create new images. But the ball itself remains constant. When I touch the ball, my drugged visual IMAGE clashes with my lucid touch-image to form a new image. Then I get confused. :wink: I am looking within, but that which is within is a reflection of that which is without. There is no reason to thing of the virtual image as real. Indeed, it fails one of the tests for reality - it disappears when I stop thinking about it. But I can get reacquainted with the ball, and see that I was drunk and that it was in fact blue. Hence, my image has changed, but the ball has remained constant.

You only understand what your own being-of-sensation tells you, through your reason. In other words, 'your' whole understanding of existence comes directly from within your own being, through subjective-sensation & reason. Not from without.
No. Where does reason come from? Reason is a genetic trait that still does come from without. Western reason is for example very different from eastern reason. And there is no justification for the infallibility of reason - rather, it is an axiom. And you see, the word is still through. Your perceptual mind and reason is the conduit, even if it is self-made. There is no reason to make it the terminus. That is crucial. Hence the scene from which the image is painted is not neccessarily in the mind.

I agree with that final sentence. Exactly like dreams. But this doesn't make awareness a plurality. It just means that the mind has the ability to shift perception.
No, but that was not the point. I was generating alternatives. I do not agree with this one myself. But then again, schizophrenics have been shown to have multiple awarenesses....

The true self is absolute in relation to known existence. Not 'relative' to known existence.
Absolute in relation is rather an oxymoron. If your knowledge of true self comes from comparisons, then your truth can only be relative. It can never be absolute. Insufficient data.

The mind senses a universe within itself.
But not the whole universe. And without the whole universe, and without external measurement to determine absolutes, you can never define that truth. Paradox? (almost sound like Wuli there... heh)
 
  • #5
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I posted this at Mentat's "I think, therefore I am" thread:

As I see it, 'thinking' is how existence is assertained - along with 'sensation-of-awareness'. Thus thinking is the source of knowing that 'existence is'.
Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is.
Therefore, since am-ness equates to existence, we can definitely say that "I think, therefore I am.".
Descartes was correct I think, about this. The only talking-point is the meaning of 'I'. "Who exactly am I?", is the only thing left to ponder.


My last sentence is the reason for this thread. Can we identify 'I' in relation to its sensations and its ability to think & feel & will?
Actually, this is exactly how we define ourselves - relatively to the things which we sense. But if we accept that existence can only be ascertained through ones own self (ones sensations; ones ability to think/reason; and ones emotions), we observe that things are identified within our own sensations - within ourselves. I.e., we see things within 'I'.
This is significant. From the whole of I's sensations, the identity of the self is ascertained by regarding some parts of those sensations in relation to others. For example, your sensation of sight, which clearly exists within 'you', tells you that 'you' are separate from all other things within that sensation. But such knowledge is clearly nonsense; for how can 'you' be separate from something-else which resides within your own sensation?
Awareness is not separate from itself. It is singular. And any thing which is seen within that awareness is clearly existing as a part of that awareness. Not separate to it.
So; if 'I' is to make a true judgement of the self, then it clearly needs to encompass the wholeness of its sensations. The wholeness (fullness; truth; absoluteness; richness; whatever... ) of I resides within the wholeness of its sensations.
I contend that if the mind can see a universe within itself, then that mind is the wholeness of that universe. Not a finite part of it.
Hence, 'I' is the absoluteness of existence.

This post sure looks like you actually read my posts regarding 'I'-ness. I have posted several topics, on this theme, in which some fundamental property of 'a mind' is that it can reflect on itself as 'I', that it is able of be aware of that. But that is not a definition of existence but that of identity, thought and mindfull awareness.
But that what is fundamental to me, being me (the me as I reflecting to itself as I) is not the whole of me, but just the central unit of awareness. Like in the computer analogy, the 'I' has the role of the CPU, while the capacity of the whole computer (all of my brain/mind) has more capacity and ability to recognize things as 'I'. But the 'I' is important, because it gives me an identity, without that I would just be a very sophistocated biological machinery.
Now, existence can not just be defined as having the property of 'I'-ness. It is just what distinghuishes me with material existence as such, that I have a mind. And a rock, or a chair, has not (can not reflect on itself as 'I'). By the way: even when most of the universe consists of material things that have no mind of themselves, sinc the universe also includes me, one could state that the universe has a mind, and the universe can reflect on itself, because we (as minds) exist. But this is not to be understood as there being a mind on itself and for itself, and seperate from our mind, that is 'out there', like you stated over and over again in your 'mind hypothese'.
That just refers to the 'Absolute Idea' as was portayed by Hegel, which acc. to this philosophy is the basic principle that would govern this world. (See als http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm#44H12"


We do not experience someone else's 'I'-ness, let alone we could experience the 'I-'-ness of the material world (the universe) as such.
We only experience our own 'I'-ness, but in some way, this 'I'-ness is universal, which means for any other 'I' (a mind that can reflect on itself as 'I') the awarenss of 'I' is the same. In this way one can say that 'I'-ness is universal (to all minds).

If existence were just defined as all that has this property of 'I'-ness, then I could as well assume that nothing what I know of, has existence of it's own. It would lead me to the conclusion that it could be the case, that the existing world (everything that is not 'I') could be inexistent. But that ain't a proper concept, cause in last instance, not only the world would be inexistent, but also 'I', because 'I' could not exist, without the world existing (my property of 'I'-ness is realy related to all of the material world; I am an endproduct of a long material process!).

In other words, this is a strong point against any belief that mind ('I'-ness) could exists, without an existing (material) world. And there is no reason to assume that the material world itself can reflect on itself as 'I', that is, in the cases in which it can do that, we talk about an existing mind, in the form of a human being for instance. The mind is a product of nature, of the material world, it is the way in which the material world can reflect on itself. But anything material does not have that ability. It would be absolute nonsense to state that 'I' (any mind) could exist, without the material world that formed it. Let alone of 'I' (any mind) could have 'created' or 'shaped' the material world.

But I guess you never saw that point in the conclusion, and turn things exactly upside down and inside out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I contend that if the mind can see a universe within itself, then that mind is the wholeness of that universe. Not a finite part of it.
Hence, 'I' is the absoluteness of existence.

Yeah, for sure. You are God. Now we know.

But couldn't you please create some other universe, we get a bit sick of this in this universe.

By the way, the universality of the 'I' (the ability to reflect on itself as being 'I'), is in no way the same as claiming the 'discovery and proof of the mind of God', cause all you did is discover that 'I'-ness is universal (for minds).

For the mind of God, which you yourself claim is seperate of yours, so you don't have first hand experience of that, you also have to proof that such a mind can exist without a material world (since your mind can't, cause it was a product of the material world, how could you claim some other mind could?) and can 'create' such a material world, just by 'thinking' it!

In other words, your basements of all of your ideas, are in reality very poor. Nothing substantial!
 
Last edited:
  • #7


Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah, for sure. You are God. Now we know.

But couldn't you please create some other universe, we get a bit sick of this in this universe.

By the way, the universality of the 'I' (the ability to reflect on itself as being 'I'), is in no way the same as claiming the 'discovery and proof of the mind of God', cause all you did is discover that 'I'-ness is universal (for minds).

For the mind of God, which you yourself claim is seperate of yours, so you don't have first hand experience of that, you also have to proof that such a mind can exist without a material world (since your mind can't, cause it was a product of the material world, how could you claim some other mind could?) and can 'create' such a material world, just by 'thinking' it!

In other words, your basements of all of your ideas, are in reality very poor. Nothing substantial!
greg says: product of the material world includes what is not here when you are not. you don't even know what your oun mind is.
 
  • #8
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
lifegazer~

are you referring to what is most commonly known as perception? in my opinion, perception is everything, yet perception is unique to each individual...

are you also saying that reality is only within the (human) mind? if so, what about the minds of the animals, the minds of plant life (if possible)?

and are you saying that all the minds of every living being on this planet alone are singular?

please understand these are valid sincere questions, as i have for two years tried to understand your philosophy---but admit when your threads get longer then 2 pages, i lose interest fast (not in you, but in my inability to understand your ideas)...
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Kerrie
lifegazer~

are you referring to what is most commonly known as perception? in my opinion, perception is everything, yet perception is unique to each individual...
greg says: who or what perceives?

are you also saying that reality is only within the (human) mind? if so, what about the minds of the animals, the minds of plant life (if possible)?
greg says: universial mind universial self universial I sense

and are you saying that all the minds of every living being on this planet alone are singular?
greg says: yes, what is now what is zen what is budda mind?

please understand these are valid sincere questions, as i have for two years tried to understand your philosophy---but admit when your threads get longer then 2 pages, i lose interest fast (not in you, but in my inability to understand your ideas)...
 
  • #10
who am 'i'?

here is my theory.
i define 'i' as not me but just 'i'.
obviously, i is just a letter.
but there can be more to that than this.
i is like a picture, with a thousand words.
'i' is our souls, our inner being, our true self, our power.
'me' is the guy you see in the mirror. the one who everybody remembers you
'myself' is your thought. your ego and your concious.
words can mean alot of things.
the power of 'i' is infinite.
i can extend to impossiable things.
'i' is a spirit, your spirit.
you are put into this world, filled with **** and lies.
it depends weather you want to believe them.
therefore, you think you are 'me' and thats who you will be.
because, you make this world what you percieve it to be.
you make this world real, you make yourself real, you make yourself you and no one else(unless you were controlled and allow yourself to be) can make your self what you are today except you.
thats what it means when you say, 'i think, therefore i am'
just my theory.
 
  • #11
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by greg
greg says: product of the material world includes what is not here when you are not. you don't even know what your oun mind is.

That's true, we only have partial understanding of ourselves.
But with help of science, we might be able to understand not only the material world, but also our mind.
 
  • #12
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Kerrie
lifegazer~

are you referring to what is most commonly known as perception? in my opinion, perception is everything, yet perception is unique to each individual...

are you also saying that reality is only within the (human) mind? if so, what about the minds of the animals, the minds of plant life (if possible)?

and are you saying that all the minds of every living being on this planet alone are singular?

please understand these are valid sincere questions, as i have for two years tried to understand your philosophy---but admit when your threads get longer then 2 pages, i lose interest fast (not in you, but in my inability to understand your ideas)...

If you want to understand his ideas, note that these ideas are not that original, but can be characterised as 'objective idealism'.

Hegel for instance (Absolute Idea) was a representor of this philosophical viewpoint (Phenomenology of the mind).

See also this http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm#44H12"

and http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I posted this at Mentat's "I think, therefore I am" thread:

As I see it, 'thinking' is how existence is assertained - along with 'sensation-of-awareness'. Thus thinking is the source of knowing that 'existence is'.
Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is.
Therefore, since am-ness equates to existence, we can definitely say that "I think, therefore I am.".
Descartes was correct I think, about this. The only talking-point is the meaning of 'I'. "Who exactly am I?", is the only thing left to ponder.


My last sentence is the reason for this thread. Can we identify 'I' in relation to its sensations and its ability to think & feel & will?
Actually, this is exactly how we define ourselves - relatively to the things which we sense. But if we accept that existence can only be ascertained through ones own self (ones sensations; ones ability to think/reason; and ones emotions), we observe that things are identified within our own sensations - within ourselves. I.e., we see things within 'I'.
This is significant. From the whole of I's sensations, the identity of the self is ascertained by regarding some parts of those sensations in relation to others. For example, your sensation of sight, which clearly exists within 'you', tells you that 'you' are separate from all other things within that sensation. But such knowledge is clearly nonsense; for how can 'you' be separate from something-else which resides within your own sensation?
Awareness is not separate from itself. It is singular. And any thing which is seen within that awareness is clearly existing as a part of that awareness. Not separate to it.
So; if 'I' is to make a true judgement of the self, then it clearly needs to encompass the wholeness of its sensations. The wholeness (fullness; truth; absoluteness; richness; whatever... ) of I resides within the wholeness of its sensations.
I contend that if the mind can see a universe within itself, then that mind is the wholeness of that universe. Not a finite part of it.
Hence, 'I' is the absoluteness of existence.

It's interesting enough that your conclusion is that "I" is the absoluteness of existence, and yet you refer to "we". I'm not just being picky on words here, I really think it is strange that you can think yourself the creator of all of you percieved reality, while at the same time acknowledging "our" existence, as though it were something seperate from your own.
 
  • #14


Originally posted by Mentat
I really think it is strange that you can think yourself the creator of all of you percieved reality
You still don't understand my philosophy. I have never said that 'i' (lifegazer) have created my own perceived reality. Indeed, 'i' (lifegazer) am a part of that "perceived reality". 'lifegazer' is an experience, not a creator.
The creator of 'my' perceived reality is the same as the creator of 'yours': The Mind.
while at the same time acknowledging "our" existence, as though it were something seperate from your own.
We are all united within The Mind. 'Separation' is a state-of-mind. Or rather, states-of-mind.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Kerrie
are you referring to what is most commonly known as perception?
Yes. You perceive via sensations.
in my opinion, perception is everything, yet perception is unique to each individual...
I agree.
are you also saying that reality is only within the (human) mind?
No. I'm saying that human-minds are within A Mind.
if so, what about the minds of the animals, the minds of plant life (if possible)?
The same place as everything else you'd care to mention: The Mind.
and are you saying that all the minds of every living being on this planet alone are singular?
I'm not sure I understand the question correctly. 'we' are singular perceptions of existence of It.
please understand these are valid sincere questions, as i have for two years tried to understand your philosophy---but admit when your threads get longer then 2 pages, i lose interest fast (not in you, but in my inability to understand your ideas)...
No problem. I don't think many do understand my philosophy.
 
  • #16
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
Originally posted by Lifegazer
'we' are singular perceptions of existence of It.

I don't think many do understand my philosophy.

is this It concept something that people should take as literal in the sense of being a mystical magical thing, or do you have a basic proof of what convinced you to perceive this?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by FZ+
But, you see, this part of myself is not the ball. It is the virtual image of the ball within my brain. If I alter my perceptions which produce this image, with drugs for example, I can create new images.
'You' and the world are related. 'The Mind' is the creator of both. My theories don't deny that 'we' are related to our sensations (our world). If you cut my body, I shall bleed. If you pop drugs into my drinks, I'll start talking nonsense (LOL). But like I say, your objection is irrelevant to my argument. The true 'I' is the Whole... not one of its changing 'parts'. Within the context of my argument, drugs don't affect 'The Mind' itself. They just affect 'us'.
I am looking within, but that which is within is a reflection of that which is without.
Tut-tut Fz. Have you been taking assertion-drugs again?:wink:
You know you can't prove that. And even if it were true, it would make no difference to my argument. Read it again - it makes no mention of an external reality.
There is no reason to thing of the virtual image as real.
The point is that the Mind cannot see anything unless it can create a sensation within itself which mirrors the reality it is portraying. Therefore, if the Mind has the sensations and the know-how to create
"a universe" within its own self, then that Mind must be as complex as the Universe itself. Its characteristics can be derived via consideration of the 'work' it puts into itself, and also the abilities it has to create the end-product ("a universe").
No. Where does reason come from? Reason is a genetic trait that still does come from without.
A genetic trait? Are you saying that a carbon-atom swapped places with a hydrogen-atom, and out popped 'the ability to reason'?
Western reason is for example very different from eastern reason.
Incorrect. The conclusions to Western-reason are different to the conclusions of Eastern-reason.
And there is no justification for the infallibility of reason - rather, it is an axiom.
It is not reason which is infallible. But mankind itself. Emotions abuse reason.
Absolute in relation is rather an oxymoron. If your knowledge of true self comes from comparisons, then your truth can only be relative. It can never be absolute. Insufficient data.
The absolute-definition of The Mind - gleaned from absolute considerations of 'everything', is that The Mind is omnipresent; omniscient; and omnipotent... in regards to everything known about existence. Because everything known about existence comes from it, to it, and is seen within it. Therefore, it is everything seen; it knows everything which it mirrors with a corresponding sensation; and it has the power/ability to create the universe we sense and understand.
But not the whole universe.
It is quite simple to attribute labels to The Whole in relation to its parts.
 
  • #18


Originally posted by heusdens
That's true, we only have partial understanding of ourselves.
But with help of science, we might be able to understand not only the material world, but also our mind.
greg says: were is the I sense in a baby doesn't it has to learn what he is and what he is not the ego is what the I sense has kept for ists definition but it is still not the I sense what it was at birth is closer
 
  • #19
A genetic trait? Are you saying that a carbon-atom swapped places with a hydrogen-atom, and out popped 'the ability to reason'?

This is a very interesting perdicament. Thus it calls for an "interesting" question. Does 'the ability to reason' come standard as a genetic trait, or does it develop? Is there anyway of knowing?
 
  • #20
Because everything known about existence comes from it, to it, and is seen within it.

Everything from existence comes from it?
Therefore, it is everything seen; it knows everything which it mirrors with a corresponding sensation; and it has the power/ability to create the universe we sense and understand.

Lifegazer, I am quite puzzled as to why you continue to address the mind as a seperate being, all on its own. Is it not a part of each individual?
 
  • #21
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by Lifegazer
You still don't understand my philosophy. I have never said that 'i' (lifegazer) have created my own perceived reality. Indeed, 'i' (lifegazer) am a part of that "perceived reality". 'lifegazer' is an experience, not a creator.
The creator of 'my' perceived reality is the same as the creator of 'yours': The Mind.

The reality we perceive of has it's origin in the material world, which exists independend of our minds, and was not 'created'.
We are outselves a product of the material world.
 
  • #22
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
If you pop drugs into my drinks, I'll start talking nonsense (LOL).

You talk nonsense even without popping drugs into your drinks, it must be that 'The Mind' is inflicting such ideas on you...

Hee LG that is a 'proof' for the existence of 'The Mind', since he has created within you the sensation of it's existence!!!!

Although.. in reality this is just another of infinite ways in stating nonsense, based on putting the conclusion of an argument into the premise, and reason something baseless which can not be disproven.

There is a lot of nonsense that can not be disproven, but none of such arguments ever provide any proof for the nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I don't think many do understand my philosophy.

It's not that they don't understand what you say, it's just that they understand that what you say is plain nonsense.

There is no 'Absolute Mind' this is just a fixation of your own imagination, to know about the world, you must look further then your own mind, and actually explore the world itself.

Science has done so for the past couple of hundred years, and come up with a fairly understandable material reality. All this is proof for a material reality outside of our perceptions. No proof has ever been given for the existence of 'The Mind'.

Only in foolish debates and books such a nonsense concept is claimed to have reality. Appealing perhaps for ignorant people, but absolute nonsense for the scientific educated people.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Everything from existence comes from it?
The Mind is the source of all perceived existence.
This isn't some fancy mystical notion which I've just made up - it's a fact. And the reason why I can state this is because:-
1. Existence is perceived, absolutely, via sensation. And since The Mind creates its own subjective-sensations, I can state that The Mind is the source of its own perceived existence.
2. Knowledge is facts, derived from the reasoned analysis of sensation. Hence, all knowledge is obtained from the sensations of The Mind.
Lifegazer, I am quite puzzled as to why you continue to address the mind as a seperate being, all on its own. Is it not a part of each individual?
The Mind creates sensations which It becomes aware of. It then loses itself within these sensations (similar to how we lose ourselves within our dreams). Thus, the illusion of two separate entities is created... when only One really exists.
 
  • #25
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The Mind is the source of all perceived existence.

That is perhaps what your mind tells you, but that is not what science tells us about the real world. It is bad thinking to assume that you can have any notion about reality, just from your own mind and your thinking alone, without ever having bothered to look and explore reality itself. So all you do is stating dogma's, which aren't testable, and therefore make no sense at all.

The material world has been explored profoundly and deeply by science. Which is more then one mind, and is more then studying one's own mind. That is what science performs, study the world outside our perceptions of the world. This has made it possible for us to gain true knowledge about the material world, and not just our subjective interpretation of the reality we perceive.

There hasn't been any instance in which the concept of the material world did not seem to fit any more, although it has replaced the concept of naive realism, and made a more developed picture of reality.
Absolute proof for the material reality is not within human reach, every method that science uses, goes on from relative knowledge.
But this makes sense. Absolute knowledge doesn't make sense, cause it equals Absolute nonsense. Absolutes we can not study, we can not have knowledge about.

This isn't some fancy mystical notion which I've just made up - it's a fact. And the reason why I can state this is because:-
1. Existence is perceived, absolutely, via sensation. And since The Mind creates its own subjective-sensations, I can state that The Mind is the source of its own perceived existence.
2. Knowledge is facts, derived from the reasoned analysis of sensation. Hence, all knowledge is obtained from the sensations of The Mind.

You claim to define reality in an absolute sense, which makes absolutely no sense at all. The only source we have for all the sensations of our mind, as well as the mind itself, is the material world. All of the explorations of science are leading to the conclusion that we can firmly base our knowledge on materialism.
Material sciences discovered how the material world in fact works, we gained knowledge about the world, by exploring the world deeply and profoundly, and can make theoretical models, that fit the observations.
 
  • #26
FZ+
1,599
3
'You' and the world are related. 'The Mind' is the creator of both. My theories don't deny that 'we' are related to our sensations (our world). If you cut my body, I shall bleed. If you pop drugs into my drinks, I'll start talking nonsense (LOL). But like I say, your objection is irrelevant to my argument. The true 'I' is the Whole... not one of its changing 'parts'. Within the context of my argument, drugs don't affect 'The Mind' itself. They just affect 'us'.
Or so you say, without actually any evidence. I am saying that you cannot directly replace reality with our perception of reality as you do, especially as there exists some evidence that disagrees. There are good reasons why we call the thing "mind altering drugs". You see, you have raised the idea that sensations are the terminus of our experiences with due justification. It seems quite justifiable to say that we build a virtual world of perceived knowledge. It is not true to claim objectivity on the model, and place this model as all that exists. If, as drugs suggest, our internal UNDERSTANDING of reality can be radically changed and affected by external influence, or in your idea, internal influence, then the unchangebility of the mind is questionable, as is it's fundamental quality. It's not a disproof, by any means. But you must accept the possibility of the otherwise.

Tut-tut Fz. Have you been taking assertion-drugs again?
You know you can't prove that. And even if it were true, it would make no difference to my argument. Read it again - it makes no mention of an external reality.
But neither can you prove otherwise. If you reject this statement, then the rejection is similarly an assertion. As it is, this statement can provide some interesting and useful implications in dealing with the mind, and solve some other problems.

The point is that the Mind cannot see anything unless it can create a sensation within itself which mirrors the reality it is portraying. Therefore, if the Mind has the sensations and the know-how to create "a universe" within its own self, then that Mind must be as complex as the Universe itself. Its characteristics can be derived via consideration of the 'work' it puts into itself, and also the abilities it has to create the end-product ("a universe").
No. That is wrong. You see, we have no independent measure of the preciseness of the sensations of the universe. The while it is correct that our mind must be of sufficient complexity to construct our perceived universe - rather, the complexity of our perceived universe is a direct projection of the complexity of the mind, it is incorrect to lay this on the external world. We cannot say that the mind is as complex as the universe, but only as complex as the universe we can see. An analogy - say the mind is a camera. The photograph we take with the camera is indicative of the quality of the camera. However, the target we point the camera at has no relation to the complexity of the camera. We can say that we can observe the mind by the capability of our understanding. But we cannot say how good our understanding of the universe it compared to the reality of the universe.

A genetic trait? Are you saying that a carbon-atom swapped places with a hydrogen-atom, and out popped 'the ability to reason'?
Close. What's wrong with this? We can remove the ability to reason from people, or beings, by changing their genetic structure. This has been pretty much confirmed. I don't suppose someone can reason without a brain, can you? Of course, part of the reason can be taken from the external environment. Notice the amount of time taken until formal logic was "invented".

Incorrect. The conclusions to Western-reason are different to the conclusions of Eastern-reason.
And they cannot both be correct. This undermines the universal correctness of reason, does it not?
It is not reason which is infallible. But mankind itself. Emotions abuse reason.
Mankind has failed often. I presume this to be a mistype.

The absolute-definition of The Mind - gleaned from absolute considerations of 'everything', is that The Mind is omnipresent; omniscient; and omnipotent... in regards to everything known about existence. Because everything known about existence comes from it, to it, and is seen within it. Therefore, it is everything seen; it knows everything which it mirrors with a corresponding sensation; and it has the power/ability to create the universe we sense and understand.
No. Because we can only see through the mind, and this restricts our vision. Without a capability to go out of the mind, we can never make such a pronouncement. Omnipotency are only conceptual entities.

It is quite simple to attribute labels to The Whole in relation to its parts.
But we do not have all the parts, and cannot hence see the whole.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by FZ+
If, as drugs suggest, our internal UNDERSTANDING of reality can be radically changed and affected by external influence, or in your idea, internal influence, then the unchangebility of the mind is questionable, as is it's fundamental quality.
Only conciousness (of the universe) is changed by drugs. But conciousness is a product of The Mind. It is not representative of that Mind as a whole.
Likewise, you should be aware that conciousness has the power to affect the material world. I'll mention the placebo-effect; but even concious-will has determined the present state of our planet. We manipulate matter to fulfil desire.
But we do not have all the parts, and cannot hence see the whole. [/B]
Take a look at the stars. You're looking at your own awareness. You're looking within yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Mentat
3,918
3


Originally posted by Lifegazer
You still don't understand my philosophy. I have never said that 'i' (lifegazer) have created my own perceived reality. Indeed, 'i' (lifegazer) am a part of that "perceived reality". 'lifegazer' is an experience, not a creator.
The creator of 'my' perceived reality is the same as the creator of 'yours': The Mind.

It seems to be you, who does not fully understand your philosophy. By which, I mean that you don't seem to have accounted for all factors yet. You see, you are saying that we each have individual perspectives on reality. And, at the same time, you are saying that all of reality is produced from one Mind. This doesn't make sense. If all of reality eminates from one Mind, then all of reality should be percieved from one standpoint.

We are all united within The Mind. 'Separation' is a state-of-mind. Or rather, states-of-mind.

Exactly my point. If seperation is a state of mind, then how can you refer to more than one of them. These "states of mind" would have to exist seperate of each other.
 
  • #29
FZ+
1,599
3
Only conciousness (of the universe) is changed by drugs. But conciousness is a product of The Mind. It is not representative of that Mind as a whole.
Likewise, you should be aware that conciousness has the power to affect the material world. I'll mention the placebo-effect; but even concious-will has determined the present state of our planet. We manipulate matter to fulfil desire
So is existence. So if consciousness can be changed without reality, there must be a division between our perceptions and sensations, and the world-image we perceive with them. Or so this evidence suggests. If you accept that the drugs do not affect reality, then you must separate the singularity of the mind, and existence itself - into the virtual and the real, just as I suggested. So it seems, at least.

Take a look at the stars. You're looking at your own awareness. You're looking within yourself.
There are clouds and I cannot see the stars. Godel's paradox provides that even if there were no clouds, I cannot see all the stars. I cannot see the whole universe - information is not like that. By looking at the night sky with just my naked eye, I cannot tell if there are no stars, or whether there are ones unseen. I cannot make an absolute statement on the bounds of my mind and perception, as there is no way for me to leave them. I simply put the probabilities according to my experiences. I assume the stars do exist, and they do not just disappear. I hence make progress.
 
  • #30
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Only conciousness (of the universe) is changed by drugs. But conciousness is a product of The Mind. It is not representative of that Mind as a whole.

If conscioussness is a product of The Mind, then it is clear that The Mind itself can not be consciousness itself, cause then we could not distinguish between 'The Mind' and the product it creates: consciousness.
However, that is what you defined The Mind to be, namely consciousness. It seems now that for 'fitting your hypothese' in reality, you have shifted the definition of The Mind, so that it fits the concept of Matter, the philosophical term matter in philosophical materialism.
Matter indeed is the stuff that is developing progressively, and caused consciousness, a property not existing before in matter, and derived from primitive forms of matter through a long lasting process of evolution.

So I get from this, you have dropped your 'Mind' hypothese after all since you can not longer claim that 'The Mind' is just consciousness, and now use the term 'The Mind' to denote what is better known and undestood as Matter.

Likewise, you should be aware that conciousness has the power to affect the material world. I'll mention the placebo-effect; but even concious-will has determined the present state of our planet. We manipulate matter to fulfil desire.

That what mankind has done, and what distinguishes mankind from the rest of the natural world, is that early man succeeded in using tools to interact with the natural world, to extend the power of man.
By using tools, mankind developed means of sustain (for instance through agriculture, manufacture) that it didn't have original. The use of tools has also lead to the development of consciousness. Our consciousness is great part derived from this long historic process of development, in which labour played a significant role.

Take a look at the stars. You're looking at your own awareness. You're looking within yourself.

This is quite an inaccurate description. The fact that the star light arriving at our eyes, creates an image in our eye, which is represented within the brain in some other form, does not withstand the fact that there is actual light emitted from the star that traveled the distance to earth where our eye could capture it, and which are the cause for our sensation and awareness of the night sky and stars. Without the actual star light coming from the star, without the star itself, there would not have happened this sensation and awareness. Your 'hypothese' always manipulates our thinking, in claiming that apart from our own sensations, nothing can be assumed to be the cause for that sensations, and if it is stated, that such a proposition is pure nonsense and would lead us to adopt the doctrine of solipsism (a doctrine that claims that only our sensations and awarenesses are real, and that there is nothing outside of that), you simply compensate that by 'inventing' a 'SuperMind' that would have 'caused' our sensations. Instead of mentioning the real cause for the sensations, the actual star from which we see a tiny bit of light, which is of course a more accurate and factual description.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by FZ+
There are clouds and I cannot see the stars. Godel's paradox provides that even if there were no clouds, I cannot see all the stars.

The fact that one can not see all the stars are not caused by Godels paradox (this is a paradox applied to any formal system, and says that any formal system can not be both complete and consistent) but by the fact that:
- Our eyes and instruments are not sensitive enough to capture all the light emitting objects, so we only see the objects that emit enough light that can be captured on earth. Far away objects because of their distance therefore leave not enough light to be seen on earth.
- The universe has a horizon, caused by the fact that light from far away objects has not had enough time to reach us. This is a phenomena closely linked to the expansion of the universe.

There is however another nice paradox attached to this, and which shows that the night sky is in effect dark (except for the dots of light from galaxies and stars), which could not be the case if the universe was infinite in size and infinite in time, and homogenous.
We assume the universe however to be homogeneous, and all parts of the universe containing (on the large scale) the same amount of matter and light emitting matter. Space dust does not contribute to the darkness, cause that would re-emit the light.
So one of the propositions would have to be false: either the universe is finite in size, or the universe has not existed for an eternity, at least not in it's present form with light emitting matter in forms of galaxies and stars.
The nice feature of this is that initially the cause of the darkness of the night sky was assumed to be caused by the redhsift of light. Which means that in another part of the spectrum, the night sky is in fact luminant, and which has shown to be the case at around 2.7 Kelvin. The initial value was derived from theoretical calculations, and was around 3 K (this is the temperature of surrounding space, or also known as the Cosmic Background Radiation - CMBR).
Later investigations showed that this explenation was wrong, and the CMBR is now considered as the remnants of the photons in the early universe, a short time after the Big Bang, when the temperature and density sank low enough to allow photons to travel freely.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by heusdens
If conscioussness is a product of The Mind, then it is clear that The Mind itself can not be consciousness itself, cause then we could not distinguish between 'The Mind' and the product it creates: consciousness.
However, that is what you defined The Mind to be, namely consciousness. It seems now that for 'fitting your hypothese' in reality, you have shifted the definition of The Mind, so that it fits the concept of Matter, the philosophical term matter in philosophical materialism.
Matter indeed is the stuff that is developing progressively, and caused consciousness, a property not existing before in matter, and derived from primitive forms of matter through a long lasting process of evolution.

So I get from this, you have dropped your 'Mind' hypothese after all since you can not longer claim that 'The Mind' is just consciousness, and now use the term 'The Mind' to denote what is better known and undestood as Matter.



That what mankind has done, and what distinguishes mankind from the rest of the natural world, is that early man succeeded in using tools to interact with the natural world, to extend the power of man.
By using tools, mankind developed means of sustain (for instance through agriculture, manufacture) that it didn't have original. The use of tools has also lead to the development of consciousness. Our consciousness is great part derived from this long historic process of development, in which labour played a significant role.



This is quite an inaccurate description. The fact that the star light arriving at our eyes, creates an image in our eye, which is represented within the brain in some other form, does not withstand the fact that there is actual light emitted from the star that traveled the distance to earth where our eye could capture it, and which are the cause for our sensation and awareness of the night sky and stars. Without the actual star light coming from the star, without the star itself, there would not have happened this sensation and awareness. Your 'hypothese' always manipulates our thinking, in claiming that apart from our own sensations, nothing can be assumed to be the cause for that sensations, and if it is stated, that such a proposition is pure nonsense and would lead us to adopt the doctrine of solipsism (a doctrine that claims that only our sensations and awarenesses are real, and that there is nothing outside of that), you simply compensate that by 'inventing' a 'SuperMind' that would have 'caused' our sensations. Instead of mentioning the real cause for the sensations, the actual star from which we see a tiny bit of light, which is of course a more accurate and factual description.

Unfortunately hou have only proved it can't be proved and you do it by having someone else trying to do the proveing which is the whole point. prove it is whatever you think it is.
 
  • #33
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by greg
Unfortunately hou have only proved it can't be proved and you do it by having someone else trying to do the proveing which is the whole point. prove it is whatever you think it is.

What did I proof that can't be proved?

I assume you want me to proof the premise of Materialism, which claims that the reality outside of our perceptions is material?

May I ask you what part of the concept of matter don't you understand, and what science result makes you doubt material reality?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
FZ+
1,599
3
Give up this bit Heusdens - you can't prove materialism. You can show it's plausibility. You can show it's consistency with what you can observe, or remember. But given the restrictions of our perceptions, a proof itself cannot be provided.
 
  • #35
CJames
369
0
Heusdens makes an interesting point Lifegazer. I believe I have even suggested it before, however back then you called it the subconscious instead of The Mind.

The existence of what you call The Mind, or God, you claim is backed up because all mind-ful entities experience the same laws of physics, and are therefore somehow linked. Since you assert for some reason that all things exist within mind, you therefore assume that all things must exist within the same mind since they expereince the same reality.

I ask, if they experience the same reality, how is this reality different from a material reality?. Since you have continually refused to define exactly what The Mind is, it seems to me that it can only be a set of rules everything follows, a reality. Calling reality a mind doesn't change what it is, it's just a new definition for mind.
 

Suggested for: The true nature of 'I'

  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
583
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
321
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
138
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
179
Replies
13
Views
745
Replies
5
Views
391
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
924
Top