The true nature of 'I'

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #26
FZ+
1,561
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
Lifegazer
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
3,762
2


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+
1,561
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
1,648
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
1,648
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
greg
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
1,648
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+
1,561
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
351
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.
 
  • #36
Lifegazer
Originally posted by CJames
I ask, if they experience the same reality, how is this reality different from a material reality?.
It's different because what you thought was 'reality', is in fact no more powerful than a dream. The ultimate consequences to my philosophy are of a mystical nature. Spiritual. They affect the reality of your being. At this point, it goes beyond science.
Since you have continually refused to define exactly what The Mind is
The Mind is known by the attributes it has - which 'we' share. Namely: reason; emotion; will; desire; creative-imagination; etc..
 
  • #37
1,648
0
Originally posted by FZ+
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.
Materialism is the only workable hypothese. It is implicitly assumed by all living organisms. Only in the human mind we can raise the issue as such. What has come out of it, is not a disproof of materialism as such, but has lead to a deeper understanding of the material world. We have a far better understanding of nature and how nature works as any other living organism. Yet, we ourselves are part of nature.

Everybody in real life develops his/her view on the world based on the 'assumption' that what one perceives is reflecting something outside of our perceptions and mind. We happen to be aware of the fact that our senses can deceive us, and that the way we perceive of things, is not the exact reality. The development of science has lead to an increase in our understanding of reality. We have more then what is called "naive realism" (what we perceive is true) and developed a view of reality which is based on science.

The doctrine of Idealism, which in first instance claims there is no objective material reality, and in later instance claims that the objective truth is some unknowable deity, is a claim which has no basis on our scientific understanding of the world. Our understanding of the world, by our accumulated knowledge of science which, although it is immense, is not and can never be complete, just focuses on the part of our missing knowledge. Our understanding of scientific practice and use of scientific methods to investigate reality - as mankind has been practicing the last couple of hundred years - however, never indicated the need for assuming the existence of a Deity. This at least indicates that profound doubt about the material reality, is rather unprofound and baseless.

The "proof" of materialism would contradict materialism as such, cause materialism is in no way like idealism, that puts forward to the doctrine of having knowledge of "absolutes". The "Absolute Idea" in form of God or anything like that, is rejected by materialism. A proof of something for which there is no proof, can not be given.
 
  • #38
1,648
0
Originally posted by CJames
Calling reality a mind doesn't change what it is, it's just a new definition for mind.
I think you turned things upside down there, and meant to say: "it's just a new definition for reality".
 
  • #39
1,648
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
It's different because what you thought was 'reality', is in fact no more powerful than a dream. The ultimate consequences to my philosophy are of a mystical nature. Spiritual. They affect the reality of your being. At this point, it goes beyond science.
Oh, realy? It goed beyond science....

The understanding we (that is human kind and esp. the scientific educated part of humanity) have of material reality is "just a dream"....

In my mind this just indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps it is you yourself, which is "dreaming his/her life" and doesn't see the reality of it.

You happen to have a total and basic misrepresentation of material reality as we know it. The fact is not, that such a reality doesn't exist, the fact is just that you yourself are unaware of it, and happen to have no real knowledge about it.

It's a funny and childish thing to claim on such ignorance that anything you do not know about, is not realy existing. Isn't it?

The truth is realy this. To see reality as it is, is not very popular, and 'human minds' have developed through the centuries various ways of escaping the reality. One of the scenario's to 'escape' reality is through religion, and others include drugs and the belief in 'spiritual' things and like.

Reality is just very hard. It's sometimes to tough for the weak minded person. However, there is no escape to reality, trying to escape reality is rather futile. We happen to be part of it, and have to deal with it, wether we want it or not. And the only way of progressing is to make use of the knowledge we have ourselves of reality, and try to improof that. Reality is not unknowable, and we have developed good ways of dealing with reality.

The Mind is known by the attributes it has - which 'we' share. Namely: reason; emotion; will; desire; creative-imagination; etc..
Then the issue is realy simple. 'The Mind' is then the collective mind of all human beings. Nothing more and nothing less. And as such I can agree that such a thing can be called to have existence.

But it does not have the other properties you portrayed (being "all powerfull, omnipotence and omnipresent" etc.). Neither it solves your issue of matter, cause the "collective mind of all human beings" can not be held responsible for the "creation" of the material world.
Before there were human beings, there was a world, but no "collective human mind".
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Lifegazer
Originally posted by heusdens
A proof of something for which there is no proof, can not be given.
Knowledge within the presence of our sensations is, of course, confirmed by those sensations. Such knowledge is formulated by reason... and later verified with observation.
Whereas knowledge pertaining to the *origin* of those sensations is obviously not going to be confirmed within those sensations. Origin of sensation = before sensation. Therefore, the origin of sensation cannot be found within sensation. Such knowledge is also formulated by reason.
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

I maintain that my argument fulfils this criteria. At least, I know of no argument which shows why my argument fails in either department.
 
  • #41
FZ+
1,561
3
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.
3. Excludes or improves on other possibile solutions.

The idea of invisible Santa Clauses organising reality by singing happy songs is self-consistent and follows perceived reality. However, no one would say it is proven, would it?
 
  • #42
Lifegazer
Originally posted by heusdens
Oh, realy? It goed beyond science....
Of course it goes beyond science. What does science have to say about 'God', except that 'he' doesn't exist?
The understanding we (that is human kind and esp. the scientific educated part of humanity) have of material reality is "just a dream"....
A meaningful dream. A purposeful dream.
Reality is just very hard. It's sometimes to tough for the weak minded person.
I see. So my philosophy is based upon need, and there's no sense whatsoever in any of it?
Give me a break. If all I wanted was 'hope', I'd be frequenting the church every week, and praying to an entity which (as espoused by most religions) resides externally to 'me' - for some later-reward.
That's not what I'm about.
And the only way of progressing is to make use of the knowledge we have ourselves of reality
You make it sound as though my own philosophy is not an improvement upon things as they are. You obviously don't understand the implications of my philosophy.
 
  • #43
Lifegazer
Originally posted by FZ+
3. Excludes or improves on other possibile solutions.
I know of no other possible solutions which fulfil the aforementioned criteria - except 'God'. Really; I don't. Materialism does not fulfil criteria 2.
The idea of invisible Santa Clauses organising reality by singing happy songs is self-consistent and follows perceived reality.
They do? How does observation or reason support the idea that the universe was created by an army of santas?
However, no one would say it is proven, would it?
Exactly.
 
  • #44
FZ+
1,561
3
I know of no other possible solutions which fulfil the aforementioned criteria - except 'God'. Really; I don't. Materialism does not fulfil criteria 2.
Oh? Is this another one of these invisible disproofs that appeared? Materialism does fulfil criteria 2. What you said is purely an assertion.

They do? How does observation or reason support the idea that the universe was created by an army of santas?
I delegate to you, who has much more experience with arguing for undetectable entities whose key characteristic is their ability to defy logic. Remember, you reason, physical laws and consciousness are illusions created by the Santa Clauses... Did I just hear jingle bells?
 
  • #45
1,648
0
Originally posted by FZ+
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.
My objective is not to 'proof' materialism. I never claimed I did or could proof it. The formal system of reasoning which materialism in fact is, is based on assumptions that are believed to be without any doubt. But the formal system itself is unable to provide a proof for that. This is of course the case for all formal systems, materialism not excluded.

The question is just: can there be serious doubt about the premise of materialism. And if so, what premise can it be replaced with.
The only alternative we have come up with so far is in the form of objective idealism. The formal system in the form of the 'Mind hypothese' of LG, is such an attack and replacement of materialism.

The 'mind hypothese' has rejected the premise of materialism (claiming there is in first instance no material reality) and has replaced this with the premise that all of reality and existence is in the mind, and there is nothing outside it, what is represented in the mind, that reflects some objective material reality.

It is argued and proved however that such an hypothese is not holdable, and would lead to the doctrine of solipsism. This is corrected in later instance by claiming that the source of our awareness is 'created' by 'The Mind' (which is just another name for God).

So the real position which we have to choose between is either accept science based on the premises of materialism, or accept the existence of a Deity.
 
  • #46
1,648
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Knowledge within the presence of our sensations is, of course, confirmed by those sensations. Such knowledge is formulated by reason... and later verified with observation.
Whereas knowledge pertaining to the *origin* of those sensations is obviously not going to be confirmed within those sensations. Origin of sensation = before sensation. Therefore, the origin of sensation cannot be found within sensation. Such knowledge is also formulated by reason.
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

I maintain that my argument fulfils this criteria. At least, I know of no argument which shows why my argument fails in either department.
If you'll excuse me, but materialism is not just a scientific theory, but materialism is a philosophical point of view. Any science ("real" science and not pseudo science) is based on the assumptions of materialism. Without the point of view of materialism, there would not be any science.

Regarding theories of the 'origin of the perceived universe'. Cosmology is just the field in which such theories are lively developed, and quite recently, cosmology is "married" to physics, cause in order to explain the very large (the observable universe) we need to be able to understand the very small (quantum mechanics, gravity, etc).

I think all would agree that cosmology does not deal with the philosophical viewpoint that a Deity created the Big Bang, but instead seeks to explain the material causes for this event.
 
  • #47
Lifegazer
Originally posted by FZ+
Oh? Is this another one of these invisible disproofs that appeared? Materialism does fulfil criteria 2. What you said is purely an assertion.
I have already presented a disproof for materialism, in my last thread. You disagreed with it, but did not discuss what I had written.
But regardless of that, it is impossible to present a logical-argument for the existence of an external-reality, which requires no modicum of 'belief'. As such, materialism fails criteria-2.
I delegate to you, who has much more experience with arguing for undetectable entities whose key characteristic is their ability to defy logic.
Religions don't defy logic. They ignore it. But when you discredit a religion, you do not automatically discredit the notion of 'God'.
Don't presume that religion = God. If you do, then there is never a hope of a meaningful rational-discussion about such matters.
 
  • #48
1,648
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course it goes beyond science. What does science have to say about 'God', except that 'he' doesn't exist?
Wrong. Science does not and can not claim that 'God' does not exist, since there is no workable hypothese of 'God' that is meaningfull in scientific terms. Science can not deal with the concept of a Deity, and scientists keeps a healthy distance from such debates.


I see. So my philosophy is based upon need, and there's no sense whatsoever in any of it?
I could not be a judge upon that, can I?

If we take for instance Hegel, who was a great philosopher, and marxists philosophy owns a great deal on Hegel, esp. the dialectics part he developed, I would not in any way claim that philosophers that base their thinking upon 'objective realism' didn't contribute to philosophy as such.


Give me a break. If all I wanted was 'hope', I'd be frequenting the church every week, and praying to an entity which (as espoused by most religions) resides externally to 'me' - for some later-reward.
That's not what I'm about.

You make it sound as though my own philosophy is not an improvement upon things as they are. You obviously don't understand the implications of my philosophy.
What improvement is your philosophy? What is the need within the scientific understanding of the world for the re-invention of a Deity?

What part of reality is not dealt with in science that calls for the need of a hypothese based on 'objective idealism'?
 
  • #49
Lifegazer
Originally posted by heusdens
and would lead to the doctrine of solipsism.
Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.
 
  • #50
FZ+
1,561
3
I have already presented a disproof for materialism, in my last thread. You disagreed with it, but did not discuss what I had written.
You must be joking! I discussed it, but you ignored my reply. Your disproof was utterly incorrect, and can be easily disproved by evidence showing that what you think of as logically neccessary did not in fact occur.

But regardless of that, it is impossible to present a logical-argument for the existence of an external-reality, which requires no modicum of 'belief'. As such, materialism fails criteria-2.
In creating either materialism or idealism, assumptions are made. For example you made the assumption that a Mind can exist without supporting reality, that sensations were rooted in the mind, that matter cannot explain mind, that genetic information cannot account for the abilities of logic, that intelligence cannot be evolved, that mind can create action without external influence, that the mind is original, that human reason is universally correct etc etc. Each one of these consititutes a belief. Similar assumptions are made in Materialism. Hence, by this statement, neither can be proven.

Religions don't defy logic. They ignore it. But when you discredit a religion, you do not automatically discredit the notion of 'God'.
Oh I am sorry. The Santa Clauses ignore logic. Happy now?
 

Related Threads on The true nature of 'I'

Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top