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.'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'.
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.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.
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.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").
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".A genetic trait? Are you saying that a carbon-atom swapped places with a hydrogen-atom, and out popped 'the ability to reason'?
And they cannot both be correct. This undermines the universal correctness of reason, does it not?Incorrect. The conclusions to Western-reason are different to the conclusions of Eastern-reason.
Mankind has failed often. I presume this to be a mistype.It is not reason which is infallible. But mankind itself. Emotions abuse reason.
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.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 we do not have all the parts, and cannot hence see the whole.It is quite simple to attribute labels to The Whole in relation to its parts.