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

Whose Mind?

  1. May 13, 2003 #1
    Most of us here are familiar with the Lifegazer's Mind idea, so I wont go into any real explanation - unless it becomes necessary; in which case, I think Lifegazer would do a better job than I would anyway.

    Lifegazer has said that all minds are products of the Mind (or of God; the terms are rather interchangeable, according to Lifegazer's concept), and it is this statement/postulate that I wish to examine.

    You see, I think there is an inconsistency in saying that all minds (thus refering to more than one mind) are the product of the one Mind. I just want an explanation as to how this could possibly be consistent - without becoming pure Solipsism, that is.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2003 #2
    Ok, my mom has five children but inessence we are a single genetic family. Likewise, out of one mind...many. If that explanation isn't good enough, just send me $19.95 and I'll explain it in more detail.
  4. May 13, 2003 #3
    It is feasable in the religious contexts inasmuch as religions teach that it is God's mind, through a spirit (hence protection of Both, God's mind from you, and you from God's mind) that imparts to you what it is that you require, but only in accordance with God's will.

    It is knowledge that is imparted, hence all "mind-spaces" can be seen as separate inasmuch as they do not communicate directly, but only through speech, (externally) which we all know is incomplete in it's ability to convey completely thoughts and/or Ideas.

    Solipsism is a sort of violation of itself, as in, if you were the only mind, then you should know why you created yourself.

    Personally, I disagree with Solipsism simply because it doesn't follow reality, inasmuch as, a Solipsist cannot control their own mind, any better then the rest of us, and the arguements against that amount to be an excersize in self deception. (only My opinion!)

    EDIT; to Wuliheron, the "cheques in the mail" so tell us the rest now while we wait OK?

    P.S.ssst, (not really!)
    Last edited: May 13, 2003
  5. May 13, 2003 #4
    I feel I should point out that LG was removed from the forums so he won't be responding.

    As for his concept, as I said before, it's a large demonic entity he seemed to use to explain something simple, rather than doing formal research and getting answers that already exist.

    I don't see anything rational that could come out of it, other than that! [zz)]
  6. May 13, 2003 #5
    Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    Well, it's not good enough, but I ain't sending you any money.

    It's not good enough because the Mind concept is dealing with reality as a whole. All of reality must be the product of one Mind, otherwise the Mind concept is false. So there is still inconsistency is implying that there are individual "minds".
  7. May 13, 2003 #6
    Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    Dang! And here I thought was a perfect opportunity to make a little cash. Guess I'll have to go back to selling baggies of gravel Elvis' Ghost walked on.

    The idea is no more or less inconsistant than in declaring an individual to have multiple personalities or that infinity is composed of finite parts. It is essentially what both philosophical and religious Buddhists believe as well as a number of other schools of thought (sic). :0)
  8. May 13, 2003 #7
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?


    How's that?

    That doesn't mean that it's not inconsistent.
  9. May 13, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    Exactly, the question is not whether or not it is inconsistant. It is a basic axiom, just as the big bang theory or Quantum Mechanics have inconsistent basic axioms. Some argue that all theories have inconsistent basic axioms and Godel's incompleteness theorem shows any system must ultimately be based on faith as much as anything else.

    What matters then is whether or a basic axiom is horribly inconsistent, unnecessarilly complicated, and whether or not it is a useful theory or system. In the case of LG theory of the mind, its basic axioms are not overty complex or inconsistent, but they are useless--excepting possibly for personal purposes. Of course, he argued otherwise but, never provided any evidence to support this position.
  10. May 13, 2003 #9
    *Bang* (hammer drives nail into the coffin of the Mind)

    I asked him once what purpose it might serve, but the answer must have seemed nebulous to me and now I can't remember what it was. I suppose that if The Mind could be proven as the ‘T’ruth to the satisfaction of all, then the practical value of what this might mean would be secondary. Unfortunately, I believe that we are stuck in a position of uncertainty with respect to that type of truth. This being the case MY mind falls back into the seat of my britches from whence it came and asks the question; What’s it gonna do for me???
  11. May 14, 2003 #10
    It also begs the question of where do we go from here. The Mind hypothesis has its limitations perhaps, but who we are and the paradox of existence are not among those limits. Like the virtego inspiring limits of infinity, unity is as much an emotional experience as anything else. It is at once a reality to be experienced and an abstraction beyond current scientific interpretation.
  12. May 14, 2003 #11
    If you take it down to the cellular level, where each cell is "an entity" unto itself (so to speak), then it's very plausible to view the brain as a "collective entity" of cells.

    This would make a great deal of sense in the way we view ourselves with God, as seperate entities (or cells), and yet part of the "collective mind" as a whole. And indeed each single cell becomes a lifeform unto its own (within the environment of other cells), and yet has little or no "knowledge" of being part of the greater mind as a whole.

    And by the way, did you know that we're all part of the "one entity," which is called the Universe?
  13. May 15, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    WHAT ?! WHY ?!
    His account is active, what are you talking
    about ?!
  14. May 15, 2003 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What's so unclear ? He means that everything
    is produced by one's mind - whoever it is
    that reads his message. :wink: (this message
    is also only produced by your mind Mentat,
    there is no drag, no PFs and indeed your
    PC is not real - nothing is).

    Live long and prosper.
  15. May 15, 2003 #14
    Did you not see the post by greg? Ask greg or look for it in the gen. section I believe.
  16. May 15, 2003 #15
    Simple answer: it can't.

    LG's philosophy tries to inprint the thought on our minds, that the only way we know of the world is trough our capacities of our mind.
    What exist outside of our own mind, is to some extend, not directly knowable. While this is certainly some aspect of us being humans, and having a mind, and perceiving of and thinking about the world with our mind, the conclusion of the argument, as if the world itself, as existing independend of our mind, would be an unncessary extention to "the world" (= our mind) is not a good conclusion.

    It comes to this then, that all products of our mind become untestable, cause all we have is our minds, and not a real world (since we "conclude" or "assume" from that point of view, a world as such having independend existence apart from our mind, does not exist).

    In this limited edition of the world (consisting entirely of only what is in our mind) we have no way of realy knowing anything. It is where Absolute Knowing meets Absolute Ignorance.
    The history of our understanding of the world as it is, however shows us that the real knowledge we have accumulated and developed over the centuries, have always been formed in close relationship to the instruments provided to us by science, which extends our observation of the world, and using scientific methods for reasoning and observing. Between the two stands (having Absolute Knowledge, or having Absolutre no Knowledge) we have found that the only fruitfull basis for progress is that of relative knowledge, that has progressed over the centuries. The full truth we might never know, but this does not prevent us from having a more and more "realistic" idea about what the world in fact is, and how it develops.

    What could have been known, if we had never left the point of view of Idealism, and only looked upon the world from the assumption, that the world itself has no independend existence in the first place?
    Calling all of the world which exists independend of our mind, as the "Mind of God", is not realy helpfull in understanding anything about the world. For discovering laws of reasoning and developing them, Idealism certainly provided some good methods, which are quite usefull. Provided however we place them on a material foundation.

    As to serve merit to both opposing philosophies (Idealism and Materialism) further it can be stated that both opposing philosophies can be said to form a "dialectical unity of opposites". Which also helps in understanding that the law of "interprenation of opposites" occurs, and that this has developed our philosophic and sicentific understanding of the world.

    We should not think of opposites, as if that would be something we could go without. On the contrary. Just because there are opposites (both in matter itself, and in our reflections and thought on the world) development (of matter and of thought) occurs! There will never be a time, in which all such opposites can be said to be dismissed, cause if that would be the case, then that would be the end of the world, as no change or development ever would occur anymore! Instead, the world of matter and that of thought, develop through the constant proces of thesis- anti-thesis - synthesis, in which the latter just is the new thesis for the next development cycle. This is the development as it occurs anywhere in nature, in society and in the human mind.

    It's all dialectics!
    Last edited: May 15, 2003
  17. May 15, 2003 #16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    Godel theorem would be a good point in arguing that our minds alone (if it can be seen as a "forma; system) can never judge this issue alone, and would us leave behind with blind faith.

    But happily, we are not dependend on our mind's alone, to judge anything.
    Suppose we construct a bridge. We have gathered data about how the material behaves, and what forces are excerted on the material.
    Still we never be able to tell from that alone, if the bridge in all circumstances will hold. Luckily though, we can test our thoughts, and build models of the bridge, or test the material.
    It might be, we actually built a bridge, we think will be strong enough, and which nevertheless crashes. But this will only help us in inspecting the error we made in calculating the bridge strenght, we must have obviously left some factor out. This will enable us, in the end, to learn from mistakes, and make better and better bridges.

    If we have a pudding (something that looks like a pudding) before our nose, how can we tell that it realy tastes good, if that is all the information we have? Well, luckily we can eat the pudding, and then tell if it tastes well or not.

    In the same way it is not sufficient to conjecture against the theorema's of gravity... one better learns to swim!
    Last edited: May 15, 2003
  18. May 15, 2003 #17
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    The validity of our personal and collective experiences and the laws of physics represent yet again more fundamental axioms we must take on faith. For all we know the law of gravity will be repealled tomorrow (there actually is an ongoing effort being made to do this by a Canadian political party.) Bottom line, each evaluation we make ultimately comes back to the issue of not only can we trust our methods, but can we trust ourselves and our experience?

    Will the pudding taste terrible because it has cyanide in it or because it has spontaneously become radioactive? Will our taste budds or mind betray us? Is some alien race in orbit manipulating our minds so that we just think we are eating a pudding? There are essentially two ways of approaching this connundrum, statistically and qualitatively, neither one of which completely resolves the situation.
  19. May 15, 2003 #18
    Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    I just read the thread about Lifegazer's Departure, and I'm thoroughly ticked off (though it is probably the right decision).

    I don't see much point in continuing this thread...
  20. May 17, 2003 #19
    Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

    Don't be hasty.
  21. May 17, 2003 #20
    Hey, stop using my material!

    Weren't you, on another thread, unconvinced that the Universe is an "Entity"? Guess I've been persuasive despite the protestations.

    Somewhere on this thread I wanted to add my little proposition about the nature and evolution of consciousness. And this might be as good a spot as any.

    However, before I do, I want to address Mentat's much-appreciated input that my posts are laced with unsupportable "assumptions."

    I have done what I said I was going to do, which is re-read most of my posts and HIGHLIGHT my "assumptions". And what I came to see is that most were NOT "assumptions" but were, rather, PROPOSITIONS.

    When one proposes an idea, it is not INSTANTLY PROVEN. It may, in fact, NEVER be proven...or may be proven WRONG.

    My seemingly endless supply of PROPOSITIONS are only IDEAS to work with for the sake of discussion. True, I'm "attached" to a few of them, and will attempt to "make a case" for them as if I actually "KNOW"...but really I'm testing for faulty logic and thus ENJOY every kick in the pants I get.

    Not wishing to go over my 10000 character limit per post, I will seek another quote from which to procede.
    Last edited: May 17, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook