Is Reality Merely a Projection of a Singular Mind?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
To be brutally-honest, he presented 'jack'. There's no argument which can use the laws-of-physics to show that a plate-of-'nachos' is the source of all reality. There is only imagination.

But you can't disprove it. Besides, I think CJames is bright enough to make his idea fit the laws of physics. And you'd never be able to prove him wrong, because all of his arguments would require that this first premise (which you can't prove wrong) is true. Sound familiar?

I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.

I did, don't you remember the "Hurdles" thread - which you never did give a good enough reply to, by the way?

Alexander had his causal mathematics hypothesis, I made a "Hurdles" thread, I stopped seeing posts that required the Causal Mathematics premise. This may mean that alexander saw the reasoning in my post - and that of other members, who posted on my thread - and that he couldn't reason past it, (and that Kerrie was locking his threads, because they were leading nowhere - sound familiar?) and just stopped religiously holding to his idea.

I'm not asking that you give up your idea. I'm asking you to prove it past me, not just make it fit the known laws of physics when taken as the original premise to an argument.

So; he hasn't presented any logical reason. And that's why I don't have to prove that he is wrong. If his logic is nonsense, then what else do I need to prove?

What if someone were to walk into one of your threads, declare it nonsensical, and believe themselves to have won? As a matter of fact, a few have done that, but they had never really proved you wrong. They had just proved themselves unreasonable.

The only point to be gleaned from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.
I was right about you. And it is a shame for one so young (yet intelligent) to have been brainwashed like this, already. A real shame. I mean it.

I appreciate your concern, but I haven't been brainwashed as badly as you've brainwashed yourself. You religiously hold to an idea, and won't let go. I, OTOH, would let go of my current stance, and agree with you, if I saw one good reason to do so.

 

[CJames]

Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.

Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

I'd like to add the fact that the assumption of there being an external reality is based on scientific reasoning - even if the Nacho hypothesis is not.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Lifegazer, I hope you respond to my previous post before responding to this one but I just wanted to bring this up.
Now look at this statement you made. Realize that it is structuraly identical to this statement:

Secondly, you don't know for sure that 'the outside world' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part.

If this is not the case, please prove me wrong. But again, only after responding to my last post.

There is story relating to this.

Once a scientist was telling to a group of nuns, that there hasn't been any proof of the existence of God, and that as far science is concerned, there is no God.
Then a nun stood up, and asked the scientist: "Can you proof that there is no God?".

The scientist continued by telling a story about the Pope, and that the Pope was involved in all kinds of pleasures of the flesh.

The same nun stood up again and asked: "Can you proof that?"

The scientist responded: "Can you proof the contrary?"

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then why were you intent on locking the thread? If my point is valid, you should allow the discussion to proceed. Plenty of people seemed interested.

1. I can only lock threads in Homework Help.
2. Your point was not valid, as usual.

In my first post in that thread, I told you that we expected you to accept correction and not fight us tooth and nail. You didn't hold up your end of the bargain. Since the thread was wearing on and getting nowhere, I asked for something to be done, and either Kerrie or Greg answered by locking the thread.

My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.

Your ideas are not verifiable in any sense. They make no predictions whatsoever. I don't know how you can think that they do.

Look; if my idea was a total crock, then why does it make sense of everything we already know, including the classical:quantum duality of reality? I don't think you give my ideas the respect they deserve.
Honestly, I don't.

To the contrary, I think your ideas have gotten far more attention than they deserve, from me included. Nothing you write here makes any sense of anything we know.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

Huge mistake.

This assumption might have some credibility if there were only one person in the world. However, there are other people, and many of them do science and can compare notes. The fact that they all agree that they are studying the same universe lends itself to the interpretation that there is an outside universe that we are all studying.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind.

Here is the same mistake.

That is not a deductive argument in any sense. The fact that we interpret data with our minds does not imply that everything is going on in our minds. That's just silly.

Originally posted by Lifegazer:
I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.

It sure would help matters if you were not so completely ignorant of logic, because your ideas are logically refuted on a daily basis. You aren't rational, you are only stubborn.

 

[BoulderHead]

LG,
The statement below;

My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.

Have I not seen you write at some time or the other that your ideas/views/philosophy/whateveryouwanttocallit could never be proven by science? I feel quite sure you have and so I am wondering if;
A) You have had a change of mind about this.
B) I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".

He started with Maxwell's equations to derive a new result. Maxwell's equations were verified seperately, and are thus usable as axioms of a new theory.

That's what I do.

Not even close.

Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical.

Your ideas are purely religious. There is no logic, rationality, or philosophy in any of it. Not one of your arguments is even deductively valid, as everyone has been trying to explain to you.

Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.

?

No one except you treats the laws of physics as "malleable". You constantly get it wrong--just wrong enough to support your ideas--and then insist you must be right, because you are, after all, a 'rationalist'.

This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.

This is religion, and you are producing a falsehood from what you don't know. Stop claiming otherwise.

Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.

Your arguments are in direct contradiction to science. You aren't even in a position to assert the contrary, because you have no clue as to what any scientific theory actually says.

It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?

Of course not. What do you think we have been telling you all this time?

I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.

I fail to see why you would make such a remark.

Your philosophy is irrelevant because it has no basis in reality, and because there is no way to verify it. I don't believe you see the significance of those reasons.

I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.

?

This is complete nonsense.

But all you ever do is "assert the nature of reality", and all we ever do is point out that that should not be done.

We cannot assert the nature of reality because it is something we cannot know a priori. That means that 'pure reason' will not yield anything that bears on reality. Reality itself must be referred to, and this is done via experimentation. Experimentation is the only way we can know anything about reality.

You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.

?

More nonsense.

Compatibility does not entail necessary implication. Compatibility only means that both can peacefully coexist. That was CJames' obvious point with his "nacho" example. Your gross confusion about what logic is prompted you to say...

"The only point to be gleamed from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'."

That is proof positive that your bias has completely closed your mind.

Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself.

No, you haven't. You have paid special attention to the twin paradox as you misunderstand it. You have no clue as to how science interprets it. Stop claiming otherwise.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of total ignorance of science could benefit your understanding of it? Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of total ignorance of logic could benefit your ability to tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one? Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of bias, closed-mindedness, and egotism could benefit your ability to see why you are so badly mistaken?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
LG,
The statement below;
Have I not seen you write at some time or the other that your ideas/views/philosophy/whateveryouwanttocallit could never be proven by science? I feel quite sure you have and so I am wondering if;
A) You have had a change of mind about this.
B) I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

Good question. The ambiguity is easily explained.
What I mean is that science shouldn't expect to see my conclusion under a microscope. Yet I am also saying that scientific knowledge can lead to my conclusion via the use of reason.
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.
People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge. But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.
My philosophy actually benefits from arguing with the likes of Tom & Janus and Ahrkron. Ironically, they have helped me better my understanding of key-concepts, whilst Tom has helped me to structure my arguments a little better, and pay more attention to clarification. I've learn a lot here, believe it or not. And I'm still learning. Maybe one-day, I'll present an argument which knocks everybodys' socks off. That's why I carry on, despite the criticism.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Good question. The ambiguity is easily explained.
What I mean is that science shouldn't expect to see my conclusion under a microscope. Yet I am also saying that scientific knowledge can lead to my conclusion via the use of reason.
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.
People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge. But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.
My philosophy actually benefits from arguing with the likes of Tom & Janus and Ahrkron. Ironically, they have helped me better my understanding of key-concepts, whilst Tom has helped me to structure my arguments a little better, and pay more attention to clarification. I've learn a lot here, believe it or not. And I'm still learning. Maybe one-day, I'll present an argument which knocks everybodys' socks off. That's why I carry on, despite the criticism.

Whatever you yourself claim, it is a fact that your 'philosophy' is nothing new, and has been dealt with innumerable times in the past history of philosophy.

But some people are too stubborn to learn from history...

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My conclusions are ~deduced~ from knowledge and experience which we all share. That includes the laws of physics.

That's just the problem: You do not start from scientific facts, and you do not deduce anything. This is what everyone keeps explaining to you. A prime example is your argument that you keep repeating:

"Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind."

That's not a deduction! It remains entirely possible that it is a material universe feeding the information into your brain. And when one considers that all scientists agree on the results of experiments, it becomes more plausible that that is the case.

People often chastise me for not being a physics-boffin, yet whilst still having the gall to build a philosophy from scientific-knowledge.

You draw flak because you keep getting the science wrong to suit your needs, and then you proceed to use bad reasoning to reach the desired conclusion.

But the beauty of my philosophy is that it is built upon definite axioms of existence (absolutes), which apply to all observers. These axioms of existence have been supplied to me, by science. I don't need to know how they were formulated, or the complex mathematics which verify these axioms. All I need to know, is the axioms themselves. Then I can proceed to build a logical argument.
That's how philosophy works.

Of course, that's not how it works.

Philosophers of science are typically highly trained in both philosophy and science. There's a philosophy professor at my school who is concerned with the philosophy of space and time. In addition to his PhD in Philosophy, he as an M.Sc. in Physics. He knows General Relativity better than I do.

Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

If you want to know "how philosophy works", then it would be wise to look at what philosophers do.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Tom
Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

The Encyclopedia is here, and an example of what I am talking about is the entry for Quantum Mechanics.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
Philosophers of science are typically highly trained in both philosophy and science. There's a philosophy professor at my school who is concerned with the philosophy of space and time. In addition to his PhD in Philosophy, he as an M.Sc. in Physics. He knows General Relativity better than I do.

Take a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on just about any scientific subject, you will see that the math is not left out.

If you want to know "how philosophy works", then it would be wise to look at what philosophers do. [/B]

I suspect Mr Lifegazer of not listening to any reason, and not willing to accept any counterarguments that many philosophers in history have made against his 'theory of the Mind'.

There is no reasoning possible against the arguments LG uses. He has made his own 'closed' system, that is immune against logic, reason and knowledge.

If he is happy that way, why not leave hem there, in his self-created world of 'The Mind' ...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Your ideas are not verifiable in any sense. They make no predictions whatsoever. I don't know how you can think that they do.

I gave everybody my predictions earlier. I suggested that science would have to discard of 'materialism', and take account of the Mind in future-research. The other predictions probably don't concern you, because you're not interested in world-unity.
I haven't presented myself as a materialistic-scientist. I'm not here to make predictions about matter.

Huge mistake.

This assumption might have some credibility if there were only one person in the world. However, there are other people, and many of them do science and can compare notes. The fact that they all agree that they are studying the same universe lends itself to the interpretation that there is an outside universe that we are all studying.

No Tom. The only conclusion which can be derived from your reasoning, is that we all share the perception of a singular-reality. At what point, from this axiom, do you find the bridge which takes your reasoning to an external reality? There is no such bridge of logic.
It is as easy to comprehend that each 'thing' is an espect of a singular-mind, as it is to attribute this understanding to an external reality.
Your reasoning just exhibits material bias. Mine however, acknowledges the possibility of an alternative. That's why I explore it, continually. If you can't drop the absolute-belief in this materialism, then how can you explore the alternative possibility?

Here is the same mistake.

That is not a deductive argument in any sense. The fact that we interpret data with our minds does not imply that everything is going on in our minds. That's just silly.

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion, which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.
These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each idividual, is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own existence. And our own existence is an inner-existence. A Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Not even close.

Your ideas are purely religious. There is no logic, rationality, or philosophy in any of it. Not one of your arguments is even deductively valid, as everyone has been trying to explain to you.

?

No one except you treats the laws of physics as "malleable". You constantly get it wrong--just wrong enough to support your ideas--and then insist you must be right, because you are, after all, a 'rationalist'.

This is religion, and you are producing a falsehood from what you don't know. Stop claiming otherwise.

You're not even talking to me now. You're talking to yourself. Each one of these responses says nothing about anything I actually said.
You just coldly condemn my statements here.

Your arguments are in direct contradiction to science.

My arguments are in direct contradiction of materialism. When was the last time you saw me say that "therefore, Einstein's laws are incorrect."?
I don't do that. I just try to show that the Laws of science fit the reality of Mind.

You aren't even in a position to assert the contrary, because you have no clue as to what any scientific theory actually says.

I work off base-axioms Tom. Even a kid might understand that all observers will measure the same velocity for light, for example. But he won't have a clue how we know it. Such axioms are understandable without knowing the math. You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science. That's why scientists such as Hawking make an excellent living from their books. People are able to engage in an understanding of the main concepts of science, without being a mathematician. Indeed; if this was not possible, it would be impossible to teach science to anyone, let-alone a mathematician.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion, which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.

How do we know that fire causes pain? Well, at first we don't know that, until we put our hand into the fire, and feel the pain.
That is the way we have learned, in our childhood, and throughout human history. We have learned from our mistake.
It is because of this learning that we have acquired knowledge about the world, and not only know that fire causes pain, but know of the chemical processes that take place, causing this release of energy, we call fire, and have been able to use it for our benefit.

You should try to re-write all of history, based on your false hypothese. I wonder how the LG version of human history would look like, in the hypthese of 'The Mind'.

These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself.

The sensory-experience are 'created' in the interaction of outside stimuli with the nerve system, which are attached to your brain.
In the brain itself, those signals are then transformed into our senses. The 'mind' does not create those senses, but experiences them.

For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.

Where do you think that perceptions in general have come from?
'Created' from the mind itself? You are completely and totally encarsenated in your own concept of mind. Before the evolution of life (living organisms, that could reproduce) there was no mind, so how could awareness arise out of the mind itself?
The materialist explenation is quite simple. From the way matter interacts, and due to a long historic process of interaction of matter, a new quality was formed, which was not there before, in every stage of evolution. It began with complex organic macromolecules, which evolved out of natural processes, and which had the ability to self-reproduce. Not all copies were exact copies, so slight mutations happened in this copying process. If this was beneficial for the copying process, this new slightly changed copy would win over other mutants, and so began the cycle of life and evolution. Each and every property of our human life, is based on a long historic chain of evolutionary processes.
Our consciousness has been formed out of a process that lasted over 3 billion years, and each layer of our consciousness, is built on top of another layer. At the basis, there are just the physical and chemical processes. It's a very complex job to break our consciousness down to the interactions of chemical and physical substances, and to explain the phenomena on the top on the basis of such physical/chemical reactions. Not that this could not be done, but the amount of layers in between are too numerous, and each has it's own level of complexity, that this would outdue our understanding of how our consciousness works, but in principle this could be done.

And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each idividual, is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own existence. And our own existence is an inner-existence. A Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason. [/B]

Which of course explains totally nothing of the complexity of our consciousness, and tells nothing of the process that has formed human minds and consiousness in billions of years of evolution, or in other words: these are statements that are based on total ignorance of all the billions and billions of complex processes that took place and are involved therein.

It's the simplistic way of reasoning of the fundamental religious fanats that explain the world and all life to have arisen out of nothing, just by a snap of the finger of a great Deity or so.

But if you insist on this, stay stubborn and ignorant about the real facts of (human) existence, if that suits you better as knowledge.

And of course you can claim that even without understanding how an engine works, one can still learn to drive.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
How do we know that fire causes pain? Well, at first we don't know that, until we put our hand into the fire, and feel the pain.

"Fire" is known by the sense of sight and the sense of touch. Actually, you can even hear and smell a fire. The knowledge of "a fire" is gleaned from inner sensations. Even a fire which appears to be several feet from you, is actually being seen upon/within your awareness. It's impossible to see something several feet outside of your awareness. You can only see it within your awareness. And so, a visual understanding of there being a fire several feet from you, is actually happening upon your singular awareness of the events (and not several feet outside your awareness). Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

fire causes pain

No doubt. But how do you take this across the bridge to an external reality? In this specific example, you have an inner-sense of "a fire", followed by an inner-sense of pain. I can show for certain that these inner sensations are created by an aspect of the mind itself (subconcious). It's obvious. Like I said, the universe does not know what 'pain' is. Nor does the universe know what any other sensation is like. Not unless that universe is alive itself.
It is clear that our sensations have been created by artistic intelligence, since those sensations are subjective-representations of the order present within reality. I.e., the mind understands that fire will burn the skin even before the experience of 'pain' became apparent. Clearly, the existence of 'pain' was created by the Mind for a purpose (survival). Therefore, the Mind knew the effects of fire ever-before it became aware of pain.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"Fire" is known by the sense of sight and the sense of touch. Actually, you can even hear and smell a fire. The knowledge of "a fire" is gleaned from inner sensations. Even a fire which appears to be several feet from you, is actually being seen upon/within your awareness. It's impossible to see something several feet outside of your awareness. You can only see it within your awareness. And so, a visual understanding of there being a fire several feet from you, is actually happening upon your singular awareness of the events (and not several feet outside your awareness). Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

No doubt. But how do you take this across the bridge to an external reality? In this specific example, you have an inner-sense of "a fire", followed by an inner-sense of pain. I can show for certain that these inner sensations are created by an aspect of the mind itself (subconcious). It's obvious. Like I said, the universe does not know what 'pain' is. Nor does the universe know what any other sensation is like. Not unless that universe is alive itself.
It is clear that our sensations have been created by artistic intelligence, since those sensations are subjective-representations of the order present within reality. I.e., the mind understands that fire will burn the skin even before the experience of 'pain' became apparent. Clearly, the existence of 'pain' was created by the Mind for a purpose (survival). Therefore, the Mind knew the effects of fire ever-before it became aware of pain.

What 'Mind' are you talking about in this context? The human mind?
It's the only sensible mind to talk about anyway.

Well I think your point is wrong. We don't have a-priori knowledge of the pain caused by fire, only by prior experience (wether self-experience, or based on knowledge of others).

Your 'acts of creation' which imply prior knowledge about pain for instance, don't explain anything in my mind. Where should that knowledge reside?

To explain why fire causes pain, requires one to explain how the nerve system and brain work, and both how these organs evolved through the history of evolution.

But it can be brought down to rather simple facts of how the material world works.

How does a stone know it should fall to eart when not upheld by any force? Do you call the stone 'intelligent' cause it knows how to react to forces acting on the stone?

 

[CJames]

Whether the fire does exist outside your awareness, is what we should be talking about.

Alright LG, let's talk about it. I can't prove it does exist outside our awarness, since I am unaware of anything that is outside of my awarness. Now, can you prove that the fire does not exist outside of my awarness. Can you prove that there is nothing there other than my own perception? I don't believe that you can, and this is why you never have. Instead, you simply assert that it must be unlikely to actually exists since you can never see it without seeing it. That is not a proof. It is not logic. It is not deductive. It is an assumption, just like the assumption that the fire does exist.

Incidentally, you ignored the post I made on the previous page explaining that I have been listening to your posts since I first heard them, and that they have never proven the fire doesn't exist.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I work off base-axioms Tom. Even a kid might understand that all observers will measure the same velocity for light, for example. But he won't have a clue how we know it. Such axioms are understandable without knowing the math. You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science.

The problem here is the ambiguity of the description.

"You don't need to be a physicist to understand the base-concepts of science"

The truth of this statement depends strongly on what you mean by "understand".

If by "understand" you mean
"have a general idea of what those concepts refer to", it may be ok,

but there is a big difference between such meaning and
"grasp the relations they have with other concepts strongly enough as to be able to do research on their implications to reality"

A kid surely can "understand" in the first sense. A well trained physicist may still be far from understanding in the second sense.

And you have shown repeatedly, clearly, leaving no doubt on all mentors' minds, that you do NOT understand the "axioms" of relativity (as you call them), anywhere close to the second sense.

They are indeed hard to grasp (in this stronger sense). You need to understand many things quite clearly before you can really use relativity correctly, especially if you want to work out its epistemological implications, and its impact on our interpretation of the concept of measurement and reality.

This is a cliche, but it *really* applies to you, LG: just try to walk decently before you try to run.

 

[Lifegazer]

I know what I know. I certainly don't know everything about anything.
I just get bored of some people who repeatedly tell me that I don't know anything about anything. Can we stick with the discussion at hand please.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I suspect Mr Lifegazer of not listening to any reason, and not willing to accept any counterarguments that many philosophers in history have made against his 'theory of the Mind'.

... There is no reasoning possible against the arguments LG uses.

You need to concentrate more on what you write.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
Alright LG, let's talk about it. I can't prove it [a fire] does exist outside our awarness, since I am unaware of anything that is outside of my awarness. Now, can you prove that the fire does not exist outside of my awarness. Can you prove that there is nothing there other than my own perception? I don't believe that you can, and this is why you never have.

To do this, I would have to discuss space & motion in-detail. I might have a crack at it later. Or maybe start a topic about external-reality, later this week.

Incidentally, you ignored the post I made on the previous page...

My apologies. I will respond later, also.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I know what I know. I certainly don't know everything about anything.
I just get bored of some people who repeatedly tell me that I don't know anything about anything. Can we stick with the discussion at hand please.

Sure, as long as, in the discussion at hand, you stop presenting misconceptions as if they were the accepted interpretation of physical theories. This makes a disservice to your position and confuses readers of the forums.

What I am telling you is that in order to "build upon the axioms of science" you need a deep understanding of what those "axioms" mean.

You cannot start from the watered-down versions you use. They are fine to give a general flavor of what relativity says, but are definitely not enough for any serious discussion.

Phrases like "all observers will find the same speed of light" are useful, but they are definitely not the full story; you need to supplement them with Mawell's equations (and hence calculus, algebra and the concept of measurement), geometry, and a detailed discussion of simultaneity in order to get relativity.

Relativity does NOT equal just "two simple axioms plus logic".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Phrases like "all observers will find the same speed of light" are useful, but they are definitely not the full story; you need to supplement them with Mawell's equations (and hence calculus, algebra and the concept of measurement), geometry, and a detailed discussion of simultaneity in order to get relativity.

Relativity does NOT equal just "two simple axioms plus logic".

You miss the point. Indeed, within 150 posts of my relativity-thread, there wasn't even the need to raise mathematics. No precise detailed mathematical-analysis of anything (including the radial-orbit example I presented), was ever required to discuss the issues I had presented.

I was specifically interested in linking the mind of the observer to the fact that his space & time were distorted by his own velocity (which I think is gleaned wrt Earth itself, since man's understanding of velocity is gleaned wrt the dirt which he stands upon). I also tried to show that such distortion is not yielded from any external stimulae (since lightspeed is constant). This was the ground-basis of my discussion. There were details.
There is merit in such a discussion. And I don't need to be a math-genius to have that discussion.
If you ever acknowledge the real intent of that thread (to oppose materialism by announcing the reality of 'Mind'), and if you can come to understand that math aren't needed to have that discussion, then you might recognise that the discussion should be had without all this "challenge to scientific-law" politics. For at the end of the day, half of my posts deal with such politics, and of the berating of my credentials.

I have no regrets about my philosophy. I think that my underlying conclusions about many things have strong-merit. I just regret that I feel as though I'm in a boxing-ring every time I start a thread, as people want to box my ears off because I won't listen to them.
Maybe they should realize that I too was once a materialist and that my philosophy is relatively-new. I totally understand the attitudes and beliefs of a materialist. I've had the same beliefs. I have that t-shirt. But now, I want to show people why these beliefs are questionable, and ultimately incorrect.
But it's not easy speaking to an audience who are boxing your ears off all the time...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Maybe they should realize that I too was once a materialist and that my philosophy is relatively-new. I totally understand the attitudes and beliefs of a materialist. I've had the same beliefs. I have that t-shirt. But now, I want to show people why these beliefs are questionable, and ultimately incorrect.
But it's not easy speaking to an audience who are boxing your ears off all the time...

Your philosophy relatively new? In what way? What have you added to the philosophy of Idealism that is new?

I showed you before, that part of your statements have been put forward long times ago by other philosophers.

And for my understanding, you never showed that the assumptions of materialists are incorrect. You just question the premises put forward by materialism, and replaced them with another premise (Mind).

But I never found any reasonable arguments in what way the materialist assumptions were incorrect. You just state that the premise is unprovable, and then replaced that premise with an even (or more) unprovable premise.

If you are just talking about the initital premise of materialism, which is the assumption that there is in primary instance a material world, and we (our mind) is part of that and has arisen out of the material world, then I am just wondering what your argument are against it. And if not the premise, what conclusion based on the premise you find inconvincing?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
But I just don't see where the Mind hypothesis is reasoned, not from the beginning anyway. Much of it does follow fairly logically, but I have seen a lot of your posts and none of them really seemed to try to give a real strong sense of why the premise is correct.

What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it. And since you give me no examples of what you mean, there is nothing here for me to address. You're just passing-on your feelings here.

You have said that from birth, humans have the potential to reason, and therefore reason isn't based on external data.

My reason thread was good. Maybe I'll start another. Are you referring to that? Or are you referring to the stuff I said to Tom?
I'm saying that 'Mind' exists, and that it has an awareness of itself (God), and an awareness of many (perhaps countless) finite awarenesses (observers). There is a duality of awareness (of the mind itself; and of what the mind is perceiving). 'You' are an individual aspect/perception within that Mind. Your ability to reason comes from the Mind. What you have reasoned, is related to what you perceive.

You argue that this proves mind transcends material phenomina. But in what way? It proves, if it's true, that the mind is capable of thought without knowledge of material. But no knowledge of material certainly does not imply no material.

If this relates to the post about 'pain'...
It is possible to show that 'Mind' creates its own subjective-representations in its own senses (mind senses). All sensation happens upon your awareness (of Mind). And it is also created by that Mind. Read that post again, to see how I show this.
But from this, we can proceed further. We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent. Remember, our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course). Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, our minds possessed universal-knowledge before that mind could ever come to 'sense' the universe.

You have argued that our perceptions of the outside world are built by our minds. But this does nothing to prove that the outside world does not exist,

Aside from the fact that existence is reduced to singularity (see first post), and aside from the fact that my philosophy advocates the existence of an all-knowing mind (prior to having 'awareness'); what other proof do you want?

You have argued that because every observer has his own unique perception of space and time, he therefore generates that perception unto himself, while ignoring the fact that this can be explained purely in terms of physical laws.

But why do you insist that the physical-laws apply to a reality beyond perception? And if you don't, then why do you not see that the physical-laws can exist - as laws of perception.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What can I say? If you don't see it, then you don't see it. And since you give me no examples of what you mean, there is nothing here for me to address. You're just passing-on your feelings here.

In other words, if you don't see it, you have to believe it. That is the fundamental doctrine.

And THAT is what the premise of materialism is asked to be replaced with. If you and I both see a chair, we can feel, see, hear and maybe even smell, then this kind of knowledge about this real object, which is there independend of our mind, is asked to be replaced with a premise that says the chair is not even really there, but just an image that exists in our head. And because the image is in both our heads, that explains God, who creates the images in both our head simultaniously...

It would for this 'Mind' philosophy be life threatening to conclude from this simple experiment, that the cause for both of us, having a similar perceptory image of the chair, was the real existing chair itself. Because how can such a simple solution be true, and not even mentioning God as a cause for this happening?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
In other words, if you don't see it, you have to believe it. That is the fundamental doctrine.

No. If he doesn't see it then he doesn't see it. That's it. But I can only adress direct statements. I cannot address his feelings. If he wants me to address specific points of the things he doesn't 'see', then he should give examples.

And THAT is what the premise of materialism is asked to be replaced with.

The premise of materialism is asked to be replaced by an understanding of my philosophy. Not by a non-understanding.

If you and I both see a chair, we can feel, see, hear and maybe even smell, then this kind of knowledge about this real object, which is there independend of our mind

That's the point. An image (and feel, and smell) of a chair is something that can only happen within the mind. Firstly, sensation is given by the mind, and then felt by 'awareness'. Secondly, the judgement that "This is a chair." is formulated via reason, which like emotion, is just another facet of the mind.
So; the experience of 'a chair' is a completely-mindful experience; since it is given by the mind, and reasoned by the mind.

is asked to be replaced with a premise that says the chair is not even really there,

It exists as a real perception. That is a fact.

but just an image that exists in our head. And because the image is in both our heads, that explains God, who creates the images in both our head simultaniously...

More-or-less.

It would for this 'Mind' philosophy be life threatening to conclude from this simple experiment, that the cause for both of us, having a similar perceptory image of the chair, was the real existing chair itself. Because how can such a simple solution be true, and not even mentioning God as a cause for this happening?

A Mind which has universal-knowledge before it senses anything, is indeed the mind of God.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's the point. An image (and feel, and smell) of a chair is something that can only happen within the mind. Firstly, sensation is given by the mind, and then felt by 'awareness'. Secondly, the judgement that "This is a chair." is formulated via reason, which like emotion, is just another facet of the mind.
So; the experience of 'a chair' is a completely-mindful experience; since it is given by the mind, and reasoned by the mind.

It exists as a real perception. That is a fact.

More-or-less.

A Mind which has universal-knowledge before it senses anything, is indeed the mind of God.

If you don't mind, in my mind I still adress the cause of why I and someone else see and experience the same image of the chair, the chair itself, and not God.

But this shows in most simple terms in what ways the explaining of these opposing philosophies work out in real life experiences.

I hope you don't mind that I call the chair I am sitting on, a real chair, which exists independend of my mind and of my experience of the chair, and that my explenation of this real chair, does not involve or need the existence of an entity named God for which there is not and can not be any direct evidence.

 

[CJames]

Thank you for replying to my post lifegazer.

And since you give me no examples of what you mean...

? That's what the rest of the post was, wasn't it? I thought it was.

'You' are an individual aspect/perception within that Mind. Your ability to reason comes from the Mind. What you have reasoned, is related to what you perceive.

Yes, that is undoubtedly what your hypothesis says. But why? How can you prove that my ability to reason comes from "The Mind" (God) rather than simply my own mind. And how can you prove that my mind is not a function of the brain?

We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have prior knowledge of what it is trying to represent.

Yes, but you can't prove the knowledge knowledge does not come from prior trial and error. Computers now built to learn operate in this manner. They need no knowledge of how the world works to be able to learn how it does. They start as a plain slate, and evolve from there.

Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe.

You cannot prove that the mind had an awarness of the universe before it sensed it. An infant has no idea what is going on when it is born. It doesn't even seem capable of understanding space and time.

A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, our minds possessed universal-knowledge before that mind could ever come to 'sense' the universe.

Even if the conclusion was correct, you cannot disprove that this is due to the genetic information we are born with, unless you assume or prove that material doesn't exist first.

Aside from the fact that existence is reduced to singularity

On of my responses added that a singularity is by definition a point in spacetime. The universe contains a nonzero amount of spacetime, and therefore is not a singularity.

But why do you insist that the physical-laws apply to a reality beyond perception?

I do not. I insist that relativity is entirely consistent and does not require the statement that:

each observer distorts spacetime with his mind.

Nor does it imply that this is the case, unless you again assume or prove that the mind creates it in the first place.

And if you don't, then why do you not see that the physical-laws can exist - as laws of perception.

I never said they couldn't. That's not the point. The point is, special relativity does not in any way imply your hypothesis. You have only shown that your hypothesis can be consistent with the laws of special relativity. That's fine for somebody who wants to know if their ideas fit with reality, but not for somebody who wants to prove their idea is a necessary part of reality.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Thank you for replying to my post lifegazer.

? That's what the rest of the post was, wasn't it? I thought it was.

Yes, that is undoubtedly what your hypothesis says. But why? How can you prove that my ability to reason comes from "The Mind" (God) rather than simply my own mind. And how can you prove that my mind is not a function of the brain?

Yes, but you can't prove the knowledge knowledge does not come from prior trial and error. Computers now built to learn operate in this manner. They need no knowledge of how the world works to be able to learn how it does. They start as a plain slate, and evolve from there.

You cannot prove that the mind had an awarness of the universe before it sensed it. An infant has no idea what is going on when it is born. It doesn't even seem capable of understanding space and time.

The statement of LG in sentences as "Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that The Mind had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe." just sound utterly blasphemic and non-sensical to me, but in trying to remove the blasphemic and non-sensical part, I think he wants to make the point that a new born individual, or even before it is born, has as first experience of his/her mind that "he/she is there", and that experience might reside before any actual experience with the sensory system.
In that way the self-epxerience of mind comes before the experience of the outer world.
Wether or not this is correct, is something that perhaps never can be tested directly, because we don't know what goes on in the minds of babies before they are even born.
But in some ways it is likely that the growing foetus, which has grown from one cell, in it's formation and becoming a fully equipped human being, at some point of it's evolution starts to be aware of itself, and of it's surrounding environment. And it could well be that the awareness starts with self-awareness "me being there" before awareness of the sensory system.

Nevertheless it is utterly non-sense what he claims about universal-knowledge (where would that 'knowledge' reside then, other then in the matter itself?) being there, before it 'creates' (does he mean the evolutionary development of sensory perceptions?) it's own sensory-awareness of the universe.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I haven't presented myself as a materialistic-scientist. I'm not here to make predictions about matter.

You said that your ideas are verifiable by the laws of physics. If your ideas make no predictions about or comment on matter or spacetime, then the first statement is not true.

No Tom. The only conclusion which can be derived from your reasoning, is that we all share the perception of a singular-reality. At what point, from this axiom, do you find the bridge which takes your reasoning to an external reality? There is no such bridge of logic.

At that point, one has to make an assumption. I assume that whatever it is that provides the stimulus to my mind is a material entity whose mechanical properties give rise to that stimulus.

You, on the other hand, assume that it is a figment of God's imagination.

I take the first one because I do not have to assume the existence of something for which there is zero evidence.

It is as easy to comprehend that each 'thing' is an espect of a singular-mind, as it is to attribute this understanding to an external reality.

Only if one is completely ignorant of cognitive science. If not, then it is not so easy to conceive of a mind without a material brain.

Your reasoning just exhibits material bias. Mine however, acknowledges the possibility of an alternative. That's why I explore it, continually. If you can't drop the absolute-belief in this materialism, then how can you explore the alternative possibility?

My bias against The Mind, God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all come from the same reason: total lack of evidence. When that changes, then so will I.

Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves, is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~.

You are very subtle about making the transition from the mind (as in my mind) to The Mind (as in god) here.

It is true, I know of things only through my senses. Given only that, I might be able to reasonably reach the conclusion that it is all happening in my own head. However, there are other people who I can talk to, and who can confirm that they, too, have the same experiences. So it most definitely is not all going on in my own head (unless I assume that the other people only exist in my head, which is absurd).

So, I now have two choices:

Assume an external, objective reality of material existence that is consistent with the stimuli I recieve.

or

Assume an external, objective reality of spiritual existence for which there is no evidence.

I choose the first.

 

[Kerrie]

not sure this thread is going anywhere...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
You said that your ideas are verifiable by the laws of physics. If your ideas make no predictions about or comment on matter or spacetime, then the first statement is not true.

At that point, one has to make an assumption. I assume that whatever it is that provides the stimulus to my mind is a material entity whose mechanical properties give rise to that stimulus.

You, on the other hand, assume that it is a figment of God's imagination.

I take the first one because I do not have to assume the existence of something for which there is zero evidence.

Only if one is completely ignorant of cognitive science. If not, then it is not so easy to conceive of a mind without a material brain.

My bias against The Mind, God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all come from the same reason: total lack of evidence. When that changes, then so will I.

You are very subtle about making the transition from the mind (as in my mind) to The Mind (as in god) here.

It is true, I know of things only through my senses. Given only that, I might be able to reasonably reach the conclusion that it is all happening in my own head. However, there are other people who I can talk to, and who can confirm that they, too, have the same experiences. So it most definitely is not all going on in my own head (unless I assume that the other people only exist in my head, which is absurd).

So, I now have two choices:

Assume an external, objective reality of material existence that is consistent with the stimuli I recieve.

or

Assume an external, objective reality of spiritual existence for which there is no evidence.

I choose the first.

Very excellent post!