Page 429 of 439 FirstFirst ... 329379419427428429430431 ... LastLast
Results 12,841 to 12,870 of 13159

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12841
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    And by "create", I mean what is seen, felt, smelled, heard, etc.

  2. #12842
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    And by "create", I mean what is seen, felt, smelled, heard, etc.
    this really is going over old ground, however create seems right for the mind in those cases. Then you say "where do those sensations come from" and that closes the circle because we have to use mind to discuss those too. The argument "there must be something outside of me" is begging that very question. It's a belief. When we start to model these experiences in our mind, we test our model all the time as a predictive tool. But where do phenomena come from? Apart from our wonderful science model, it's untestable. Oh and weird too.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #12843
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    What is all this anyway? The mind can not create without external stimulus. The source is what is out there.
    I assure you the mind can create thought with no external stimulus.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  4. #12844
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,450
    Obviously, mind independent reality is just the set of all things that aren't mind dependent. There might not be any such things, but the empty set is still a set and I know nothing of its contents. The concepts of set, mind, and empty are produced by my mind, but after that's been done I still don't know the contents of the set. It's independent of my mind.

  5. #12845
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Obviously, mind independent reality is just the set of all things that aren't mind dependent. There might not be any such things, but the empty set is still a set and I know nothing of its contents. The concepts of set, mind, and empty are produced by my mind, but after that's been done I still don't know the contents of the set. It's independent of my mind.
    a set piece indeed, the set of all things that are not in mind, Russell would approve. Why is it so hard to get agreement about the unknowable? This belief thing is very human and inflates itself, unbidden into totally unreasonable dogmas that enslave humanity.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #12846
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,450
    I agree that the contents of the set of mind independent things is unknowable.

  7. #12847
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    this really is going over old ground, however create seems right for the mind in those cases. Then you say "where do those sensations come from" and that closes the circle because we have to use mind to discuss those too. The argument "there must be something outside of me" is begging that very question. It's a belief. When we start to model these experiences in our mind, we test our model all the time as a predictive tool. But where do phenomena come from? Apart from our wonderful science model, it's untestable. Oh and weird too.
    If we are going over old ground, it is only because it made no sense then and makes no sense now. The source is outside of our mind. What is the alternative? Why do we agree on what we sense? (forget hallucinations). When I kick a rock and it hurts, is that a belief? Why are there limits to what I can believe? Because there are external constraints...

  8. #12848
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    if I divide my mind at this segment of perceived time I can envision the set of the knowable, the set of the unknowable, the set of the believable and the set of the unbelievable. I can try to analyse those using the familiar square boxes.
    So we have the knowable believable, the unknowable believable, the unknowable unbelievable and finally the tricky one the knowable unbelievable. This last one includes denial. The first one makes sense, I can believe in what I know.
    Now all of that is in my mind, that is a belief supported by how it feels, but how do we deal with phenomena and the role of memory. Or if you like kicking a rock and feeling the pain. Where is the kick (answer in memory) and where is the pain? answer in my mind. If I dream an experience like that which box is it in. I know I had the dream, it's my experience but I do not believe I kicked a rock.

    I am trying here to find an alternative way to propose what seems so clear to me. I live in MDR with knowledge from experience which is stored in my memory. I can talk about influences that I would call MIR but they would be beliefs or negative beliefs. You remember the old joke, "I could believe in ghosts but not in ghostly trousers." It's not that I deny experiencing phenomena, but I recognise the unknowable nature of causes.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #12849
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    If we are going over old ground, it is only because it made no sense then and makes no sense now. The source is outside of our mind. What is the alternative? Why do we agree on what we sense? (forget hallucinations). When I kick a rock and it hurts, is that a belief? Why are there limits to what I can believe? Because there are external constraints...
    I have hesitated to respond to this thread, partly because it's so long and I'm probably repeating other posters. However, regarding "why do we agree on what we sense" - in MDR there is only one mind to agree with, your own. Everything else is/could be a figment of your imagination. There is no way to prove otherwise because you cannot step outside your perceived reality to check. As far as I know, I am the only real person posting on this forum, driving down this road, queuing at this counter, etc etc. Any contrary proof you may offer is irrelevant because my mind is making you up. There is no spoon, to coin a phrase.
    I think there is a MIR out there somewhere, because (I think) my mind needs somewhere to exist, but the true nature of that MIR is unknowable to me.

  10. #12850
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    if I divide my mind at this segment of perceived time I can envision the set of the knowable, the set of the unknowable, the set of the believable and the set of the unbelievable. I can try to analyse those using the familiar square boxes.
    So we have the knowable believable, the unknowable believable, the unknowable unbelievable and finally the tricky one the knowable unbelievable. This last one includes denial. The first one makes sense, I can believe in what I know.
    Now all of that is in my mind, that is a belief supported by how it feels, but how do we deal with phenomena and the role of memory. Or if you like kicking a rock and feeling the pain. Where is the kick (answer in memory) and where is the pain? answer in my mind. If I dream an experience like that which box is it in. I know I had the dream, it's my experience but I do not believe I kicked a rock.

    I am trying here to find an alternative way to propose what seems so clear to me. I live in MDR with knowledge from experience which is stored in my memory. I can talk about influences that I would call MIR but they would be beliefs or negative beliefs. You remember the old joke, "I could believe in ghosts but not in ghostly trousers." It's not that I deny experiencing phenomena, but I recognise the unknowable nature of causes.
    No problem with saying we are limited to understanding by our physical senses. I am saying, there is something out there (the universe), it is not a product of our mind, we interpret it using our senses and mind. This limits what we can sense. However, it exists independently of our minds.

  11. #12851
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,450
    If everything is coming from my mind then it seems peculiar that my mind would simulate sense organs through which to feed me dummy data from a universe that doesn't exist

  12. #12852
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    If everything is coming from my mind then it seems peculiar that my mind would simulate sense organs through which to feed me dummy data from a universe that doesn't exist
    I don't think many people are saying that everything is coming from your mind in that sense. But, even so, how can you prove otherwise? Any input you receive is processed by your mind. For the sake of sanity we assume that what we experience is "real" but....

  13. #12853
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    If everything is coming from my mind then it seems peculiar that my mind would simulate sense organs through which to feed me dummy data from a universe that doesn't exist
    Yes.

  14. #12854
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    I don't think many people are saying that everything is coming from your mind in that sense. But, even so, how can you prove otherwise? Any input you receive is processed by your mind. For the sake of sanity we assume that what we experience is "real" but....
    This is where "logic" leads one astray. That is what I meant by asking if the mind is considered to be god... It also shows that "logic" and "philosophy" can lead one astray...

  15. #12855
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    233
    I think logic is less relevant than belief. It is impossible to prove MIR scientifically using logic so all that is left is belief. Quite unsatisfactory but there it is.

  16. #12856
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Thing is we exist and experience the universe. So it exists. If our senses give us a limited or distorted picture is irrelevant. The universe is out there.

  17. #12857
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,450
    We can't absolutely prove that there's a universe out there, but it seems unlikely that sense organs would have evolved with nothing to sense.

  18. #12858
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    We can't absolutely prove that there's a universe out there, but it seems unlikely that sense organs would have evolved with nothing to sense.
    What would be the alternative then?

  19. #12859
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,450
    The stuff created by our minds just appearing in our minds.

  20. #12860
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    The stuff created by our minds just appearing in our minds.
    In all of our collective minds? And what are our minds?

  21. #12861
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    No problem with saying we are limited to understanding by our physical senses. I am saying, there is something out there (the universe), it is not a product of our mind, we interpret it using our senses and mind. This limits what we can sense. However, it exists independently of our minds.
    I know that is what you are saying. It is a statement of your belief. You cannot test the "something" except by using your mind. There is no other test available to us. That is why it is called Mind dependent reality. Reality is the model we make in our mind. You can have belief in the MIR but the nature of this set, as chuck said, is unknown
    Last edited by profloater; 2019-Jul-17 at 06:56 PM.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  22. #12862
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,450
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    In all of our collective minds? And what are our minds?
    What collective minds? I experience only one mind which simulates other beings with minds, unless there's some external reality in which those minds exist on their own.

    Does anyone know what a mind is?

  23. #12863
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    In all of our collective minds? And what are our minds?
    The only route to the collective is through our minds. Agreed we seem to share many experiences and we experience consensus but consensus is not a scientific test. The nature of interactions even in our model is strange compared with our personal touch. We have models we share but what do we know about all this consensus, basically a probability? You are now repeating questions already answered.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  24. #12864
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    What collective minds? I experience only one mind which simulates other beings with minds, unless there's some external reality in which those minds exist on their own.

    Does anyone know what a mind is?
    I know there are other minds. If I were in control through my mind, this discussion would not occur...

  25. #12865
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,333
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The only route to the collective is through our minds. Agreed we seem to share many experiences and we experience consensus but consensus is not a scientific test. The nature of interactions even in our model is strange compared with our personal touch. We have models we share but what do we know about all this consensus, basically a probability? You are now repeating questions already answered.
    An example: everybody sees the sun in the sky.

  26. #12866
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,544
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    An example: everybody sees the sun in the sky.
    Interesting example, thanks to science we model that as a star, not a chariot of fire pulled by a god in the dome of the sky. But the picture we have is formed by neurons in our heads. Our model of the brain being the seat of the mind has neurons in, neurons out, it has no direct access to the sun. Yet we form an image in our heads. Now we assume that image is a true map of an object in the sky, but we can also conjure it up in our imagination. We cannot go and touch the sun so it is an image without corroboration from other senses. We believe in it because we were told all about it. But all of that goes on in our minds. The image is a creation of our minds thanks to neurons in neurons out and that is a modern model I choose to use. The sun we now model as a nuclear fusion core of plasma, it's a model from observation and prediction and quite esoteric. We cannot see through the sun but through science we have that model. Light takes a finite time to reach us, we know that from science but it's another example of how we choose to explain the various observations that lead to that model. Science is the best way to accumulate knowledge of models that make good predictions. But it is all in our mind with its busy neurons. We are trapped inside that body structure, that's how we see it, and sure the science model is very sophisticated in it's predictions and explanations. But as has been said in this thread before, we could be minds in a controlled space fed perceptions by a simulator, as in the Matrix, and it would be untestable even though all our observations would be exactly what we do see. It's an extreme example. More mundane is to understand the implications of quantum interpretation. When you kick that rock, what really happens? electrons repel each other? do you believe in that interpretation or do you know it's right. Or do you know from reading but have difficulty believing it? Do the electron interactions have uncertainty built into them until your kick collapses the wave form? Or is it all built on a structure we cannot even detect in other dimensions? Is that more satisfactory than the Matrix? You believe your mind model absolutely as you view your own hand but it's a simulation in neurons, at least that is a mainstream view.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  27. #12867
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,248
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    An example: everybody sees the sun in the sky.
    Its quite funny considering what 'collective minds' have had the 'Sun' mean over recorded history. It was originally a god to be worshipped, then an astronomical object to be observed, a big pile of wood burning in space, a big ball of hydrogen producing heat and energy that is quite capable of causing untold chaos here on Earth, etc, etc.

    The funny part all of that is that if it was slum-dunk evidence of something which exists independently from human minds, (over the entire course of human history and everyone at each time more or less agreed upon what it was during each era of that history), how did it actually change so dramatically?

    I mean, if it really was a thing which 'actually existed', and that everbody sees that as being evidence of mind independence, then how can it have pulled of the miraculous feat of morphing from a god into being all those other things? Its a miracle, I tell ya!

  28. #12868
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,633
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Are you saying the mind is god? What is the mind?
    "Mind" is a word, that connects to a concept-- like all words do. Nothing different with "mind." The word "god" is also connected to concepts-- quite different ones, I draw no connection between them.

  29. #12869
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    The stuff created by our minds just appearing in our minds.
    Ah, so that particular description of reality doesn't make sense to your mind. Yup, that's just how MDR works, and so the MDR hypothesis passes yet another test. That's quite a few dozen passed tests by now, just in this thread alone. (Read the hypothesis.)

    Now let's be scientific thinkers, and ask how many tests the MIR concept has passed. Zilch. Yes, zilch, read the thread, it's all there.
    (A "passed test" is defined as a test that satisfies two criteria:
    1) the hypothesis worked on the example included in the test, and
    2) the hypothesis could have failed, we are not simply choosing to believe it to be true because we like to believe it's true, regardless of any need for evidence.)
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Jul-17 at 11:20 PM.

  30. #12870
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Its quite funny considering what 'collective minds' have had the 'Sun' mean over recorded history.
    Exactly. Every attempt to produce evidence for some MIR has backfired in this thread as a failed test for MIR and a passed test for the MDR hypothesis.
    I mean, if it really was a thing which 'actually existed', and that everbody sees that as being evidence of mind independence, then how can it have pulled of the miraculous feat of morphing from a god into being all those other things? Its a miracle, I tell ya!
    Well put. This is the game played by MIR enthusiasts-- they assert something that exists in the MIR. Then it is demonstrated that their example can only be shown to exist in their MDR, that's all that is in evidence. Then fifty pages later they assert the same thing again. It's just so obviously a personal belief, based on no evidence, just something they wish to hold as true. There's no crime in choosing to hold various things as true, humans do this all the time-- the problem is in not recognizing the role their minds play in wanting to hold that something is true in the absence of evidence. What is the harm that can come when people simply assert that their own personal choices about truth are absolute ("MIR") truths that must hold for all? Science has never been about absolute truths, it has always been about passed tests-- which is quite a different matter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •