Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Mar 21, 2008.
The statement "everything is in the mind" is not logical because something has to support the mind.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Explain to me how the mind can exist on it's own.
It can't be explained. Any such explanation would necessarily be defeating itself, as it was done using the mind, and not something else.
The problem here is the human perception that if something exists that it must have been created, or that there is a discernable foundation by which all things exist. Could it be that there isnt any possible way to logically explain the function of the mind or reality because we lack the capacity to understand that things may exist that dont consrain to the laws of nature as we see them
Reality is often logical, but sometimes something plays hide and seek so that we don't find the nothing it is. Scientists don't even find the cause of lightning... but the scandinavians found Thor long ago.
According to the ancient myths that Yorda believes in, the mind is born from nothing, like every other nothing.
I am nothing that is everything. Duality: I am nothing, but the infinity (everything) is outside me. The mind separates nothing into anything like prismas separate light into some colors.
-- just kidding
If you would see everything, you would just see a blinding light which would blind you so that you would see nothing. And if you would hear everything you would soon hear nothing. And same with the other senses...
So you see, reality is nothing. That's how it was in the "beginning". But then we limited our senses so that we created darkness which allowed us to see something.
I found this section confusing.
The first sentence is a little odd. It should be 'its', no apostrophe, I assume, but I wasn't sure. And then I wanted it to be very clear what the it is. But here's where the real trouble comes in for me.
You start off saying that some people say it impossible to know if objective reality exists. Then you state that you disagree. Fine. My expectation is that what follows will show why you disagree. What follows however seems to be pointing out that our senses are limited. This doesn't really seem to be backing up the point you made. If you meant to say that our senses are limited but clearly somewhat based on reality, perhaps with the animal vs. human sense examples, you still haven't made the case. All your ideas about the issue are based on senses and memory that may not be based on objective reality.
Could you express again why you disagree with those who say we cannot know objective reality or if it exists?
Explain what assumptions you have about minds that make you think the onus is on him to explain. To you it seems clear a mind must have a 'foundation'. Why are you sure of this? Is it because of Science? But perhaps what you are calling science is merely an illusion that seems logical to a mind - yours. Your memory and your senses being fooled.
You have made several assumptions in the above. 'Inputs'....the very word postulates ideas like outside and inside. Separate. Distance. Containers. And generally 'input', since 1948, has come to mean information. Information being 'about' but not the thing in itself.
So once you phrase your question like this you have already assumed an entire metaphysics. This is what I was trying to get across on the other thread. You take as your starting point something that must be built up to.
I still like the alternative that we are actually looking inward with our senses and what we call out there is actually us. But when we dream and introspect then we are focusing on something that is not us.
Why do we identify with the inside and not the outside? In fact how do we know which is the inside?
Everything is inside. What ever we perceive is 'in' consciousness. It is always in that field. We tend to section off portions of that field and call it me, mine, inside, or his, theirs, its and outside. But if we pay attention, it is all inside. With no boundaries.
how do we know that reality is the way we know it is? that is part of the larger question of how do we know anything at all? what is the difference between knowing and merely believing? what constitutes proof?
how many times do i have to observe the sun rise in the morning to know that it will rise again the next morning?
A mind cannot exist on its own if you accept that its existence depends on a brain. Do you think there is an alternative explanation ?
What is so difficult about saying that the mind is an aspect of the brain without which it could exist. Do you believe that a dead person has a mind. I don't but he still has a non-functioning brain.
Sounds like you have a skull of infinite proportions, give that there is nothing outside of it.
Only if we had a candle.
If you mean that there may be things we cannot know as they really are would agree.
But if the mind exists on its own somehow, how come it chose to perceive our bodies like it does etc etc. ?
And if the mind exists on it's own then there is no basis for perception, which would mean that none of us would experience reality in remotely the same way.
What I mean is how can we show our neighbor our new car (which is only a fabrication of my mind) ?
The only answer would be that the neighbor is also a fabrication of the mind, and this in turn means that I am the only mind in existence; the lot of you only exist in my mind..
If there is only one of me, why do I exist at all ?
This is not the way.
Aye, it should be 'its'.
I think I made my point in the OP though. I explained how subjective reality is created by us, the senses part was just to begin at the beginning.
It apparently serves a purpose to identify in this manner. If it would serve no purpose at all, such identifying would have ceased.
Separate names with a comma.