Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is there a possible way...

Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive? You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something. I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:12:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Actually, idealism could follow as well with substance dualism being false. In idealism, the only substance is mental substance (physical stuff isn't real), but in dualism there are two real substances (mental and physical). Also, some may object to dualism due to the interaction problem.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:17:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive?

"X exists" doesn't follow from "I perceive x". Last night I had a dream, and I perceived a school that my mind made up. This school doesn't exist, but I still perceived it.

You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something.

You are perceiving a table when you touch a table. That doesn't mean a table exists. There is no real link between our perceptions and an external world for all we know. We take it on faith that there is an external word. You can look at your TV for example, but that only proves that you have a perception of TV. If you touch it, that is still only evidence of a perception. It doesn't seem possible to have evidence of an external world, and there is no rule of deductive logic that things probably are the way they are if we perceive them that way. That was something we contingently made up. ,.

I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world.

Our mental lives.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:23:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Also, how would you form this in a deductive syllogism to show dualism?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:28:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:17:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive?

"X exists" doesn't follow from "I perceive x". Last night I had a dream, and I perceived a school that my mind made up. This school doesn't exist, but I still perceived it.

You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something.

You are perceiving a table when you touch a table. That doesn't mean a table exists. There is no real link between our perceptions and an external world for all we know. We take it on faith that there is an external word. You can look at your TV for example, but that only proves that you have a perception of TV. If you touch it, that is still only evidence of a perception. It doesn't seem possible to have evidence of an external world, and there is no rule of deductive logic that things probably are the way they are if we perceive them that way. That was something we contingently made up. ,.
You perceive something that makes your mind react in such a way that you "feel" the table. Something is there. That sensation is what you classify to be a table, and, as such, anything that provokes the same response is a table.
I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world.

Our mental lives.

What do you mean by mental? Do you think that we have a soul that could exist without anything else existing?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:45:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:28:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:17:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive?

"X exists" doesn't follow from "I perceive x". Last night I had a dream, and I perceived a school that my mind made up. This school doesn't exist, but I still perceived it.

You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something.

You are perceiving a table when you touch a table. That doesn't mean a table exists. There is no real link between our perceptions and an external world for all we know. We take it on faith that there is an external word. You can look at your TV for example, but that only proves that you have a perception of TV. If you touch it, that is still only evidence of a perception. It doesn't seem possible to have evidence of an external world, and there is no rule of deductive logic that things probably are the way they are if we perceive them that way. That was something we contingently made up. ,.
You perceive something that makes your mind react in such a way that you "feel" the table. Something is there.

That's a non-sequitur. "x really exists" doesn't follow from "I have a perception of x". There is no proof that my hands are on a keyboard. I feel my fingers on a key board, and I see a keyboard, but all that follows from this is:

"I perceive a keyboard"

This notion that "a keyboard actually exists" doesn't follow.

That sensation is what you classify to be a table, and, as such, anything that provokes the same response is a table.

This begs the question. You assume that there is something external actual provoking these sensations, instead of your mind producing the illusion that this is so.

I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world.

Our mental lives.

What do you mean by mental? Do you think that we have a soul that could exist without anything else existing?

I am just pointing out an uncomfortable truth; we have 0 proof of an external world. We only have perceptions of an external world. If I go outside and and look up I perceive a sky, that doesn't prove that there is a sky. Just that I perceive one.

I am not saying there is not an external world. I am just saying that the very nature of the beings we are prohibits us from ever really knowing. We take it on "faith" that there is an external world, because there is no deductive law of logic, axiom, or metaphysical law which necessitates that "perception of x" entails "x". Until this day comes, we will never truly know.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:55:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I still don't quite understand where your line is drawn between the mental and the material worlds.

"That's a non-sequitur. "x really exists" doesn't follow from "I have a perception of x". There is no proof that my hands are on a keyboard. I feel my fingers on a key board, and I see a keyboard, but all that follows from this is:

"I perceive a keyboard"

This notion that "a keyboard actually exists" doesn't follow."

Something exists, and we name it a keyboard.

"This begs the question. You assume that there is something external actual provoking these sensations, instead of your mind producing the illusion that this is so."

How can a consciousness perceive itself without any other things to sense which would give it the information needed to make any of these illusions?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:33:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:12:09 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Actually, idealism could follow as well with substance dualism being false. In idealism, the only substance is mental substance (physical stuff isn't real), but in dualism there are two real substances (mental and physical).

No, idealism doesn"t logically follow from the argument, we "necessarily" take it on faith that there is something "out there" causing the sensations we have "in here". It"s logically necessary, without it you have no explanatory basis for causation. Idealism ends in a causal "blank slate" with everything coming from nothing.

Consciousness is primary and thinking is relating, the form of thinking itself is a matter of binary oppositions, so consciousness is a relational term, it"s always a consciousness "of something", just as thoughts are always thoughts "of something".

Also, some may object to dualism due to the interaction problem.

Except for there is no interaction problem, the so called "interaction problem" is only derived from the inversion mistake. What we are trying to analyze and explain here is our experience of reality, and it is a self-evident fact that mental states causally interact with physical states, that is the experience that we are explaining. Yet again, an experience is necessarily an experience "of something".

Without a distinction between subject and object the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable, knowledge must be knowledge "of something", so the subject/object dichotomy is "necessary". Ultimately, there can be no distinctions in a monist framework; thinking would be impossible because it would necessarily be a matter of "comparing and contrasting" in an undifferentiated world.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:38:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:23:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Also, how would you form this in a deductive syllogism to show dualism?

The deductive syllogism is rather straightforward, it goes something like this:

P1: Sidewalker speaks the truth.
P2: Sidewalker said it.
C: Therefore it must be true.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:38:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:33:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:12:09 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Actually, idealism could follow as well with substance dualism being false. In idealism, the only substance is mental substance (physical stuff isn't real), but in dualism there are two real substances (mental and physical).

No, idealism doesn"t logically follow from the argument

Neither does dualism.

, we "necessarily" take it on faith that there is something "out there" causing the sensations we have "in here".

But, if idealism is true, then all these perceptions are caused by mental activity.

It's logically necessary, without it you have no explanatory basis for causation. Idealism ends in a causal "blank slate" with everything coming from nothing.

I'm not sure how its logically necessary. Also, in idealism, the perceptions come from the immaterial substance called the mind (that is not "nothing").

Consciousness is primary and thinking is relating, the form of thinking itself is a matter of binary oppositions, so consciousness is a relational term, it"s always a consciousness "of something", just as thoughts are always thoughts "of something".

Also, some may object to dualism due to the interaction problem.

Except for there is no interaction problem, the so called "interaction problem" is only derived from the inversion mistake. What we are trying to analyze and explain here is our experience of reality, and it is a self-evident fact that mental states causally interact with physical states, that is the experience that we are explaining.

It's not self-evident. We have no actual proof of physical states. What we perceive could just be mental projections.

Yet again, an experience is necessarily an experience "of something".

False. I had a dream last night and experienced things that weren't real.


Without a distinction between subject and object the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable, knowledge must be knowledge "of something", so the subject/object dichotomy is "necessary".

Yes, knowledge of one's own mind, and the perceptions it entails follows from idealism. That's not nothing.

Ultimately, there can be no distinctions in a monist framework; thinking would be impossible because it would necessarily be a matter of "comparing and contrasting" in an undifferentiated world.

Why is comparing and contrasting necessary?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:40:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:33:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:12:09 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Actually, idealism could follow as well with substance dualism being false. In idealism, the only substance is mental substance (physical stuff isn't real), but in dualism there are two real substances (mental and physical).

No, idealism doesn"t logically follow from the argument, we "necessarily" take it on faith that there is something "out there" causing the sensations we have "in here". It"s logically necessary, without it you have no explanatory basis for causation. Idealism ends in a causal "blank slate" with everything coming from nothing.

Consciousness is primary and thinking is relating, the form of thinking itself is a matter of binary oppositions, so consciousness is a relational term, it"s always a consciousness "of something", just as thoughts are always thoughts "of something".

Also, some may object to dualism due to the interaction problem.

Except for there is no interaction problem, the so called "interaction problem" is only derived from the inversion mistake. What we are trying to analyze and explain here is our experience of reality, and it is a self-evident fact that mental states causally interact with physical states, that is the experience that we are explaining. Yet again, an experience is necessarily an experience "of something".

Without a distinction between subject and object the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable, knowledge must be knowledge "of something", so the subject/object dichotomy is "necessary". Ultimately, there can be no distinctions in a monist framework; thinking would be impossible because it would necessarily be a matter of "comparing and contrasting" in an undifferentiated world.

Oh, and by "something", I take it you mean "something external".
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:40:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive? You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something. I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .

Yeah, there are philosophers who prefer to uncut the whole issue by saying that it's merely the world regarding itself, and that the internal/external dichotomy isn't even necessary. The dominant position (by far) remains an objective external world, however.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:46:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:40:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive?

So you have never had a dream? If you have, then you know what it is like to perceive external worlds that aren't really there and are just part of your mental life.

You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something.

This begs the question. You assume there is something to touch. All you can prove is that you perceive a table that is being touched.

I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .

Your mental life.


Yeah, there are philosophers who prefer to uncut the whole issue by saying that it's merely the world regarding itself, and that the internal/external dichotomy isn't even necessary.

There is a difference between your mental life, and potentially that which is outside your mental life.

The dominant position (by far) remains an objective external world, however.

Perhaps, but quantum mechanics challenges the idea that are word is "real".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:47:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:40:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive? You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something. I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .

Yeah, there are philosophers who prefer to uncut the whole issue by saying that it's merely the world regarding itself, and that the internal/external dichotomy isn't even necessary. The dominant position (by far) remains an objective external world, however.

(correction)
*This begs the question. You assume there is something to touch. All you can prove is that you perceive a table that is being touched; not that there is a table that is being touched.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:48:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:40:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive? You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something. I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .

Yeah, there are philosophers who prefer to uncut the whole issue by saying that it's merely the world regarding itself, and that the internal/external dichotomy isn't even necessary. The dominant position (by far) remains an objective external world, however.

(correction)
*This begs the question. You assume there is something to touch. All you can prove is that you perceive a table that is being touched; not that there is a table that is being touched.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:52:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

You're finally asking the right questions.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 7:02:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:46:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:40:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive?

So you have never had a dream? If you have, then you know what it is like to perceive external worlds that aren't really there and are just part of your mental life.
The thing is that I don't perceive, say, a building that I saw in my dreams. I perceive the results of my physical (external) brain's actions, which made the dream. It's just a matter of correctly classifying your perceptions of the outside world by their causes, not by whether they're internal or external.
You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something.

This begs the question. You assume there is something to touch. All you can prove is that you perceive a table that is being touched.

I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .

Your mental life.


Yeah, there are philosophers who prefer to uncut the whole issue by saying that it's merely the world regarding itself, and that the internal/external dichotomy isn't even necessary.

There is a difference between your mental life, and potentially that which is outside your mental life.

The dominant position (by far) remains an objective external world, however.

Perhaps, but quantum mechanics challenges the idea that are word is "real".

Howso?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 7:09:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 7:02:40 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:46:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:40:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:51:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

If there is no external world, what do you perceive?

So you have never had a dream? If you have, then you know what it is like to perceive external worlds that aren't really there and are just part of your mental life.

The thing is that I don't perceive, say, a building that I saw in my dreams. I perceive the results of my physical (external) brain's actions

Once more, you have no proof of a brain. All we have proof of is the "perception of brains", that doesn't mean there are brains. Take the old illusion of the two curved lines across the screen. They are really straight if you put a ruler up to them, but that doesn't change the fact that your mind perceived them as curved. So, just because your mind perceived something (curved lines), that doesn't mean they are actually there, which made the dream.

For all you know, you could just be perceiving what your mind projects. The external world could be an illusion. This is an unsolved problem in philosophy. The jump from "perception of x" to "x".

It's just a matter of correctly classifying your perceptions of the outside world by their causes, not by whether they're internal or external.

This begs the question. You assume there is an outside world.

You surely can't be perceiving nothing when you, say, touch something.

This begs the question. You assume there is something to touch. All you can prove is that you perceive a table that is being touched.

I suppose it depends on how stringently you define the "internal" world .

Your mental life.


Yeah, there are philosophers who prefer to uncut the whole issue by saying that it's merely the world regarding itself, and that the internal/external dichotomy isn't even necessary.

There is a difference between your mental life, and potentially that which is outside your mental life.

The dominant position (by far) remains an objective external world, however.

Perhaps, but quantum mechanics challenges the idea that are word is "real".

Howso?

Read the debate I am in the middle of refuting Bohm mechanics.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:53:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

I think we take it on faith necessarily. For all we know this could be a dream. If it was a dream, there would be no way to know it's not. It would look exactly like how it does now.

On the other hand if this isn't a dream, it would still look like how it does now...

Or maybe we all began to exist five minutes ago, and our memories are implanted. If this were the case, would it look any different? Would there be any distinguishable way to tell between the two?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:21:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:53:40 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

I think we take it on faith necessarily. For all we know this could be a dream. If it was a dream, there would be no way to know it's not. It would look exactly like how it does now.

On the other hand if this isn't a dream, it would still look like how it does now...

Or maybe we all began to exist five minutes ago, and our memories are implanted. If this were the case, would it look any different? Would there be any distinguishable way to tell between the two?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:48:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:46:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Perhaps, but quantum mechanics challenges the idea that are word is "real".

That's debatable, what it clearly challenges is the traditional idea of an "objective" reality that is independent of observation. Quantum physics leaves almost no room for doubt that the observer and their intent are an integral part of the reality observed. It demonstrates that observer and observed constitute a dynamic that is "real" and it challenges the idea that either observer or observed can be considered independently "real", and it establishes that how we choose to look at things plays a defining role in how the things looked at manifest themselves in reality. In quantum physics an experiment is an action in which we are causal agents, not just detached observers, it all but severs the objectively drawn lines between subjective and objective, between mind and world, and between outer and inner reality.

Quantum mechanics describes the constituent components of matter itself as made up of "patterns of probability" or "tendencies to exist" that collapse into something real and defined only upon observation, and in paradoxical and mutually exclusive ways that are dependent upon the manner of looking. It raises the question of whether reality can be actual without an observer.

In some mysterious way, reality conforms to the way we look at it, it can and does have mutually exclusive properties dependent on how we look at it. If we look at it as a particle, it exhibits the properties of a particle, and if we look at it as a wave of energy, it exhibits the properties of a wave. Quantum mechanics makes it pretty clear that interpreting reality as a story that only takes place in the outer world results in a false image, and it supports the idea that reality takes place in the inner world. It supports the conclusion that in some mysterious way we are co-creators of the reality we observe and can certainly lead one to believe that true reality responds or conforms to "intent" in some mysterious way.

It clearly challenges the idea that the correspondence theory of truth is an adequate theory of truth. Correspondence calls for representation and if reality corresponds to how we choose to represent it, then the correspondence theory is somewhat circular and needs to be at least supplemented with pragmatic considerations. In the end, we don"t get to be passive observers, we are responsible agents and how we choose to think about reality matters.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:06:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does it even matter if the world "physically" exists?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:18:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, the matter of whether the external world physically exists and whether there is an ontological reality (mind-independent or not) that objectively exists seem to be two different matters.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:52:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:38:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:33:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:12:09 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... to show there is an external world? Or, do we take it on faith necessarily?

Yes, and it pretty much explains why I'm a dualist.

At best, we can only presume that there is something "out there" causing our sensations, but the fact is, the world beyond the senses finds substance only in our minds. It is only mental phenomena that we actually experience, everything you have ever known, or felt, or will feel, is mental. Our entire perceived universe is formulated within our heads, and we can only infer what may lie outside it, the external world is a mental construct. Therefore, all knowledge of anything outside of mind is mediate, contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there", our only evidence that there even is a universe, or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of a physical reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what that "out there" is.

What we call "Objective" or "External" Reality is not primary, and those who presume that it is are making an "inversion mistake", objective reality is only a mental construct, it requires the agency of mind to be assembled from the ephemeral patterns of energy that reach our senses. The inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this common presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

It is easy to logically derive this, once you recognize that mental phenomena, by virtue of their undeniable existence, are as "real" as physical ones, then it logically follows that their reality is even more immediate, more self-evident than the inferred cause of the sensations that we only know mentally.

Just given the order by which we know anything, the sequence of cognition by which we come to experience reality, we have no choice but to logically accept that it is our mental phenomena that are primary, and the physical word that is secondary, objective reality is an inference once removed from what is known directly. In the end of a strictly logical analysis, you can conclude that the only thing you know directly and in an unmediated form is your sensations, and from that directly known reality, you presume a cause of those sensations and project it outside of yourself.

So yes, I think it can be logically demonstrated that we necessarily take it on faith that there even is an external world.

In the end, consciousness is primary, and dualism is the logical conclusion that follows from our experience of "reality".

Actually, idealism could follow as well with substance dualism being false. In idealism, the only substance is mental substance (physical stuff isn't real), but in dualism there are two real substances (mental and physical).

No, idealism doesn"t logically follow from the argument

Neither does dualism.

It does if you understand the meaning of the word necessary.

, we "necessarily" take it on faith that there is something "out there" causing the sensations we have "in here".

But, if idealism is true, then all these perceptions are caused by mental activity.

That is circular reasoning, perception is a mental activity, how does a mental activity cause itself?

It's logically necessary, without it you have no explanatory basis for causation. Idealism ends in a causal "blank slate" with everything coming from nothing.

I'm not sure how its logically necessary. Also, in idealism, the perceptions come from the immaterial substance called the mind (that is not "nothing").

The word causation is referential to a dynamic, it necessarily implies both a cause and an effect, it"s meaningless to say something causes itself.

Consciousness is primary and thinking is relating, the form of thinking itself is a matter of binary oppositions, so consciousness is a relational term, it"s always a consciousness "of something", just as thoughts are always thoughts "of something".

Also, some may object to dualism due to the interaction problem.

Except for there is no interaction problem, the so called "interaction problem" is only derived from the inversion mistake. What we are trying to analyze and explain here is our experience of reality, and it is a self-evident fact that mental states causally interact with physical states, that is the experience that we are explaining.

It's not self-evident. We have no actual proof of physical states. What we perceive could just be mental projections.

That isn"t perception, its imagination. What we are trying to explain with our philosophies and our sciences is the human experience of reality. You read what I typed, had thoughts about it and typed a reply, that is the experience we are attempting to explain. Claiming reality isn't real is not explanatory.

Yet again, an experience is necessarily an experience "of something".

False. I had a dream last night and experienced things that weren't real.

What you experienced was a dream. You are still making the inversion mistake by considering the reality of the experience to be unreal.

Without a distinction between subject and object the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable, knowledge must be knowledge "of something", so the subject/object dichotomy is "necessary".

Yes, knowledge of one's own mind, and the perceptions it entails follows from idealism. That's not nothing.

What it is, is circular reasoning and circular reasoning doesn"t constitute knowledge, please explain how knowledge can exist without the subject/object dichotomy.

Ultimately, there can be no distinctions in a monist framework; thinking would be impossible because it would necessarily be a matter of "comparing and contrasting" in an undifferentiated world.

Why is comparing and contrasting necessary?

Because thinking is relating, what exactly does one think about it in an undifferentiated world?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:12:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:40:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Oh, and by "something", I take it you mean "something external".

By something, I mean "something" as opposed to "nothing".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:32:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:06:36 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Does it even matter if the world "physically" exists?

Practically speaking, the belief that a brick physically exists provides a sound reason to not smash one into your head.

You only need to try the experiment once to see that it matters.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:16:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:18:46 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Btw, the matter of whether the external world physically exists and whether there is an ontological reality (mind-independent or not) that objectively exists seem to be two different matters.

How so?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:04:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:52:14 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:38:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:33:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:12:09 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:20:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/22/2013 12:49:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Actually, idealism could follow as well with substance dualism being false. In idealism, the only substance is mental substance (physical stuff isn't real), but in dualism there are two real substances (mental and physical).

No, idealism doesn"t logically follow from the argument

Neither does dualism.

It does if you understand the meaning of the word necessary.

I know the meaning of the word necessary. The problem is that the conclusion of dualism doesn't follow from your preceding premises. Thus, your argument is a fallacious non-sequitur.


, we "necessarily" take it on faith that there is something "out there" causing the sensations we have "in here".

But, if idealism is true, then all these perceptions are caused by mental activity.

That is circular reasoning, perception is a mental activity, how does a mental activity cause itself?

The above is a logical fallacy. Even if perception is one type of mental activity, that doesn't mean other types of metal activity couldn't cause it. Therefore, there isn't anything circular about mental activity causing mental activity as long as it is a different mental activity than perception. Either way, the mind would be the reason for the perception in the scenario I described. So really you are just splitting hairs and delving into red herrings.

It's logically necessary, without it you have no explanatory basis for causation. Idealism ends in a causal "blank slate" with everything coming from nothing.

I'm not sure how its logically necessary. Also, in idealism, the perceptions come from the immaterial substance called the mind (that is not "nothing").

The word causation is referential to a dynamic, it necessarily implies both a cause and an effect, it"s meaningless to say something causes itself.


I never said anything caused itself. This is a straw-man. A person can cause another person and that is not circular as long as it isn't the same person causing the same person. Mental activity can cause mental activity as long as it isn't the exact same mental activity. Your claim that I endorsed something causing itself is a shameless straw-man.

Consciousness is primary and thinking is relating, the form of thinking itself is a matter of binary oppositions, so consciousness is a relational term, it"s always a consciousness "of something", just as thoughts are always thoughts "of something".

Also, some may object to dualism due to the interaction problem.

Except for there is no interaction problem, the so called "interaction problem" is only derived from the inversion mistake. What we are trying to analyze and explain here is our experience of reality, and it is a self-evident fact that mental states causally interact with physical states, that is the experience that we are explaining.

It's not self-evident. We have no actual proof of physical states. What we perceive could just be mental projections.

That isn"t perception, its imagination.

The two aren't mutually. Self-evidently, you perceive what you imagine.

What we are trying to explain with our philosophies and our sciences is the human experience of reality. You read what I typed, had thoughts about it and typed a reply, that is the experience we are attempting to explain. Claiming reality isn't real is not explanatory.

The external reality; not out mental lives.


Yet again, an experience is necessarily an experience "of something".

False. I had a dream last night and experienced things that weren't real.

What you experienced was a dream. You are still making the inversion mistake by considering the reality of the experience to be unreal.

Yes, and I perceived things in that dream that weren't real. For all we know, life is the same.


Without a distinction between subject and object the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable, knowledge must be knowledge "of something", so the subject/object dichotomy is "necessary".

Yes, knowledge of one's own mind, and the perceptions it entails follows from idealism. That's not nothing.

What it is, is circular reasoning and circular reasoning doesn"t constitute knowledge, please explain how knowledge can exist without the subject/object dichotomy.

That's not circular reasoning (I'm starting to think you don't even understand what circular reasoning is). All that is needed for knowledge is a mind, a mind can be aware of itself without anything external.


Ultimately, there can be no distinctions in a monist framework; thinking would be impossible because it would necessarily be a matter of "comparing and contrasting" in an undifferentiated world.

Why is comparing and contrasting necessary?

Because thinking is relating, what exactly does one think about it in an undifferentiated world?

Thinking is thinking.