Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the relationship between mind and reality

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:19:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the conventional model, percepts are objective observables that actively imprint themselves on, and thereby shape and determine, the passive mind and its internal processes. But a more general (and therefore more scientific, less tautological) description of percepts portrays them also as having a subjective perceptual aspect.

Suppose you're wearing blue-tinted glasses. At first, you think that the world you see through them is blue. Then it occurs to you that this need not be true; maybe it's the glasses. Given this possibility, you realize that you really have no business thinking that the world is blue at all; indeed, due to Occam's razor, you must assume that the world is chromatically neutral (i.e., not blue) until proven otherwise! Finally, managing to remove your glasses, you see that you were right; the world is not blue. This, you conclude, proves that you can't assume that what is true on your end of perception (the blue tint of your lenses) is really true of reality.

Fresh from this victory of reason, you turn to the controversial hypothesis that mind is the essence of reality...that reality is not only material, but mental in character. An obvious argument for this hypothesis is that since reality is known to us strictly in the form of ideas and sensations - these, after all, are all that can be directly "known" - reality must be ideic. But then it naturally occurs to you that the predicate "mental" is like the predicate "blue"; it may be something that exists solely on your end of the process of perception. And so it does, you reflect, for the predicate "mental" indeed refers to the mind! Therefore, by Occam's razor, it must be assumed that reality is not mental until proven otherwise.

However, there is a difference between these two situations. You can remove a pair of blue sunglasses. But you cannot remove your mind, at least when you're using it to consider reality. This means that it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless; there is no reason to even consider a distinction between that which is mental and that which is not, since nature has conspired to ensure that such a distinction will never, ever be perceived. But without this distinction, the term "mental" can no longer be restrictively defined. "Mental" might as well mean "real" and vice versa. And for all practical purposes, so it does.

A theory T of physical reality exists as a neural and conceptual pattern in your brain (and/or mind); it's related by isomorphism to its universe U (physical reality). T<--(isomorphism)-->U. T consists of abstract ideas; U consists of supposedly concrete objects like photons (perhaps not the best examples of "concrete objects"). But the above argument shows that we have to drop the abstract-concrete distinction (which is just a different way of expressing the mental-real distinction). Sure, we can use these terms to distinguish the domain and range of the perceptual isomorphism, but that's as far as it goes. For all practical purposes, what is mental is real, and vice versa. The T-U isomorphism seamlessly carries one predicate into the other.

Assume that a photon has no abstract existence. Then since ideas are abstract, it corresponds to no idea. But you know the world through ideas. So for you, a non-abstract photon has no existence. But you're discussing photons that exist. So the photon you're talking about is abstract (as well as concrete).

If we form a theory of some aspect of reality, it may or may not be correct. But even if not, we can be sure that the correct theory will conform to our mental structures, since otherwise we won't be able to create a conceptual isomorphism with it (and that's what a theory is). A "syntax" is to be interpreted as any set of structural and functional constraints applied to any system. A syntax takes the form of general information and is implemented by generalized cognition.

This, of course, is what philosophers call "solipsism", but without the assumption of personal control. In a word, it's impossible to prove that the universe doesn't exist entirely inside our minds, and that all that "objective reality" out there isn't just some kind of subjective internal simulation. While it's true that control of the simulation seems to be distributed among many people and influences, this merely amounts to a kind of "distributed solipsism" after all...an intersect of solipsistic viewpoints in one and the same meta-solipsistic universe. In other words, the solipsistic abstract/concrete "Self" of the universe distributes over all of its contents, and our own "selves" are just mini-solipsistic aspects of it.

So the objective and solipsistic models are as indistinguishable as U and T, abstract and concrete, and we have to drop the distinction. And in this case, (objective) isomorphism equals (abstract, subjective) identity; when we talk about T and U, we're really talking about different aspects or characterizations of the same thing. So the perceived universe and the perceiver are one, and the universe is "self-perceptual". This is where reality theory meets the philosophy of mind. But that's fine, because as should by now be obvious, they need each other.

In conclusion, physical reality has a general abstract existence. This is what happens when you embed physical reality in a space of abstractions in order to theorize about it; real objects necessarily conform to more or less exact configurations of an abstract distributed syntax. Since there's no way out of this requirement, it's pointless to theorize about it without admitting it from the outset. A theory that doesn't is nothing but an oxymoron; it contains an implied logical inconsistency from jump street and invalidates itself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 11:23:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A number of people seem to think the above reasoning cannot account for the difference between fantasy and fact. This is totally untrue. "Objective" features of reality can be understood as explicit mental representations of distributed syntax already implicit in the structure of our minds.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 11:36:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've thought for some time that you'd rather fallen down the rabbithole of solipsism.

I would argue that your model fails the Occam's Razor test, in that it requires fewer assumptions to accept reality as real, but perceived through the senses and mind, than it does to accept the theory you put forth.

I would also argue that, given that you think that mind=reality therefore god, there IS a difference between the solispsistic view you take, and one that isn't mind=reality, because that wouldn't necessarily have a god, and if so, you'd have to establish your god to establish your theory as plausible and, moreover, to make it pass Occam's Razor, though these last things weren't explicit, per se, in this post.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 11:54:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:19:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Suppose you're wearing blue-tinted glasses. At first, you think that the world you see through them is blue.

I don't think you'd identify something as being blue... everything's blue.. so you don't think about it's 'blueness'..

You identify things by differentiation. Discriminating 'this' from 'that'.

Then it occurs to you that this need not be true; maybe it's the glasses. Given this possibility, you realize that you really have no business thinking that the world is blue at all; indeed, due to Occam's razor, you must assume that the world is chromatically neutral (i.e., not blue) until proven otherwise!

Nope, you keep living in your blue world, assuming it best describes reality until you have some reason to think it lacking, or get other experience which demands another perspective which can encompass all the experience you've had.

Finally, managing to remove your glasses, you see that you were right; the world is not blue. This, you conclude, proves that you can't assume that what is true on your end of perception (the blue tint of your lenses) is really true of reality.

If somehow your glasses fell off, yeah, you'd try to explain all the experience you've had in some broader context.. like that you were wearing blue tinged-glasses.

Fresh from this victory of reason, you turn to the controversial hypothesis that mind is the essence of reality...that reality is not only material, but mental in character.

What!? No, in the case of the glasses you realize you were wearing blue tinged glasses.

In the case of something that demonstrates that physical reality cannot encompass experiences like that of your conscoiusness, then sure you might turn to the hypothesis that mind is what explains the physical..

However, experience actually suggests that the physical encompasses mental experience... see brain damaged people and their apparent changes in mental experience.

Also, though it's tough to comprehend exactly how the physical is the cause of the mental... an argument from incredulity is not a good argument.
The physical is seemingly rather dependable.. and, as I pointed out with brain-damaged people, it certainly seems as though it dictates our mental capabilities/experiences.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 11:36:17 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I've thought for some time that you'd rather fallen down the rabbithole of solipsism.

I would argue that your model fails the Occam's Razor test, in that it requires fewer assumptions to accept reality as real, but perceived through the senses and mind, than it does to accept the theory you put forth.


Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data. The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

I would also argue that, given that you think that mind=reality therefore god, there IS a difference between the solispsistic view you take, and one that isn't mind=reality, because that wouldn't necessarily have a god, and if so, you'd have to establish your god to establish your theory as plausible and, moreover, to make it pass Occam's Razor, though these last things weren't explicit, per se, in this post.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data.

The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

Naturalistic physicalists don't posit a "non-mental reality" they posit that mental experience is existent through/derived from in a physical framework.

Not that I care too much to talk about occam's razor, but physicalism is basically consistent with monism which is pretty much as simple as it gets.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data. The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

How, precisely, is it oxymoronic? Further, if it IS oxymoronic, then by equating them and claiming there's no difference and so they are the same, you've just invalidated the mental reality--though I'm sure you don't accept that.

If there is no "overarching" mind or "mind that is the universe", THEN there is a non-mental reality, and we perceive reality but through a glass darkly, the glass being our minds. There's no oxymoron there.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data. The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

How, precisely, is it oxymoronic? Further, if it IS oxymoronic, then by equating them and claiming there's no difference and so they are the same, you've just invalidated the mental reality--though I'm sure you don't accept that.

Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.


If there is no "overarching" mind or "mind that is the universe", THEN there is a non-mental reality, and we perceive reality but through a glass darkly, the glass being our minds. There's no oxymoron there.

Like I pointed out, a "non-mental reality" is, in fact, mental, leading to the conclusion that the order we perceive - and that you mistakenly associate with non-mental reality - is the result of a distributed mind.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data. The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

How, precisely, is it oxymoronic? Further, if it IS oxymoronic, then by equating them and claiming there's no difference and so they are the same, you've just invalidated the mental reality--though I'm sure you don't accept that.


Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".

Now you're saying that the world being NOT mental is oxymoronic. That means either that there IS a distinction, or that your own proposal is oxymoronic.

You propose that, because we're always looking through blue glasses, we should assume the world is blue, is basically what you're asserting, even as you argue that we are, in fact, wearing blue glasses.

If there is no "overarching" mind or "mind that is the universe", THEN there is a non-mental reality, and we perceive reality but through a glass darkly, the glass being our minds. There's no oxymoron there.

Like I pointed out, a "non-mental reality" is, in fact, mental, leading to the conclusion that the order we perceive - and that you mistakenly associate with non-mental reality - is the result of a distributed mind.

No. You argued that it was impossible to tell the difference between one that was, and one that was not--and that therefore we should assume via Occam's Razor that it is. I assert that a distributed mind is FAR less preferred by Occam's Razor.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:03:41 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data.

The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

Naturalistic physicalists don't posit a "non-mental reality" they posit that mental experience is existent through/derived from in a physical framework.

I didn't even mention "naturalistic physicalists", did I?


Not that I care too much to talk about occam's razor, but physicalism is basically consistent with monism which is pretty much as simple as it gets.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data. The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

How, precisely, is it oxymoronic? Further, if it IS oxymoronic, then by equating them and claiming there's no difference and so they are the same, you've just invalidated the mental reality--though I'm sure you don't accept that.


Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".

"Non-mental reality" is inconceivable much in the same way that "a married bachelor" is inconceivable. They are simply words which do not describe anything meaningful. That doesn't mean I can't distinguish between a married bachelor (contradiction) and something non-contradictory.


Now you're saying that the world being NOT mental is oxymoronic. That means either that there IS a distinction, or that your own proposal is oxymoronic.

See above.


You propose that, because we're always looking through blue glasses, we should assume the world is blue, is basically what you're asserting, even as you argue that we are, in fact, wearing blue glasses.

I don't know what this means.


If there is no "overarching" mind or "mind that is the universe", THEN there is a non-mental reality, and we perceive reality but through a glass darkly, the glass being our minds. There's no oxymoron there.

Like I pointed out, a "non-mental reality" is, in fact, mental, leading to the conclusion that the order we perceive - and that you mistakenly associate with non-mental reality - is the result of a distributed mind.

No. You argued that it was impossible to tell the difference between one that was, and one that was not--and that therefore we should assume via Occam's Razor that it is. I assert that a distributed mind is FAR less preferred by Occam's Razor.

Wut. Not once did I invoke Occam's Razor to justify my position.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:18:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:03:41 PM, mortsdor wrote:
The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

Naturalistic physicalists don't posit a "non-mental reality" they posit that mental experience is existent through/derived from in a physical framework.

I presumed when you said a non-mental reality you were referring to a Physicalist's interpretation of what constitutes reality.

what were you referring to if not that?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:19:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:18:20 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:03:41 PM, mortsdor wrote:
The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

Naturalistic physicalists don't posit a "non-mental reality" they posit that mental experience is existent through/derived from in a physical framework.

I presumed when you said a non-mental reality you were referring to a Physicalist's interpretation of what constitutes reality.

what were you referring to if not that?

By non-mental reality, I meant non-mental reality i.e., reality independent of mind.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:24:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb for deciding between competing hypothesis when restricted to limited data. The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

How, precisely, is it oxymoronic? Further, if it IS oxymoronic, then by equating them and claiming there's no difference and so they are the same, you've just invalidated the mental reality--though I'm sure you don't accept that.


Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".

Basically, you can't make a meaningful assumption either way. It's redundant.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:32:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:19:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:18:20 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:03:41 PM, mortsdor wrote:
The notion of a non-metal reality is oxymoronic, and can therefore be safely eliminated from our view of reality.

Naturalistic physicalists don't posit a "non-mental reality" they posit that mental experience is existent through/derived from in a physical framework.

I presumed when you said a non-mental reality you were referring to a Physicalist's interpretation of what constitutes reality.

what were you referring to if not that?

By non-mental reality, I meant non-mental reality i.e., reality independent of mind.

yeah, I know I presumed you were talking about the obvious Physical framework that we're all familiar with :P

is there a positive name for the 'reality' you were referring to?
( that is as opposed to being a negation of "the mental" )

anyways, the point is that one needn't have mental phenomena as some kind of root, indivisible, irreducible phenomena.. one needn't suggest mental phenomena have special claim to describing the nature of reality in order to account for it.

No-one's positing a reality which ignores mental phenomena, rather people posit that physical reality encompasses the mental.

What are you using occam's razor to discount?

Non-mental reality? what do you mean by non mental reality?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).

Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:46:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).


Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.

The point is that "non-mental reality" is either mental and therefore oxymoronic, or semantically meaningless and not even something that needs to be considered.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:48:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality

"non-mental reality" isn't much of a theory of reality unless it's got some positive content.

physicalism is a theory of reality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).


Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.

Do you understand now?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:03:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:46:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).


Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.

The point is that "non-mental reality" is either mental and therefore oxymoronic, or semantically meaningless and not even something that needs to be considered.

"Non-mental reality" is the label we apply--it is only MENTAL inasmuch as we are discussing it, and in order for us to discuss it requires our minds, but its definition is such that it exists independently of mind.

If a rock exists even if no mind perceives it, yes, for us to talk about the rock that exists requires a mind, but that doesn't somehow make the rock's existence oxymoronic. It just means that without our minds we wouldn't be talking about it. But the rock's existence would be still be a brute fact--albeit a fact not perceived.

The map is not necessarily the territory, nor is it necessarily isomorphic to the territory.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:02:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).


Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.

Do you understand now?

No. Because you haven't estalished what you think you've established. You've merely established that to talk about something non-mental requires the mental. That does not make the non-mental impossible--it makes talking about the nonmental without the mental impossible.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:08:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
dylan, by and large (though not expressly here), you have defended the fact that the mental map WE have does not match the reality we experience (that we can get hit by a train regardless of whether we believe in the train or not) by arguing for either the "mass minds" notion, or the "overmind" notion of god.

What's simpler in terms of Occam's Razor: That reality exists independently of any mind, and thus affects the mind whether it perceives it or not, or that there's an overmind keeping things consistent, so that it affects the mind whether it perceives it or not? We see a reality, so option 2 requires EXTRA assumptions, and therefore runs afoul of the razor.

Which doesn't make it necessarily TRUE--that which has more assumptions may well be true. But you're the one who appealed to Occam.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:03:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:46:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).


Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.

The point is that "non-mental reality" is either mental and therefore oxymoronic, or semantically meaningless and not even something that needs to be considered.

"Non-mental reality" is the label we apply--it is only MENTAL inasmuch as we are discussing it, and in order for us to discuss it requires our minds, but its definition is such that it exists independently of mind.

It only exists independently of mind qua mind. It has no identifiable existence outside of mind.


If a rock exists even if no mind perceives it, yes, for us to talk about the rock that exists requires a mind, but that doesn't somehow make the rock's existence oxymoronic. It just means that without our minds we wouldn't be talking about it. But the rock's existence would be still be a brute fact--albeit a fact not perceived.

Noumenon (things-in-themsleves) are oxymoronic; they amount to "inconceivable concepts". Talking about a rock as "independent of mind" only means that "we are conceiving of a rock which is not being conceived", which means it's fundamentally conceptual.

The map is not necessarily the territory, nor is it necessarily isomorphic to the territory.

Do you mean the terrain? In this case, the map cannot be meaningfully distinguished from the terrain.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:05:13 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 2:02:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:44:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:43:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:33:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:28:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:09:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:03:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:26:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:57:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:



Something "non-mental" is, at a fundamental level, mental - otherwise "it" is utterly unidentifiable. These arguments are nothing more than a recognition of what has been true all along. What do you mean by "invalidate the mental reality". I assert that reality is mental, and that what is ordinarily meant by "mental" is simply one aspect of it.

I understand that. But you assert that it's indistinguishable from that NOT being the case, then proceed to distinguish. You JUST said: "it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless".


In other words, you can't make an assumption when there is only one option available to you. It's not an assumption then, since there is no conceivable alternative.

That is not what you argued in your OP. What you argued in your OP was that the two conditions were indistinguishable, and therefore synonymous. Yet here, you're clearly distinguishing between them. That's inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is that there aren't two conceivable choices, since the distinction between "mental reality" and "non-mental reality" is the same distinction between "conceivable" and "inconceivable". The two conditions are indistinguishable assuming they are both meaningful (and it's implied that they are both meaningful since they are both theories of reality).


Except now you're saying one is oxymoronic--and therefore not meaningful.

Do you understand now?

No. Because you haven't estalished what you think you've established. You've merely established that to talk about something non-mental requires the mental. That does not make the non-mental impossible--it makes talking about the nonmental without the mental impossible.

It's actually more fundamental than that: something must be mental in order to be identifiable. One cannot even say that the non-mental is possible, for what they're referring to is either metal or meaningless.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:14:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:10:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It only exists independently of mind qua mind. It has no identifiable existence outside of mind.

Well, that depends on your definition of "identifiable". Two non-minds can interact and affect each other. But if "identification" requires mind, then sure, that's a tautology, and it's not useful to the discussion.

If a rock exists even if no mind perceives it, yes, for us to talk about the rock that exists requires a mind, but that doesn't somehow make the rock's existence oxymoronic. It just means that without our minds we wouldn't be talking about it. But the rock's existence would be still be a brute fact--albeit a fact not perceived.

Noumenon (things-in-themsleves) are oxymoronic; they amount to "inconceivable concepts". Talking about a rock as "independent of mind" only means that "we are conceiving of a rock which is not being conceived", which means it's fundamentally conceptual.

Only because we're talking about it. The Universe existed and interacted for billions of years before humans. You want to require a mind to "oversee" that in order for it to have meaning, but there's no necessity for that.

The map is not necessarily the territory, nor is it necessarily isomorphic to the territory.

Do you mean the terrain? In this case, the map cannot be meaningfully distinguished from the terrain.

Actually, I meant to quote Korzybski in hopes you'd get the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:20:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:14:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 2:10:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It only exists independently of mind qua mind. It has no identifiable existence outside of mind.

Well, that depends on your definition of "identifiable". Two non-minds can interact and affect each other. But if "identification" requires mind, then sure, that's a tautology, and it's not useful to the discussion.

What is a non-mind? I'm having quite a hard time conceiving of what you're even talking about.


If a rock exists even if no mind perceives it, yes, for us to talk about the rock that exists requires a mind, but that doesn't somehow make the rock's existence oxymoronic. It just means that without our minds we wouldn't be talking about it. But the rock's existence would be still be a brute fact--albeit a fact not perceived.

Noumenon (things-in-themsleves) are oxymoronic; they amount to "inconceivable concepts". Talking about a rock as "independent of mind" only means that "we are conceiving of a rock which is not being conceived", which means it's fundamentally conceptual.

Only because we're talking about it. The Universe existed and interacted for billions of years before humans. You want to require a mind to "oversee" that in order for it to have meaning, but there's no necessity for that.

They have no conceivable existence outside of mind. Interaction (information processing) amounts to a generalized form of cognition.


The map is not necessarily the territory, nor is it necessarily isomorphic to the territory.

Do you mean the terrain? In this case, the map cannot be meaningfully distinguished from the terrain.

Actually, I meant to quote Korzybski in hopes you'd get the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:32:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:20:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/7/2014 2:14:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/7/2014 2:10:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It only exists independently of mind qua mind. It has no identifiable existence outside of mind.

Well, that depends on your definition of "identifiable". Two non-minds can interact and affect each other. But if "identification" requires mind, then sure, that's a tautology, and it's not useful to the discussion.


What is a non-mind? I'm having quite a hard time conceiving of what you're even talking about.

Two rocks hit each other.

A tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it.

I am having a difficult time accepting that you don't know, or can't conceive, what I'm talking about.

If a rock exists even if no mind perceives it, yes, for us to talk about the rock that exists requires a mind, but that doesn't somehow make the rock's existence oxymoronic. It just means that without our minds we wouldn't be talking about it. But the rock's existence would be still be a brute fact--albeit a fact not perceived.

Noumenon (things-in-themsleves) are oxymoronic; they amount to "inconceivable concepts". Talking about a rock as "independent of mind" only means that "we are conceiving of a rock which is not being conceived", which means it's fundamentally conceptual.

Only because we're talking about it. The Universe existed and interacted for billions of years before humans. You want to require a mind to "oversee" that in order for it to have meaning, but there's no necessity for that.

They have no conceivable existence outside of mind. Interaction (information processing) amounts to a generalized form of cognition.

No, it does not.

The map is not necessarily the territory, nor is it necessarily isomorphic to the territory.

Do you mean the terrain? In this case, the map cannot be meaningfully distinguished from the terrain.

Actually, I meant to quote Korzybski in hopes you'd get the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!