Total Posts:179|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Non-Mental Reality

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Insufficient definition of mind?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.

I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:18:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 1:43:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Insufficient definition of mind?

Producer/ container of thoughts, feelings, perceptions and emotions. We examine our minds when we introspect, we experience mental scenarios when we dream. It should be obvious what a mind is.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.

How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:42:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.


How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I don't believe food is an objective material (non-mental) reality. I see no basis for that initial assumption.


I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.

This begs the question by assuming there is a material (non-mental) world to begin with. Just because you interact with objects on a day to day basis doesn't mean that these objects exist outside of mind.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:50:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:42:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.


How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I don't believe food is an objective material (non-mental) reality. I see no basis for that initial assumption.


I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.

This begs the question by assuming there is a material (non-mental) world to begin with. Just because you interact with objects on a day to day basis doesn't mean that these objects exist outside of mind.

These objects, such as a meal, exist in the objective world, outside of our minds and then when we encounter them they then begin to appear in our minds, The meal exists outside of our mind and when we encounter them it appears in our mind but exists outside of it.

I think you realise this but then you go on to state that the meal exists in Mind at Large, I just don't get how you make that leap.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:57:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:42:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.


How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I don't believe food is an objective material (non-mental) reality. I see no basis for that initial assumption.


I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.

This begs the question by assuming there is a material (non-mental) world to begin with. Just because you interact with objects on a day to day basis doesn't mean that these objects exist outside of mind.

Here is my conversation with Bernado.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com...

I just don't get this style, but it's ok, I can't refute what I don't understand.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:50:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:42:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.


How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I don't believe food is an objective material (non-mental) reality. I see no basis for that initial assumption.


I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.

This begs the question by assuming there is a material (non-mental) world to begin with. Just because you interact with objects on a day to day basis doesn't mean that these objects exist outside of mind.

These objects, such as a meal, exist in the objective world, outside of our minds and then when we encounter them they then begin to appear in our minds, The meal exists outside of our mind and when we encounter them it appears in our mind but exists outside of it.

Even if the meal exists outside of our finite human minds before we interact with it, that doesn't mean it exists outside of mind in general. I would say the meal exists as contents of God's mind, or "mind-at-large".



I think you realise this but then you go on to state that the meal exists in Mind at Large, I just don't get how you make that leap.

There is no reason to think meals are non-mental in the first place. Just because they may exist outside of your mind, that doesn't mean they are non-mental as they could just be part of a larger mind. The point is that you have 0 basis for claim that meals are non-mental.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:41:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Yes. The Higher Self is different from the Subconscious.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:42:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 1:34:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:50:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:42:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.


How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I don't believe food is an objective material (non-mental) reality. I see no basis for that initial assumption.


I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.

This begs the question by assuming there is a material (non-mental) world to begin with. Just because you interact with objects on a day to day basis doesn't mean that these objects exist outside of mind.

These objects, such as a meal, exist in the objective world, outside of our minds and then when we encounter them they then begin to appear in our minds, The meal exists outside of our mind and when we encounter them it appears in our mind but exists outside of it.

Even if the meal exists outside of our finite human minds before we interact with it, that doesn't mean it exists outside of mind in general. I would say the meal exists as contents of God's mind, or "mind-at-large".



I think you realise this but then you go on to state that the meal exists in Mind at Large, I just don't get how you make that leap.

There is no reason to think meals are non-mental in the first place. Just because they may exist outside of your mind, that doesn't mean they are non-mental as they could just be part of a larger mind. The point is that you have 0 basis for claim that meals are non-mental.

As I said, I don't get how you make that leap.

If a meal exists independently from my mind before I interact with it, I don't get how you make the leap to claim it exists in MAL. Why?

I just don't get it, but never mind, I don't want to keep going on about it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 2:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 1:42:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:34:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:50:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:42:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:37:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:23:07 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:07:47 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 8:04:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:55:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:38:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:37:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Debate?

I don't know if I have the time for energy for a full out formal debate at this particular point, but I am willing to discuss the issue in the forums

Imagine yourself some coffee and drink it. Or daydream it. Then you will be sufficient invigorated.

This argument seems to assume than in order for an object that I perceive to be mental, it would either have to be imagined or daydreamed by me directly. I see no reason to grant this assumption. What we call a cup of coffee that leaves me invigorated could just be contents of a higher mind (mind-at-large as Bernardo Kastrup puts it) that our minds interact with.

Essentially, an object I perceive and that causes changes to my consciousness (like a cup of coffee that gives me energy) doesn't have to be imagined by me or daydreamed to be mental.


I will come back to this topic tomorrow, when it's not 2am and I am not on my phone. I would rather just debate it to be honest though.


I had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup recently, and posed a very similar question to him, That reality is not just mental for the very reason that we need to eat when we are hungry, we can not just imagine food and be satisfied, we need to interact with the objective world. His answer wasn't very satisfying, a bit like yours, But no offence, I just can't see how we point to a MAL and then claim that is our coffee or meal.

We can't imagine food and be satisfied but that doesn't mean that needing to eat when we are hungry entails a non-mental reality. Hunger pains are a conscious experience in mind, and it is satisfied when we consume food. In an Idealistic picture, pieces of food are just contents of mind-at-large. So being hungry, eating, and then feeling satisfied equates to aspects of mind interacting with other aspects of mind. There is no need for a non-mental reality in this scenario.


How do you get from food being an objective material reality to being contents of a mind at large.

I don't believe food is an objective material (non-mental) reality. I see no basis for that initial assumption.


I just don't get it? I understand that consciousness is fundamental but just don't understand how we equate the material objective world as being a MAL.

This begs the question by assuming there is a material (non-mental) world to begin with. Just because you interact with objects on a day to day basis doesn't mean that these objects exist outside of mind.

These objects, such as a meal, exist in the objective world, outside of our minds and then when we encounter them they then begin to appear in our minds, The meal exists outside of our mind and when we encounter them it appears in our mind but exists outside of it.

Even if the meal exists outside of our finite human minds before we interact with it, that doesn't mean it exists outside of mind in general. I would say the meal exists as contents of God's mind, or "mind-at-large".



I think you realise this but then you go on to state that the meal exists in Mind at Large, I just don't get how you make that leap.

There is no reason to think meals are non-mental in the first place. Just because they may exist outside of your mind, that doesn't mean they are non-mental as they could just be part of a larger mind. The point is that you have 0 basis for claim that meals are non-mental.


As I said, I don't get how you make that leap.

If a meal exists independently from my mind before I interact with it, I don't get how you make the leap to claim it exists in MAL. Why?

I just don't get it, but never mind, I don't want to keep going on about it.

How do you make the leap from "I experience an object" to "the object I experience doesn't exist within a mind"? That's what this thread is about, your justification for that leap.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:00:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 1:41:09 PM, inferno wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Yes. The Higher Self is different from the Subconscious.

The "subconscious" could just be an obfuscated aspect of consiousness, which is still an aspect of consciousness none the less.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I don't see any reason why we should accept it over dualism or physicalism. It certainly does not seem intuitively true.
Nolite Timere
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:46:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:00:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:09 PM, inferno wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Yes. The Higher Self is different from the Subconscious.

The "subconscious" could just be an obfuscated aspect of consiousness, which is still an aspect of consciousness none the less.

The Higher Self is on a different level of consciousness.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 4:30:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 3:10:40 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I don't see any reason why we should accept it over dualism or physicalism. It certainly does not seem intuitively true.

This thread isn't about reasons to accept Idealism, it's about reasons to accept that a non-mental reality exists. Do you have any arguments in favor of a non-mental reality?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 4:42:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 4:30:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:10:40 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I don't see any reason why we should accept it over dualism or physicalism. It certainly does not seem intuitively true.

This thread isn't about reasons to accept Idealism, it's about reasons to accept that a non-mental reality exists. Do you have any arguments in favor of a non-mental reality?

It is intuitive that this world be more than mental, and there are no reasons to accept that reality is purely mental, therefore we should go with our intuition.

In the same, if a table is is in front of me and my intuition tells me a table is in front of me and I have no reasons to believe a table is not in front of me (for example, if I previously took a drug that can cause hallucinations), then I should believe that a table is really in front of me.
Nolite Timere
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 4:42:20 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2015 4:30:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:10:40 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I don't see any reason why we should accept it over dualism or physicalism. It certainly does not seem intuitively true.

This thread isn't about reasons to accept Idealism, it's about reasons to accept that a non-mental reality exists. Do you have any arguments in favor of a non-mental reality?

It is intuitive that this world be more than mental, and there are no reasons to accept that reality is purely mental, therefore we should go with our intuition.

I disagree. It may be intuitive that an object in front of you exists outside of YOUR mind in some sense, but I don't see how it's an intuitive that an object exists outside of mind in general. Either way, intuition rarey leads to truth when discussing the true nature of reality. Intuition tells us that the whole universe couldn't have been he size of a pea, but that's what The Big Bang states.


In the same, if a table is is in front of me and my intuition tells me a table is in front of me and I have no reasons to believe a table is not in front of me (for example, if I previously took a drug that can cause hallucinations), then I should believe that a table is really in front of me.

Just because you perceive a table doesn't mean the table is non-mental. Remember, I'm not saying that the table doesn't exist, just that we don't have any good reasons to assume the table exists outside of a mind. The table could very well exist, but just be mental. When you dream you can experience a table as well, does that mean the table is outside of mind? Of course not, no amount of object perception can support a non-mental reality it seems to me.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:04:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:18:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Insufficient definition of mind?

Producer/ container of thoughts, feelings, perceptions and emotions. We examine our minds when we introspect, we experience mental scenarios when we dream. It should be obvious what a mind is.

And thoughts and feelings are?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I read an article recently that said, scientist proved reality, on a quantum level, doesn't exist until it is measured. Phenomenons like this one and the quantum zeno effect show a relationship between the mind and reality in a way. I wonder why reality of the mind would allow such a thing to happen. And what does that mean on a macroscopic level? I guess i don't have any arguments. Just more questions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:34:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:04:20 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 11:18:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

Insufficient definition of mind?

Producer/ container of thoughts, feelings, perceptions and emotions. We examine our minds when we introspect, we experience mental scenarios when we dream. It should be obvious what a mind is.

And thoughts and feelings are?

Is English not your first language? I am sorry, but I don't feel like defining basic words for you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:09:53 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I read an article recently that said, scientist proved reality, on a quantum level, doesn't exist until it is measured. Phenomenons like this one and the quantum zeno effect show a relationship between the mind and reality in a way. I wonder why reality of the mind would allow such a thing to happen. And what does that mean on a macroscopic level? I guess i don't have any arguments. Just more questions.

Realism is pretty much dead in Quantum Mechanics (both local and non-local). Reality does not exist until observed. The macro-world is made up of the micro-world so they both would ultimately follow the same rules.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:28:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:52:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:09:53 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I read an article recently that said, scientist proved reality, on a quantum level, doesn't exist until it is measured. Phenomenons like this one and the quantum zeno effect show a relationship between the mind and reality in a way. I wonder why reality of the mind would allow such a thing to happen. And what does that mean on a macroscopic level? I guess i don't have any arguments. Just more questions.

Realism is pretty much dead in Quantum Mechanics (both local and non-local). Reality does not exist until observed. The macro-world is made up of the micro-world so they both would ultimately follow the same rules.

Physics differ on a quantum level than they do on a macroscopic level. So that isn't necessarily true. I think our ability to observe our reality goes beyond what our subconscious observes. But still, if reality doesn't truly exist until observed, why would your observations effect my reality? Things exist in this universe that I have not observed. It kind of rules out the question of a non-mental reality to me.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:37:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:28:16 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:52:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:09:53 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I read an article recently that said, scientist proved reality, on a quantum level, doesn't exist until it is measured. Phenomenons like this one and the quantum zeno effect show a relationship between the mind and reality in a way. I wonder why reality of the mind would allow such a thing to happen. And what does that mean on a macroscopic level? I guess i don't have any arguments. Just more questions.

Realism is pretty much dead in Quantum Mechanics (both local and non-local). Reality does not exist until observed. The macro-world is made up of the micro-world so they both would ultimately follow the same rules.

Physics differ on a quantum level than they do on a macroscopic level. So that isn't necessarily true. I think our ability to observe our reality goes beyond what our subconscious observes. But still, if reality doesn't truly exist until observed, why would your observations effect my reality? Things exist in this universe that I have not observed. It kind of rules out the question of a non-mental reality to me.

what our conscious observes*
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:38:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:28:16 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:52:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:09:53 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:21:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any good arguments for a reality that is not mind or it's contents?

I read an article recently that said, scientist proved reality, on a quantum level, doesn't exist until it is measured. Phenomenons like this one and the quantum zeno effect show a relationship between the mind and reality in a way. I wonder why reality of the mind would allow such a thing to happen. And what does that mean on a macroscopic level? I guess i don't have any arguments. Just more questions.

Realism is pretty much dead in Quantum Mechanics (both local and non-local). Reality does not exist until observed. The macro-world is made up of the micro-world so they both would ultimately follow the same rules.

Physics differ on a quantum level than they do on a macroscopic level. So that isn't necessarily true.

Scientists have managed to put macroscopic objects in quantum superpositions [http://www.newscientist.com...]. Macroscopic objects certainly obey the laws of quantum mechanics.

I think our ability to observe our reality goes beyond what our subconscious observes. But still, if reality doesn't truly exist until observed, why would your observations effect my reality?

Because we all share the same mental reality... We would just be localized states in the sea of mentality.

Things exist in this universe that I have not observed.

Of course, but they are still acknowledged/ observed by someone (a Deity).

It kind of rules out the question of a non-mental reality to me.

I would say science already rules out a mind-independent reality.