Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Invalid Inference

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:59:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Again?

https://www.phy.duke.edu...
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 1:22:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:59:53 AM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Again?

https://www.phy.duke.edu...

I'm not a Solipsist, I'm an Idealist, so this link taking about Solipsism is irrelevant.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 1:22:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:59:53 AM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Again?

https://www.phy.duke.edu...

talking*
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 11:01:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory ladies and gentlemen.

Our perception, sensations, awareness, consciousness, thoughts and ideas are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us think there is actually something they are about. Our experience is a lie, there are no objects of perception, a sensation is not a sensation "of something", awareness is not awareness "of something", to be conscious is not to be conscious "of something", nope, our entire experience of reality is a giant lie. The real truth is that there is deceptive great mind out there tricking us into thinking that we are aware, conscious beings interacting with an environment in which we exist, but none of that is true, none of what we experience actually exists, no, the great mind is pulling the strings, everything is a lie, reality is not what you think it is.

Sure, what we mentally experience is a "self" interacting with our environment, what we are conscious of is experienced as perception of a physical reality, science tells us that we are a biological organism interacting with a physical reality that is the environment in which we exist. Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience all concur on that, the whole of science is based on the fact that there is a physical reality to study, and there is a ton of corroborating evidence and a ton of explanatory theories to that effect. But that"s just what the great mind wants you to believe, the deceptive great mind is behind it all pulling the strings, we are just puppets, the great mind controls your thoughts, the great mind controls everything, everything we think we know, everything we think we experience, it is all a lie.

WOW, WOW, WOW, it is the best conspiracy theory ever, the ultimate conspiracy theory, Donald Trump's got nothing on you LOL.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:06:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 1:22:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I'm not a Solipsist, I'm an Idealist, so this link taking about Solipsism is irrelevant.

You can call a duck a two legged aquatic bird all you want, even if you're telling the truth it's still a duck.

You can call a person who just started a thread with multiple paragraphs defending solipsism an idealist if you want, even if you're telling the truth they're still a solipsist.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:24:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 11:01:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory ladies and gentlemen.

There's no conspiracy, again with the straw-men.


Our perception, sensations, awareness, consciousness, thoughts and ideas are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us think there is actually something they are about.

There is something they are about.

Our experience is a lie, there are no objects of perception, a sensation is not a sensation "of something", awareness is not awareness "of something", to be conscious is not to be conscious "of something", nope, our entire experience of reality is a giant lie.

There are objects of perception, a sensation is a sensation of something, and to be conscious is to be conscious of something. Again, if misrepresentation is all you can come up with it would be nice if you could go back to the drawing board. Objects of perception exist but they are mental in nature, like how you can perceive a chair in a dream but that chair is mental.

The real truth is that there is deceptive great mind out there tricking us into thinking that we are aware, conscious beings interacting with an environment in which we exist, but none of that is true, none of what we experience actually exists, no, the great mind is pulling the strings, everything is a lie, reality is not what you think it is.

It's no more of a "trick" than thing a dream is, at least this view doesn't make up categories of reality (like non-mentality). There is no evidence that empirical reality is non-mental in nature. It's just something you assume.


Sure, what we mentally experience is a "self" interacting with our environment, what we are conscious of is experienced as perception of a physical reality, science tells us that we are a biological organism interacting with a physical reality that is the environment in which we exist.

Yes we interact worth an environment we call a physical reality, but this reality reduces to mental properties in my view... I am not saying it doesn't exist.

Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience all concur on that, the whole of science is based on the fact that there is a physical reality to study, and there is a ton of corroborating evidence and a ton of explanatory theories to that effect

Nonsense. There is an empirical reality that we study, but if by physical you mean non-mental then there is no evidence of such a reality and it would be unscientific to assume reality is non-mental. The father of quantum theory had Idealistic views and so do many biologists and scientists and other fields today.

But that"s just what the great mind wants you to believe, the deceptive great mind is behind it all pulling the strings, we are just puppets, the great mind controls your thoughts, the great mind controls everything, everything we think we know, everything we think we experience, it is all a lie.

The great mind controls our thoughts? Where do you some up with these shameless straw-men?


WOW, WOW, WOW, it is the best conspiracy theory ever, the ultimate conspiracy theory, Donald Trump's got nothing on you LOL.

And the award for the worst misrepresentation of a position ever goes to....You guessed it, Sidewalker!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:06:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/11/2016 1:22:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I'm not a Solipsist, I'm an Idealist, so this link taking about Solipsism is irrelevant.

You can call a duck a two legged aquatic bird all you want, even if you're telling the truth it's still a duck.

You can call a person who just started a thread with multiple paragraphs defending solipsism an idealist if you want, even if you're telling the truth they're still a solipsist.

You should read better, I defended the view of a mental reality shared from different perspectives. If there are different perspectives, then there is more than one mind. If Solipsism is true then only my mind would exist (only one perspective). Therefore, the view I outlined is not Solipsism. Learn your definitions, then come back.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.
Well then it's safe to conclude , in regards to your argument, you must be dreaming.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:48:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Quick question, aren't those other people you see, part of this mind view? After all, if the chair and the tree aren't real, why should the people be real? Why would your perceptions of your own body be real?

You could be just a brain in a jar.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 12:55:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/11/2016 11:01:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory ladies and gentlemen.

Our perception, sensations, awareness, consciousness, thoughts and ideas are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us think there is actually something they are about. Our experience is a lie, there are no objects of perception, a sensation is not a sensation "of something", awareness is not awareness "of something", to be conscious is not to be conscious "of something", nope, our entire experience of reality is a giant lie. The real truth is that there is deceptive great mind out there tricking us into thinking that we are aware, conscious beings interacting with an environment in which we exist, but none of that is true, none of what we experience actually exists, no, the great mind is pulling the strings, everything is a lie, reality is not what you think it is.

Sure, what we mentally experience is a "self" interacting with our environment, what we are conscious of is experienced as perception of a physical reality, science tells us that we are a biological organism interacting with a physical reality that is the environment in which we exist. Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience all concur on that, the whole of science is based on the fact that there is a physical reality to study, and there is a ton of corroborating evidence and a ton of explanatory theories to that effect. But that"s just what the great mind wants you to believe, the deceptive great mind is behind it all pulling the strings, we are just puppets, the great mind controls your thoughts, the great mind controls everything, everything we think we know, everything we think we experience, it is all a lie.

WOW, WOW, WOW, it is the best conspiracy theory ever, the ultimate conspiracy theory, Donald Trump's got nothing on you LOL.

A combination of the Matrix and The Truman Show. Far fetched I'll agree, but he has a point. At some point we have to take it on faith that a world exists outside of the mind view we percieve. There is no proof that any sensation we experience is actually linked to a sense organ except through another sense organ.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:02:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/12/2016 12:21:32 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.
Well then it's safe to conclude , in regards to your argument, you must be dreaming.

We all are ;)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/12/2016 12:48:13 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Quick question, aren't those other people you see, part of this mind view?

Yes.

After all, if the chair and the tree aren't real, why should the people be real?

I never said the chair isn't real, just that it is more reasonable to assume it is mental. Mental doesn't mean not real. In my view, mind is the only reality.

Why would your perceptions of your own body be real?


You could be just a brain in a jar.

Me being the only mind seems inconsistent. I see other bodies moving like mine moves and my body is driven by mind. What makes me so special? Of course, solipsism could be true, but seems inconsistent with observation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:16:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/12/2016 12:55:52 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 11:01:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory ladies and gentlemen.

Our perception, sensations, awareness, consciousness, thoughts and ideas are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us think there is actually something they are about. Our experience is a lie, there are no objects of perception, a sensation is not a sensation "of something", awareness is not awareness "of something", to be conscious is not to be conscious "of something", nope, our entire experience of reality is a giant lie. The real truth is that there is deceptive great mind out there tricking us into thinking that we are aware, conscious beings interacting with an environment in which we exist, but none of that is true, none of what we experience actually exists, no, the great mind is pulling the strings, everything is a lie, reality is not what you think it is.

Sure, what we mentally experience is a "self" interacting with our environment, what we are conscious of is experienced as perception of a physical reality, science tells us that we are a biological organism interacting with a physical reality that is the environment in which we exist. Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience all concur on that, the whole of science is based on the fact that there is a physical reality to study, and there is a ton of corroborating evidence and a ton of explanatory theories to that effect. But that"s just what the great mind wants you to believe, the deceptive great mind is behind it all pulling the strings, we are just puppets, the great mind controls your thoughts, the great mind controls everything, everything we think we know, everything we think we experience, it is all a lie.

WOW, WOW, WOW, it is the best conspiracy theory ever, the ultimate conspiracy theory, Donald Trump's got nothing on you LOL.

A combination of the Matrix and The Truman Show.

The Matrix? Sure. Truman Show? No, as I'm not saying it's all about me... I believe in other minds.

Far fetched I'll agree, but he has a point. At some point we have to take it on faith that a world exists outside of the mind view we percieve. There is no proof that any sensation we experience is actually linked to a sense organ except through another sense organ.

I just think that there is no reason to make up a whole new category of reality to explain experience. This is all a collectively shared mental reality from different perspectives. No need for the made up "non-mental" category. It's a simpler worldview with less assumptions.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 7:26:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:16:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 12:55:52 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 11:01:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory ladies and gentlemen.

Our perception, sensations, awareness, consciousness, thoughts and ideas are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us think there is actually something they are about. Our experience is a lie, there are no objects of perception, a sensation is not a sensation "of something", awareness is not awareness "of something", to be conscious is not to be conscious "of something", nope, our entire experience of reality is a giant lie. The real truth is that there is deceptive great mind out there tricking us into thinking that we are aware, conscious beings interacting with an environment in which we exist, but none of that is true, none of what we experience actually exists, no, the great mind is pulling the strings, everything is a lie, reality is not what you think it is.

Sure, what we mentally experience is a "self" interacting with our environment, what we are conscious of is experienced as perception of a physical reality, science tells us that we are a biological organism interacting with a physical reality that is the environment in which we exist. Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience all concur on that, the whole of science is based on the fact that there is a physical reality to study, and there is a ton of corroborating evidence and a ton of explanatory theories to that effect. But that"s just what the great mind wants you to believe, the deceptive great mind is behind it all pulling the strings, we are just puppets, the great mind controls your thoughts, the great mind controls everything, everything we think we know, everything we think we experience, it is all a lie.

WOW, WOW, WOW, it is the best conspiracy theory ever, the ultimate conspiracy theory, Donald Trump's got nothing on you LOL.

A combination of the Matrix and The Truman Show.

The Matrix? Sure. Truman Show? No, as I'm not saying it's all about me... I believe in other minds.

Far fetched I'll agree, but he has a point. At some point we have to take it on faith that a world exists outside of the mind view we percieve. There is no proof that any sensation we experience is actually linked to a sense organ except through another sense organ.

I just think that there is no reason to make up a whole new category of reality to explain experience. This is all a collectively shared mental reality from different perspectives. No need for the made up "non-mental" category. It's a simpler worldview with less assumptions.

It could just as easily go the other way. Colors are a sensation which only exist in our mind view. So perhaps it's our mind view that is not a true reflection of reality.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 9:54:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Our minds can only dream up or imagine things that are composed of our experiences with empirical reality. If reality is derivative from God's mind, and if there's no reality external to God's mind, where did the informational content come from in order for God to establish our reality?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 7:26:25 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 12:55:52 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/11/2016 11:01:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory ladies and gentlemen.

Our perception, sensations, awareness, consciousness, thoughts and ideas are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us think there is actually something they are about. Our experience is a lie, there are no objects of perception, a sensation is not a sensation "of something", awareness is not awareness "of something", to be conscious is not to be conscious "of something", nope, our entire experience of reality is a giant lie. The real truth is that there is deceptive great mind out there tricking us into thinking that we are aware, conscious beings interacting with an environment in which we exist, but none of that is true, none of what we experience actually exists, no, the great mind is pulling the strings, everything is a lie, reality is not what you think it is.

Sure, what we mentally experience is a "self" interacting with our environment, what we are conscious of is experienced as perception of a physical reality, science tells us that we are a biological organism interacting with a physical reality that is the environment in which we exist. Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience all concur on that, the whole of science is based on the fact that there is a physical reality to study, and there is a ton of corroborating evidence and a ton of explanatory theories to that effect. But that"s just what the great mind wants you to believe, the deceptive great mind is behind it all pulling the strings, we are just puppets, the great mind controls your thoughts, the great mind controls everything, everything we think we know, everything we think we experience, it is all a lie.

WOW, WOW, WOW, it is the best conspiracy theory ever, the ultimate conspiracy theory, Donald Trump's got nothing on you LOL.

A combination of the Matrix and The Truman Show.

The Matrix? Sure. Truman Show? No, as I'm not saying it's all about me... I believe in other minds.

Far fetched I'll agree, but he has a point. At some point we have to take it on faith that a world exists outside of the mind view we percieve. There is no proof that any sensation we experience is actually linked to a sense organ except through another sense organ.

I just think that there is no reason to make up a whole new category of reality to explain experience. This is all a collectively shared mental reality from different perspectives. No need for the made up "non-mental" category. It's a simpler worldview with less assumptions.

It could just as easily go the other way. Colors are a sensation which only exist in our mind view. So perhaps it's our mind view that is not a true reflection of reality.

It's not just as easy, because mentality cannot be doubted coherently because doubt itself is a mental state and presupposes mentality. Mentality/ consciousness cannot be an illusion because an illusion requires perception (which presupposes mentality/consciousness). If we know anything, we know that mentality exists (as knowledge is mental).

So if we are to form a worldview it makes more sense to base it on a category we know 100% has to exist. This is why Idealism is more of a safe bet with regards to being true. Non-mentality is something that can be doubted, and there is no good inference to posit its existence. If there is no good reason to believe in a certain category, then it is irrational to believe in it.

So it's not just as easy to base reality in non-mentality because we don't even know if non-mentality exists! Mentality however, exists undoubtably.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 9:55:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 9:54:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our minds can only dream up or imagine things that are composed of our experiences with empirical reality. If reality is derivative from God's mind, and if there's no reality external to God's mind, where did the informational content come from in order for God to establish our reality?

We need to distinguish the difference between the main dream and sub-dreams. What we call dreams when we sleep are really sub-dreams and empirical reality is the main dream that we all collectively share from different perspectives. Sub-dreams are based on empirical reality but there is no reason to assume the main dream has to be based on anything else (as it is the main dream, after all). I think John Lennon puts it really well:

"A dream we dream alone is only a dream, a dream we dream together is reality."

I'm not saying the dream we experience in sleep is the same in every way as empirical reality, so the idea that empirical reality has to be based on something more because the dreams when we sleep are is dubious at best. There are many differences, for one, empirical reality is more stable and consistent than dreams when we sleep, and dreams that we experience when sleeping are private, while empirical reality is collectively shared from different perspectives.

The main point is that objects in hallucinations and dreams are mental, so why assume empirical reality is non-mental? Especially when there are many cases when there is no way to distinguish a difference between mental and non-mental, there is no valid inference towards the notion that anything is non-mental!
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 3:17:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 9:55:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:54:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our minds can only dream up or imagine things that are composed of our experiences with empirical reality. If reality is derivative from God's mind, and if there's no reality external to God's mind, where did the informational content come from in order for God to establish our reality?

We need to distinguish the difference between the main dream and sub-dreams. What we call dreams when we sleep are really sub-dreams and empirical reality is the main dream that we all collectively share from different perspectives. Sub-dreams are based on empirical reality but there is no reason to assume the main dream has to be based on anything else (as it is the main dream, after all). I think John Lennon puts it really well:

"A dream we dream alone is only a dream, a dream we dream together is reality."


I'm not saying the dream we experience in sleep is the same in every way as empirical reality, so the idea that empirical reality has to be based on something more because the dreams when we sleep are is dubious at best. There are many differences, for one, empirical reality is more stable and consistent than dreams when we sleep, and dreams that we experience when sleeping are private, while empirical reality is collectively shared from different perspectives.

The main point is that objects in hallucinations and dreams are mental, so why assume empirical reality is non-mental? Especially when there are many cases when there is no way to distinguish a difference between mental and non-mental, there is no valid inference towards the notion that anything is non-mental!

Lol, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, what color is the tree?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 3:31:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.
1) Which came first, the tree or the word tree?
2) Which came first, a mind or the word mind?
3) Which came first, a mind or a mind that possessed a language?
4) Define "beyond mind as a whole"
5) Give an example of something that exists in a non mental reality.
6) Give an example of a mental reality and then explain what happens when "a mental agent" is removed but everything else in the reality stays in place.
7) Is there anything in the universe that a mind has not yet discovered?
8) Are your fingers a part of your mind or are they outside the mind?
9) if fingers are inside the mind, can you see your fingers with your eyes?
10) are your eyes inside the mind or outside the mind?
11) can your eyes see inside the mind? If not, can they see outside of it?
12) is a tree inside your eyes or outside your eyes?
13) can your eyes see inside your eyes without using a tool for reflection.
14) if we are all experiencing the same dream, then why didn't I dream the song "Billy Jean" when Michael Jackson experienced it?
Why isn't your argument an invalid inference about an invalid inference? Prove that invalid inferences results in an inaccurate reflection of reality.
Btw, the phrase believe in a reality contradicts the definition of reality. Reality is that which corresponds to what is, not what is to you. Hence, one doesn't believe in a reality one merely interprets reality and then believes what they have interpreted as being accurate base on a collective discussion by others that interpret reality too.
.
Is it possible to know what is? If not, then why isn't it impossible to know it's not possible to know what is?
Btw, I have no idea why I bothered ask9ng these questions while awake, I could have just been dreaming I typed them I guess.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:40:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 3:17:14 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/13/2016 9:55:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:54:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our minds can only dream up or imagine things that are composed of our experiences with empirical reality. If reality is derivative from God's mind, and if there's no reality external to God's mind, where did the informational content come from in order for God to establish our reality?

We need to distinguish the difference between the main dream and sub-dreams. What we call dreams when we sleep are really sub-dreams and empirical reality is the main dream that we all collectively share from different perspectives. Sub-dreams are based on empirical reality but there is no reason to assume the main dream has to be based on anything else (as it is the main dream, after all). I think John Lennon puts it really well:

"A dream we dream alone is only a dream, a dream we dream together is reality."


I'm not saying the dream we experience in sleep is the same in every way as empirical reality, so the idea that empirical reality has to be based on something more because the dreams when we sleep are is dubious at best. There are many differences, for one, empirical reality is more stable and consistent than dreams when we sleep, and dreams that we experience when sleeping are private, while empirical reality is collectively shared from different perspectives.

The main point is that objects in hallucinations and dreams are mental, so why assume empirical reality is non-mental? Especially when there are many cases when there is no way to distinguish a difference between mental and non-mental, there is no valid inference towards the notion that anything is non-mental!

Lol, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, what color is the tree?

What does this have to do with anything?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 8:27:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 3:31:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.
1) Which came first, the tree or the word tree?
2) Which came first, a mind or the word mind?
3) Which came first, a mind or a mind that possessed a language?
4) Define "beyond mind as a whole"
5) Give an example of something that exists in a non mental reality.
6) Give an example of a mental reality and then explain what happens when "a mental agent" is removed but everything else in the reality stays in place.
7) Is there anything in the universe that a mind has not yet discovered?
8) Are your fingers a part of your mind or are they outside the mind?
9) if fingers are inside the mind, can you see your fingers with your eyes?
10) are your eyes inside the mind or outside the mind?
11) can your eyes see inside the mind? If not, can they see outside of it?
12) is a tree inside your eyes or outside your eyes?
13) can your eyes see inside your eyes without using a tool for reflection.
14) if we are all experiencing the same dream, then why didn't I dream the song "Billy Jean" when Michael Jackson experienced it?
Why isn't your argument an invalid inference about an invalid inference? Prove that invalid inferences results in an inaccurate reflection of reality.
Btw, the phrase believe in a reality contradicts the definition of reality. Reality is that which corresponds to what is, not what is to you. Hence, one doesn't believe in a reality one merely interprets reality and then believes what they have interpreted as being accurate base on a collective discussion by others that interpret reality too.
.
Is it possible to know what is? If not, then why isn't it impossible to know it's not possible to know what is?
Btw, I have no idea why I bothered ask9ng these questions while awake, I could have just been dreaming I typed them I guess.

I guess the point is that a objective reality exists outside of our perceptions, but we can only percieve what our senses detect. Like the visible light spectrum which is only a small piece of the full spectrum of light. Given, our minds are the most evolved and therefore give us a more accurate representation of this objective reality than any other living creature, it is still only a creation of the mind. Unable to percieve more we must accept this representation is our reality. Nerves send electrical impulses from our sense organs and our brains interpret these impulses into sounds, shapes, colors, smells, etc. Does my brain interpret things the same way yours does? We can't answer that question. So my reality and yours may vary dramatically. But your perception of reality is the only one you have or will ever know.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 8:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:40:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 3:17:14 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/13/2016 9:55:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:54:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our minds can only dream up or imagine things that are composed of our experiences with empirical reality. If reality is derivative from God's mind, and if there's no reality external to God's mind, where did the informational content come from in order for God to establish our reality?

We need to distinguish the difference between the main dream and sub-dreams. What we call dreams when we sleep are really sub-dreams and empirical reality is the main dream that we all collectively share from different perspectives. Sub-dreams are based on empirical reality but there is no reason to assume the main dream has to be based on anything else (as it is the main dream, after all). I think John Lennon puts it really well:

"A dream we dream alone is only a dream, a dream we dream together is reality."


I'm not saying the dream we experience in sleep is the same in every way as empirical reality, so the idea that empirical reality has to be based on something more because the dreams when we sleep are is dubious at best. There are many differences, for one, empirical reality is more stable and consistent than dreams when we sleep, and dreams that we experience when sleeping are private, while empirical reality is collectively shared from different perspectives.

The main point is that objects in hallucinations and dreams are mental, so why assume empirical reality is non-mental? Especially when there are many cases when there is no way to distinguish a difference between mental and non-mental, there is no valid inference towards the notion that anything is non-mental!

Lol, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, what color is the tree?

What does this have to do with anything?

Don't worry. It's not aimed at you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 4:11:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 3:31:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Only some of these questions are worth responding to.

1) Which came first, the tree or the word tree?
2) Which came first, a mind or the word mind?
3) Which came first, a mind or a mind that possessed a language?
4) Define "beyond mind as a whole"
5) Give an example of something that exists in a non mental reality.

Most people would say trees and chairs exist non-mentality, but I highly doubt that any non-mental reality exists.

6) Give an example of a mental reality and then explain what happens when "a mental agent" is removed but everything else in the reality stays in place.
7) Is there anything in the universe that a mind has not yet discovered?
8) Are your fingers a part of your mind or are they outside the mind?
9) if fingers are inside the mind, can you see your fingers with your eyes?
10) are your eyes inside the mind or outside the mind?
11) can your eyes see inside the mind? If not, can they see outside of it?
12) is a tree inside your eyes or outside your eyes?
13) can your eyes see inside your eyes without using a tool for reflection.
14) if we are all experiencing the same dream, then why didn't I dream the song "Billy Jean" when Michael Jackson experienced it?

Just because a dream is shared doesn't mean it is shared from the same perspective, I suggest watching the movie Inception.

Why isn't your argument an invalid inference about an invalid inference? Prove that invalid inferences results in an inaccurate reflection of reality.

if there is not a good reason to believe something we shouldn't believe it, even if there is some possibility of it being true.

Btw, the phrase believe in a reality contradicts the definition of reality. Reality is that which corresponds to what is, not what is to you. Hence, one doesn't believe in a reality one merely interprets reality and then believes what they have interpreted as being accurate base on a collective discussion by others that interpret reality too.

Your interpretation leads to belief.

.
Is it possible to know what is? If not, then why isn't it impossible to know it's not possible to know what is?

Huh?

Btw, I have no idea why I bothered ask9ng these questions while awake, I could have just been dreaming I typed them I guess.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 4:16:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 8:27:30 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 3:31:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.
1) Which came first, the tree or the word tree?
2) Which came first, a mind or the word mind?
3) Which came first, a mind or a mind that possessed a language?
4) Define "beyond mind as a whole"
5) Give an example of something that exists in a non mental reality.
6) Give an example of a mental reality and then explain what happens when "a mental agent" is removed but everything else in the reality stays in place.
7) Is there anything in the universe that a mind has not yet discovered?
8) Are your fingers a part of your mind or are they outside the mind?
9) if fingers are inside the mind, can you see your fingers with your eyes?
10) are your eyes inside the mind or outside the mind?
11) can your eyes see inside the mind? If not, can they see outside of it?
12) is a tree inside your eyes or outside your eyes?
13) can your eyes see inside your eyes without using a tool for reflection.
14) if we are all experiencing the same dream, then why didn't I dream the song "Billy Jean" when Michael Jackson experienced it?
Why isn't your argument an invalid inference about an invalid inference? Prove that invalid inferences results in an inaccurate reflection of reality.
Btw, the phrase believe in a reality contradicts the definition of reality. Reality is that which corresponds to what is, not what is to you. Hence, one doesn't believe in a reality one merely interprets reality and then believes what they have interpreted as being accurate base on a collective discussion by others that interpret reality too.
.
Is it possible to know what is? If not, then why isn't it impossible to know it's not possible to know what is?
Btw, I have no idea why I bothered ask9ng these questions while awake, I could have just been dreaming I typed them I guess.

I guess the point is that a objective reality exists outside of our perceptions, but we can only percieve what our senses detect. Like the visible light spectrum which is only a small piece of the full spectrum of light.

Perceptions are only one aspect of mind, so if something exists beyond your perceptions we couldn't infer it existed beyond mind. When you dream you can perceive a monster, but that monster obviously exists within mind.

Given, our minds are the most evolved and therefore give us a more accurate representation of this objective reality than any other living creature, it is still only a creation of the mind. Unable to percieve more we must accept this representation is our reality.

I'm not saying the empirical reality we experience isn't real, just that there is no valid inference to it existing non-mentally.

Nerves send electrical impulses from our sense organs and our brains interpret these impulses into sounds, shapes, colors, smells, etc. Does my brain interpret things the same way yours does? We can't answer that question. So my reality and yours may vary dramatically. But your perception of reality is the only one you have or will ever know.

All I am saying is that there is no good reason to believe the reality we experience exists outside of mentality. We can experience cars and trees in dreams and hallucinations but of course those are mental realities. Just because we share empirical reality from different perspectives doesn't mean it is non-mental. Non-mentality is just a far-fetched abstraction.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 4:24:46 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Well...it's not an inference.

We have non-inferential knowledge on foundationalism. And if one goes by a common-sense epistemological principle like: "If it seems to S that P, then, in the absence of defeaters, S thereby has at least some justification for believing that P ", then you have prima facie reason for believing that are non-mental objects.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:11:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 4:11:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 3:31:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Most people believe in a reality outside of mind based in an invalid inference. They see something like a chair or a tree in front of them and conclude that it must exist independently of mind. However, this is based on an error in reasoning. It confuses their personal psyche with mind as a whole... So while the chair or tree may exist behind the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, it doesn't follow from this that it exists beyond mind as a whole. Dreams and hallucinations are a good example of this because in a dream you can experience chairs and trees but of course they exist within mind (even though they exist beyond the aspect of mind you identity yourself with in the dream). Now, somebody could claim that empirical reality is different because it is more stable, consistent, and shared by multiple people from different perspectives. This is why if you saw a pink bunny in a room and nobody else did you would conclude it was in your mind, but if everyone else saw it you would conclude it was "out there" beyond mind. This inference is dubious however because more stability, consistency and shared access doesn't get you non-mentality...That is an unjustified leap. All it gets you is a more stable and consistent mental reality shared by different people form different points of view. We are all sharing the same dream (this is sort of like the movie Inception in a sense). There is no justification for the fabricated and made up non-mental category; it is superfluous. Since the inferences here regarding a non-mental reality are flawed, then there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality based on them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any valid inference one could make for the existence of a reality outside of mind at all. Not even a proof of a reality outside of mind is needed, merely a reasonable inference; which seems to be beyond reach.

Only some of these questions are worth responding to.


1) Which came first, the tree or the word tree?
2) Which came first, a mind or the word mind?
3) Which came first, a mind or a mind that possessed a language?
4) Define "beyond mind as a whole"
5) Give an example of something that exists in a non mental reality.

Most people would say trees and chairs exist non-mentality, but I highly doubt that any non-mental reality exists.

6) Give an example of a mental reality and then explain what happens when "a mental agent" is removed but everything else in the reality stays in place.
7) Is there anything in the universe that a mind has not yet discovered?
8) Are your fingers a part of your mind or are they outside the mind?
9) if fingers are inside the mind, can you see your fingers with your eyes?
10) are your eyes inside the mind or outside the mind?
11) can your eyes see inside the mind? If not, can they see outside of it?
12) is a tree inside your eyes or outside your eyes?
13) can your eyes see inside your eyes without using a tool for reflection.
14) if we are all experiencing the same dream, then why didn't I dream the song "Billy Jean" when Michael Jackson experienced it?

Just because a dream is shared doesn't mean it is shared from the same perspective, I suggest watching the movie Inception.

Why isn't your argument an invalid inference about an invalid inference? Prove that invalid inferences results in an inaccurate reflection of reality.

if there is not a good reason to believe something we shouldn't believe it, even if there is some possibility of it being true.

Btw, the phrase believe in a reality contradicts the definition of reality. Reality is that which corresponds to what is, not what is to you. Hence, one doesn't believe in a reality one merely interprets reality and then believes what they have interpreted as being accurate base on a collective discussion by others that interpret reality too.

Your interpretation leads to belief.

.
Is it possible to know what is? If not, then why isn't it impossible to know it's not possible to know what is?
reality is what corresponds to what is not what is to you. that is its definition. if you claim the definition of reality is based on an ad populum fallacy and therefore your definition is true, Prove it,
lol dont blame ya i sent it before i reread it.
if it's not possible to know reality, that which is what is. then is it also not possible to not know you do not know reality?

Huh?

Btw, I have no idea why I bothered ask9ng these questions while awake, I could have just been dreaming I typed them I guess.

i will assume you were to afraid to be trapped so that is why you decided what questions are relevant.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:37:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:54:40 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...

This all assumes your foundationalist view of an "internal" domain of knowledge which is independent of any inferential relationship. I don't see any proof for such a Cartesian assumption, and I certainly don't think it can just be taken as obvious since the Kantian overhaul of dogmatic metaphysics in the 18th century.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:47:08 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
What is the function of turning the word "mental" into a kind of transcendental term which must be thinly stretched over any possible proposition in our language? Consider a basic claim, like "There is a tree next to that house." Of course, even though I cited Kant against "internalist" dogmatism, he was the one that proposed appending "I think" to everything, so that it becomes "I think there is a tree next to that house." But his criticism had the opposite logical function. It doesn't mean that we can create a transcendental entity called "mind" and start making dogmatic claims about it. It's the opposite: the scope of our "internal" world of possible claims receives a practical, legislative limit whose main function is to preclude such instances of dogmatic metaphysics.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 6:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 4:24:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Well...it's not an inference.

We have non-inferential knowledge on foundationalism. And if one goes by a common-sense epistemological principle like: "If it seems to S that P, then, in the absence of defeaters, S thereby has at least some justification for believing that P ", then you have prima facie reason for believing that are non-mental objects.

I would deny that it seems as if these objects are non-mental. In order for you to justify the premise that the chair in front of you seems non-mental you would have to give it a property that something mental would most likely not have. This is a futile task however because we know you could have a hallucination/ dream of a chair that indistinguishable from the one you see in front of you. Meaning that any chair in front of you could just as easily seems to have the same properties if it was mental! Therefore, the idea that "it seems non-mental" is absurd, because it could seem the exact same way if it was in fact mental. What about the chair seems non-mental I would ask? Whatever apparently non-mental property you could give it could just as easily exist mentaly. So it's not logical to say it appears more non-mental than mental.

Idealism is the most rational view as it doesn't posit a category of non-mentality. I don't know about you, but I want my worldview to be the safe bet with regards to being true. Since mentality has to exist 100%, then basing realit on it is more likely to be true.