Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

is reality derivative of a greater mind?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:53:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reality is fundamentally of the mind. Everything we perceive or can conceive of is mental. Anything we see, smell, taste, touch, hear, or can imagine is a mental process. Does the interaction of mind and reality change the nature of reality? Yes. Quantum mechanics shows us that sentient observation is what shapes the world around us. It's called the observer effect. Would reality exist exactly as it does if no sentient life existed? No. Colors, for example, are a purely mental phenomenon. There are no objective, real colors in the world. Only when a certain wavelength of light bounce off the retina and are processed within the brain do colors exist. So something that we regard as fundamentally "real", like colors, would not be real without consciousness. Everything that is real a product of consciousness. Since reality informs us, and not vice versa, there must be a universal mind that grounds reality. In other words, since we learn new things about reality which continue to exist despite our individual observations, a foundational mind must exist to keep this as part of reality. It continues to exist as a part of reality as a *mental* phenomenon. This is huge. It shows that reality is fundamentally mental. If reality is fundamentally of the mind, a non-contingent mind must exist. If a non-contingent mind exists, God exists.

Reality is also incomprehensibly information-rich. Just think of how many different textures, smells, tastes, shapes, sensations, etc., there are. Consciousness has such a vast array of experiences and knowledge. We spend a significant portion of our lives in education specializing in just one area of knowledge about our reality. Even considering this, our knowledge is imperfect and is constantly evolving. Look at the harmonious order that the universe is in. Such great diversity in all living things. Can there really be no explanation for all of this? No purpose, no plan? Why does anything exist at all?

Science is often used as the explanation. This is misguided. Science tells us how, but not why something exists. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, look at how it works, and conclude that the designer for that object doesn't exist.

It certainly seems like things exist for a reason. Why do we have a heart? Why is the earth tilted on its axis? Why is the moon positioned that exact distance from earth? Why does anything exist for any reason at all? If there's no purpose or plan, then there is no reason at all. Evolution is often cited as an explanation for why things like our vital organs exist. Evolution is an unembodied process devoid of goals, objectives, or intent. A heart cannot exist to aid in the survival of a species or have any other other reason/role to be assigned to it. Isn't that crazy? It's preposterous. We know and teach ourselves - and others - explanations for why things exist even if it's logically impossible for such explanations to be true.

We live in an incomprehensibly delicate universe. The conditions are just perfect for life. If all of this is an accident, nothing has any inherent reason for existing. This means that everything is objectively valueless. Inherently purposeless. Concepts of right and wrong or good and evil are utterly arbitrary. Killing your friends and family doesn't really make you a bad person. Giving to charity and living an honorable and loving life doesn't really make you a good person. Love, compassion, selflessness, honor, courage, humility, parience, etc., are not truly good dispositions. Hatred, cruelty, vengeance, spite, etc., are not truly bad dispositions. There is absolutely no real standard to judge a good human being from a bad one. Why? Because if human beings are just the accidental byproduct of a mindless collision of particles, there can be no such intrinsic ends like "good" and "bad" imposed on us.

Start questioning what a reality derivative of the mind vs a reality not derivative of the mind would look like.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 7:57:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:53:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind. Everything we perceive or can conceive of is mental. Anything we see, smell, taste, touch, hear, or can imagine is a mental process. Does the interaction of mind and reality change the nature of reality? Yes. Quantum mechanics shows us that sentient observation is what shapes the world around us. It's called the observer effect. Would reality exist exactly as it does if no sentient life existed? No. Colors, for example, are a purely mental phenomenon. There are no objective, real colors in the world. Only when a certain wavelength of light bounce off the retina and are processed within the brain do colors exist. So something that we regard as fundamentally "real", like colors, would not be real without consciousness. Everything that is real a product of consciousness. Since reality informs us, and not vice versa, there must be a universal mind that grounds reality. In other words, since we learn new things about reality which continue to exist despite our individual observations, a foundational mind must exist to keep this as part of reality. It continues to exist as a part of reality as a *mental* phenomenon. This is huge. It shows that reality is fundamentally mental. If reality is fundamentally of the mind, a non-contingent mind must exist. If a non-contingent mind exists, God exists.

What exactly is your definition of a "Non- contingent mind" ?
Why must such a mind exist IF reality is fundamentally of the human mind?
Personally I think reality exists in spite of human minds. If no humans existed, reality would simply continue without us just like it does before we are born and after we die.
Therefore reality cannot be a derivative of any mind.
Our experience of reality is subject to our own mind and attitudes.

Reality is also incomprehensibly information-rich. Just think of how many different textures, smells, tastes, shapes, sensations, etc., there are. Consciousness has such a vast array of experiences and knowledge. We spend a significant portion of our lives in education specializing in just one area of knowledge about our reality. Even considering this, our knowledge is imperfect and is constantly evolving. Look at the harmonious order that the universe is in. Such great diversity in all living things. Can there really be no explanation for all of this? No purpose, no plan? Why does anything exist at all?

It exists because the universe is a process of self sustaining energy recycling itself eternally. That energy cannot be created or destroyed but has always existed. We are all part of that existence.

Science is often used as the explanation. This is misguided. Science tells us how, but not why something exists. Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, look at how it works, and conclude that the designer for that object doesn't exist.

Things exist because they are a product of a recycling process in which the old is constantly passing away and being replaced with the new. No possible beginning or end to that cycle can be found due to it being an eternal paradox of infinite regress in which the new always comes from the old.

We live in an incomprehensibly delicate universe. The conditions are just perfect for life. If all of this is an accident, nothing has any inherent reason for existing. This means that everything is objectively valueless. Inherently purposeless. Concepts of right and wrong or good and evil are utterly arbitrary. Killing your friends and family doesn't really make you a bad person. Giving to charity and living an honorable and loving life doesn't really make you a good person. Love, compassion, selflessness, honor, courage, humility, parience, etc., are not truly good dispositions. Hatred, cruelty, vengeance, spite, etc., are not truly bad dispositions. There is absolutely no real standard to judge a good human being from a bad one. Why? Because if human beings are just the accidental byproduct of a mindless collision of particles, there can be no such intrinsic ends like "good" and "bad" imposed on us.

Humans impose morals on themselves through traditions, culture and ones own inner conscience.

Start questioning what a reality derivative of the mind vs a reality not derivative of the mind would look like.

Reality without human minds would be a reality in which no mythical characters exist since nothing but humans create those imaginary characters.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

It wouldn't take much.
Just sayin'.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:24:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Solipsism is not falsifiable. Can I ask if you believe that other's are in possession of a mind or are they a product of your mental reality?

Of course everything we perceive about reality is on a mental basis; how could one possibly detect anything otherwise? Your eyes contain photosensitive cells. Your brain interprets this "data" in the format of what we know as our vision. This is how we detect that reality is there. If reality is a product of our mind, then why do we have physical biological structures that respond to external stimuli?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:57:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:58:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:24:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Solipsism is not falsifiable. Can I ask if you believe that other's are in possession of a mind or are they a product of your mental reality?

Then why posit an unecessary non-mental reality? Using Occam's razor there's no reason for doing so. Reality is an objective mental perception/conception that exists despite our individual perceptions/conceptions of it. Since realty is of the mind, an independent and greater mind must be where reality derives from.

Of course everything we perceive about reality is on a mental basis; how could one possibly detect anything otherwise? Your eyes contain photosensitive cells. Your brain interprets this "data" in the format of what we know as our vision. This is how we detect that reality is there. If reality is a product of our mind, then why do we have physical biological structures that respond to external stimuli?

The "Physical" is mental too. The physical stuff are mental structures that influence our mental perceptions/conceptions. This correspondence in no way infers a non-mental influence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:02:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:57:19 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.

Do physical structures exist as a conception/perception? If so, aren't they mental?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:06:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:02:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:57:19 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.

Do physical structures exist as a conception/perception? If so, aren't they mental?

Once again, perception arises from physical structure. The 'mental' is an emergent property of a physical structure and processes. If awareness and perception cannot exist without physical structure then perception cannot be necessary for that structure to exist. It's like saying that the electricity a generator produces is necessary for the generator to exist. It is self-contradicting and therefore self-evidently incorrect. Your premise is flawed and demonstrably incorrect as well. Your awareness, your perceptions, your 'mentality' is fully dependent on the physical structure of your brain and body. It is not the cause of their existence, it is an effect.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:58:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Solipsism is not falsifiable. Can I ask if you believe that other's are in possession of a mind or are they a product of your mental reality?

Then why posit an unecessary non-mental reality? Using Occam's razor there's no reason for doing so. Reality is an objective mental perception/conception that exists despite our individual perceptions/conceptions of it. Since realty is of the mind, an independent and greater mind must be where reality derives from.

Because that which we accept as evidence suggests otherwise. Two separate minds perceive the same objects and can communicate this. We can find evidence of things that occurred/existed before we were aware of them. To suggest that all of this reality is an illusion and to attribute it to some unknown mind with no evidence makes more assumptions that the idea that there is a physical reality which we perceive through our senses.

If a "greater mind" is where reality derives from, then what is your mind? Are your mind and your existence an illusionary product of said mind?

Of course everything we perceive about reality is on a mental basis; how could one possibly detect anything otherwise? Your eyes contain photosensitive cells. Your brain interprets this "data" in the format of what we know as our vision. This is how we detect that reality is there. If reality is a product of our mind, then why do we have physical biological structures that respond to external stimuli?

The "Physical" is mental too. The physical stuff are mental structures that influence our mental perceptions/conceptions. This correspondence in no way infers a non-mental influence.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Why do we perceive these biological structures? If reality is derived from the mental, why do we have the illusion of eyes and the illusionary evidence of how they function in respect to an external reality?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:06:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:02:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:57:19 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.

Do physical structures exist as a conception/perception? If so, aren't they mental?

Once again, perception arises from physical structure. The 'mental' is an emergent property of a physical structure and processes. If awareness and perception cannot exist without physical structure then perception cannot be necessary for that structure to exist. It's like saying that the electricity a generator produces is necessary for the generator to exist. It is self-contradicting and therefore self-evidently incorrect. Your premise is flawed and demonstrably incorrect as well. Your awareness, your perceptions, your 'mentality' is fully dependent on the physical structure of your brain and body. It is not the cause of their existence, it is an effect.

So, you agree that the "physical" is mental, correct?

The mind is the product of the physical. The physical is mental. The physical exists despite our perceptions of it. Now what's your conclusion? That the physical is non-mental? Well if that's the case, the physical that you conceive of is 100% illusory. The physical can't have mental features if it pre-exists mentality. We can only know of things mentally and mental perceptions demonstrably alter reality (like the existence of color).
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:31:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:10:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:58:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Solipsism is not falsifiable. Can I ask if you believe that other's are in possession of a mind or are they a product of your mental reality?

Then why posit an unecessary non-mental reality? Using Occam's razor there's no reason for doing so. Reality is an objective mental perception/conception that exists despite our individual perceptions/conceptions of it. Since realty is of the mind, an independent and greater mind must be where reality derives from.

Because that which we accept as evidence suggests otherwise. Two separate minds perceive the same objects and can communicate this. We can find evidence of things that occurred/existed before we were aware of them. To suggest that all of this reality is an illusion and to attribute it to some unknown mind with no evidence makes more assumptions that the idea that there is a physical reality which we perceive through our senses.

What we have is a persistent *mental* awareness of such things. The objective reality that we all perceive/conceive of is mental. Our minds don't project reality, they partake in it. So how can reality continue to exist as a mental perception independent of our minds? Well, if reality is "of the mind" and none of our minds yet exist, a mind that grounds reality must exist. Any conceivable thing that continues despite our awareness will always be mental. Reality is only illusory if the mind is emergent from the non-mental. The mental cannot interact with something non-mental by axiom (law of non-contradiction) meaning that if the fundamental realty is non-mental, the one we're perceiving is 100% illusory.

If a "greater mind" is where reality derives from, then what is your mind? Are your mind and your existence an illusionary product of said mind?

No it's not illusory if all that exists is the mental. My mind (a lesser mind) perceives this mental reality that derives from the greater mind.

Of course everything we perceive about reality is on a mental basis; how could one possibly detect anything otherwise? Your eyes contain photosensitive cells. Your brain interprets this "data" in the format of what we know as our vision. This is how we detect that reality is there. If reality is a product of our mind, then why do we have physical biological structures that respond to external stimuli?

The "Physical" is mental too. The physical stuff are mental structures that influence our mental perceptions/conceptions. This correspondence in no way infers a non-mental influence.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Why do we perceive these biological structures? If reality is derived from the mental, why do we have the illusion of eyes and the illusionary evidence of how they function in respect to an external reality?

The functions aren't illusory. They're necessary for perceiving reality in a certain way. These mental structures (the physical) influence the mind. This correspondence, perception, and alteration doesn't infer a non-mental reality at all though. The key question is: does our reliance on physical structures (which are mental) infer that a non-mental reality exists?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:57:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:31:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:10:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:58:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Solipsism is not falsifiable. Can I ask if you believe that other's are in possession of a mind or are they a product of your mental reality?

Then why posit an unecessary non-mental reality? Using Occam's razor there's no reason for doing so. Reality is an objective mental perception/conception that exists despite our individual perceptions/conceptions of it. Since realty is of the mind, an independent and greater mind must be where reality derives from.

Because that which we accept as evidence suggests otherwise. Two separate minds perceive the same objects and can communicate this. We can find evidence of things that occurred/existed before we were aware of them. To suggest that all of this reality is an illusion and to attribute it to some unknown mind with no evidence makes more assumptions that the idea that there is a physical reality which we perceive through our senses.

What we have is a persistent *mental* awareness of such things. The objective reality that we all perceive/conceive of is mental. Our minds don't project reality, they partake in it. So how can reality continue to exist as a mental perception independent of our minds? Well, if reality is "of the mind" and none of our minds yet exist, a mind that grounds reality must exist. Any conceivable thing that continues despite our awareness will always be mental. Reality is only illusory if the mind is emergent from the non-mental. The mental cannot interact with something non-mental by axiom (law of non-contradiction) meaning that if the fundamental realty is non-mental, the one we're perceiving is 100% illusory.

If a "greater mind" is where reality derives from, then what is your mind? Are your mind and your existence an illusionary product of said mind?

No it's not illusory if all that exists is the mental. My mind (a lesser mind) perceives this mental reality that derives from the greater mind.

Your mind is the only one your perceive, so how can you conclude that your mind is not this "greater mind"? You don't perceive any other mental entities, so why isn't this reality a just a project of your mind; why must it be some other entity? You are relying on assumptions in order to make the leap from solipsism to God.

Of course everything we perceive about reality is on a mental basis; how could one possibly detect anything otherwise? Your eyes contain photosensitive cells. Your brain interprets this "data" in the format of what we know as our vision. This is how we detect that reality is there. If reality is a product of our mind, then why do we have physical biological structures that respond to external stimuli?

The "Physical" is mental too. The physical stuff are mental structures that influence our mental perceptions/conceptions. This correspondence in no way infers a non-mental influence.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Why do we perceive these biological structures? If reality is derived from the mental, why do we have the illusion of eyes and the illusionary evidence of how they function in respect to an external reality?

The functions aren't illusory. They're necessary for perceiving reality in a certain way. These mental structures (the physical) influence the mind. This correspondence, perception, and alteration doesn't infer a non-mental reality at all though.
"They're necessary for perceiving reality in a certain way." How so? How does blindness/deafness fit into this? And things like color-blindness?

The key question is: does our reliance on physical structures (which are mental) infer that a non-mental reality exists?

As I noted before, observation and evidence suggest so, for the reasons I gave previously. A rock can be very reliably detected using difference senses and by different entities. It infers that the rock exists external to the perceiving individuals, and therefore, that an external, physical reality exists.

If you suggest that the rock exists outside of the individuals' mental realities, but within another's (the "greater mind"), then what is the difference between mental and physical? "Physical" would end up being that which exists in the "greater mind" but not in the mind of the individuals. It come to the exact same situation, but it's not falsifiable and it has more assumptions.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 6:40:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:14:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:06:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:02:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:57:19 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.

Do physical structures exist as a conception/perception? If so, aren't they mental?

Once again, perception arises from physical structure. The 'mental' is an emergent property of a physical structure and processes. If awareness and perception cannot exist without physical structure then perception cannot be necessary for that structure to exist. It's like saying that the electricity a generator produces is necessary for the generator to exist. It is self-contradicting and therefore self-evidently incorrect. Your premise is flawed and demonstrably incorrect as well. Your awareness, your perceptions, your 'mentality' is fully dependent on the physical structure of your brain and body. It is not the cause of their existence, it is an effect.

So, you agree that the "physical" is mental, correct?

The mind is the product of the physical. The physical is mental. The physical exists despite our perceptions of it. Now what's your conclusion? That the physical is non-mental? Well if that's the case, the physical that you conceive of is 100% illusory. The physical can't have mental features if it pre-exists mentality. We can only know of things mentally and mental perceptions demonstrably alter reality (like the existence of color).

That's an assertion for which you have no evidence. You keep saying it's self evident but it is not and I just explained why. The physical precedes perception so it cannot be contingent upon perception. We perceive reflected light wavelengths and give them names and call them colors but it's simply a chemical reaction on our retina and a signal on the optic nerve we interpret. The light does not depend on whether or not we perceive it. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 6:40:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:14:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:06:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:02:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:57:19 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:52:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.

Do physical structures exist as a conception/perception? If so, aren't they mental?

Once again, perception arises from physical structure. The 'mental' is an emergent property of a physical structure and processes. If awareness and perception cannot exist without physical structure then perception cannot be necessary for that structure to exist. It's like saying that the electricity a generator produces is necessary for the generator to exist. It is self-contradicting and therefore self-evidently incorrect. Your premise is flawed and demonstrably incorrect as well. Your awareness, your perceptions, your 'mentality' is fully dependent on the physical structure of your brain and body. It is not the cause of their existence, it is an effect.

So, you agree that the "physical" is mental, correct?

The mind is the product of the physical. The physical is mental. The physical exists despite our perceptions of it. Now what's your conclusion? That the physical is non-mental? Well if that's the case, the physical that you conceive of is 100% illusory. The physical can't have mental features if it pre-exists mentality. We can only know of things mentally and mental perceptions demonstrably alter reality (like the existence of color).

That's an assertion for which you have no evidence. You keep saying it's self evident but it is not and I just explained why. The physical precedes perception so it cannot be contingent upon perception. We perceive reflected light wavelengths and give them names and call them colors but it's simply a chemical reaction on our retina and a signal on the optic nerve we interpret. The light does not depend on whether or not we perceive it. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The physical can't have mental features if it pre-exists mentality."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 7:58:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:57:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:31:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:10:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:58:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:24:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:14:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 4:00:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/5/2015 3:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:25:46 AM, kp98 wrote:
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Solipsism is not falsifiable. Can I ask if you believe that other's are in possession of a mind or are they a product of your mental reality?

Then why posit an unecessary non-mental reality? Using Occam's razor there's no reason for doing so. Reality is an objective mental perception/conception that exists despite our individual perceptions/conceptions of it. Since realty is of the mind, an independent and greater mind must be where reality derives from.

Because that which we accept as evidence suggests otherwise. Two separate minds perceive the same objects and can communicate this. We can find evidence of things that occurred/existed before we were aware of them. To suggest that all of this reality is an illusion and to attribute it to some unknown mind with no evidence makes more assumptions that the idea that there is a physical reality which we perceive through our senses.

What we have is a persistent *mental* awareness of such things. The objective reality that we all perceive/conceive of is mental. Our minds don't project reality, they partake in it. So how can reality continue to exist as a mental perception independent of our minds? Well, if reality is "of the mind" and none of our minds yet exist, a mind that grounds reality must exist. Any conceivable thing that continues despite our awareness will always be mental. Reality is only illusory if the mind is emergent from the non-mental. The mental cannot interact with something non-mental by axiom (law of non-contradiction) meaning that if the fundamental realty is non-mental, the one we're perceiving is 100% illusory.

If a "greater mind" is where reality derives from, then what is your mind? Are your mind and your existence an illusionary product of said mind?

No it's not illusory if all that exists is the mental. My mind (a lesser mind) perceives this mental reality that derives from the greater mind.

Your mind is the only one your perceive, so how can you conclude that your mind is not this "greater mind"? You don't perceive any other mental entities, so why isn't this reality a just a project of your mind; why must it be some other entity? You are relying on assumptions in order to make the leap from solipsism to God.

Because I observe a mental reality that isn't contingent upon my mind in order to exist. Life carries on when I'm asleep or unconscious. The non-contingent reality is mental, however. If this reality is fundamentally of the mind, but not of the human mind, it's a mind of something all encompassing of reality.


That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Why do we perceive these biological structures? If reality is derived from the mental, why do we have the illusion of eyes and the illusionary evidence of how they function in respect to an external reality?

The functions aren't illusory. They're necessary for perceiving reality in a certain way. These mental structures (the physical) influence the mind. This correspondence, perception, and alteration doesn't infer a non-mental reality at all though.
"They're necessary for perceiving reality in a certain way." How so? How does blindness/deafness fit into this? And things like color-blindness?

The key question is: does our reliance on physical structures (which are mental) infer that a non-mental reality exists?

As I noted before, observation and evidence suggest so, for the reasons I gave previously. A rock can be very reliably detected using difference senses and by different entities. It infers that the rock exists external to the perceiving individuals, and therefore, that an external, physical reality exists.

By "external, physical reality" do you mean non-mental?

If you suggest that the rock exists outside of the individuals' mental realities, but within another's (the "greater mind"), then what is the difference between mental and physical? "Physical" would end up being that which exists in the "greater mind" but not in the mind of the individuals. It come to the exact same situation, but it's not falsifiable and it has more assumptions.

The mental is physical. The physical is mental. In that respect there is 0 difference. The physical is not mind but it is of the mind. Mind is the faculty of consciousness and thought. Whatever is not mind can still be of the mind. A rock isn't a mind because it isn't the faculty of consciousness and thought but it is of the mind (has a certain texture, weight, color, etc.) that our minds perceive or can conceive of.

The physical interacts with our minds because it is mental, but it isn't a projection of, nor contingent upon, our minds. Here's the kicker: if the physical is non-mental, it's impossible for us to have a conceivable/perceivable awareness of it. Why? Because the mental cannot interact with non-mental by law of non-contradiction.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:27:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 7:58:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:57:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Your mind is the only one your perceive, so how can you conclude that your mind is not this "greater mind"? You don't perceive any other mental entities, so why isn't this reality a just a project of your mind; why must it be some other entity? You are relying on assumptions in order to make the leap from solipsism to God.

Because I observe a mental reality that isn't contingent upon my mind in order to exist. Life carries on when I'm asleep or unconscious. The non-contingent reality is mental, however. If this reality is fundamentally of the mind, but not of the human mind, it's a mind of something all encompassing of reality.

How can you know that the reality is not a result of your own mind? If it was, it's been believable enough to convince you that it is real. Perhaps your mind accounts for the periods of unconsciousness that you believe that you are experiencing. There is no way to demonstrate this to be true or false.

As I noted before, observation and evidence suggest so, for the reasons I gave previously. A rock can be very reliably detected using difference senses and by different entities. It infers that the rock exists external to the perceiving individuals, and therefore, that an external, physical reality exists.

By "external, physical reality" do you mean non-mental?

Sure.

If you suggest that the rock exists outside of the individuals' mental realities, but within another's (the "greater mind"), then what is the difference between mental and physical? "Physical" would end up being that which exists in the "greater mind" but not in the mind of the individuals. It come to the exact same situation, but it's not falsifiable and it has more assumptions.

The mental is physical. The physical is mental. In that respect there is 0 difference. The physical is not mind but it is of the mind. Mind is the faculty of consciousness and thought. Whatever is not mind can still be of the mind. A rock isn't a mind because it isn't the faculty of consciousness and thought but it is of the mind (has a certain texture, weight, color, etc.) that our minds perceive or can conceive of.

So there is no means of distinguishing a fully mental reality from a non-mental reality that is perceived by a mental entity. It's all the same from our perspective; we perceive some things and most things exist outside of our perception.

Additionally, things like weight, color, length, shapes are just humans concepts that exist in order to evaluate and catalogue the objects that we perceive in reality. Those are mental, but the matter that is being evaluated in physical.

The physical interacts with our minds because it is mental, but it isn't a projection of, nor contingent upon, our minds. Here's the kicker: if the physical is non-mental, it's impossible for us to have a conceivable/perceivable awareness of it. Why? Because the mental cannot interact with non-mental by law of non-contradiction.

Are you a dualist, then? I have more of a monist stance following my delving into psychology and neurology. Our consciousness is the product of physical processes of the brain. Are you at all familiar with the human eye functions, from the reception of light to the processing and interpretation by the brain? It's quite interesting and it's easy to find info on this on the web.

Can you post a link for that law of non-contradiction?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:27:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

I think the opening premise may be flawed. It is not reality but 'our experience of reality' that is mental. Colours - to choose an example used in the OP - are indeed mental, but the different wavelengths of light that give rise to the experience of different colours is an aspect of an external reality independent of mind - colour is mental, but wavelength is not.

What is "reality" other than a perception/conception? All of our perceptions/conceptions are inherently and irrevocably mental. I can conceive of different wavelengths of light. Perhaps I can even perceive it using certain technologies. Either one renders it to be "of the mind" since my mind is conceiving/perceiving it.

Given I have reservations about the premise I can't accept the conclusion.

Can you give me one example of something that is non-mental?

Ben, you are at it again. As far as you're concerned, everything is mental, even a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away. We cannot observe it directly but we can see its effects on the light of its parent star. If we weren't looking, it would still continue to orbit that star. That said, the planet is not mental, only our perception of it. You keep using this solipsistic argument but cannot demonstrate its validity in any real way.

Is a conception of a planet orbiting a star a thousand light years away not mental? Would a perception of this planet mean that it's not mental?

The error in your logic is making the assumption that since things continue to exist despite our individual perceptions, those things are not of the mind. But it's impossible for us to think about or perceive anything that isn't of the mind. What we have is a persistent MENTAL presence of reality. It is IMPOSSIBLE for *any* aspect of reality to be non-mental because we're aware of reality by an irrevocably mental process. If reality doesn't derive from our mind, then whose could it be other than God's (a greater mind that grounds reality?)

Ben, if I died in the next moment reality would be unaffected. The world would go on just as it has for millions, billions of years. There were no intelligences on this world for a billion or more years yet it came into being and developed from a glowing mass of heated rock into a planet life could survive and thrive on. If there were no intelligence to perceive it, how did all that happen? You constantly want to conflate perception with reality but they are not one and the same. The fact that the world continues while we sleep is the most basic evidence of that.

Reality continues despite or perceptions of it but reality never can be, never has been, and never will be non-mental. This is why, if reality is fundamentally mental, God must exist. If reality is not fundamentally mental, our perceptions of reality are 100% illusory.

Y'know that's actually a good question. How could a glowing heated mass of rock have objective reality if (1) color doesn't exist, (2) textures don't exist, (3) shapes don't exist, (4) heat doesn't exist, (5) weight doesn't exist, etc,. Something only exists if its present in reality. If mentality is required for those things in order to be real, then how could they still exist? Either (1) they didn't, or (2) a greater mind made those mental things actual. You're conceiving of a reality that utilizes your mental perceptions but mental perceptions wouldn't exist in such a world. Like in the color example, demonstrably, reality would not exist as you conceive it would.

The bottom line is that reality doesn't require a mind perceiving it to exist. All you're doing is trying to make your God necessary and he/she/it simply isn't.

Reality is all that exists. All that exists is mental. If there is a non-mental reality we can never perceive/conceive of it. So if God doesn't exist, reality must be illusory because reality cannot be fundamentally of the mind if God doesn't exist.

Ben, your entire argument is based on an unprovable and undemonstrated premise. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the entire universe is mental. Our perceptions arise from the electrochemical actions within our brain, a physical structure. Of course it interacts with the rest of the physical universe via the sensory organs and nerves that act as sensors and transmission media. That in no way makes reality 'entirely mental' since 'mental' is based in physical existence. Perception is a result, not a cause.

Do physical structures exist as a conception/perception? If so, aren't they mental?

Once again, perception arises from physical structure. The 'mental' is an emergent property of a physical structure and processes. If awareness and perception cannot exist without physical structure then perception cannot be necessary for that structure to exist. It's like saying that the electricity a generator produces is necessary for the generator to exist. It is self-contradicting and therefore self-evidently incorrect. Your premise is flawed and demonstrably incorrect as well. Your awareness, your perceptions, your 'mentality' is fully dependent on the physical structure of your brain and body. It is not the cause of their existence, it is an effect.

So, you agree that the "physical" is mental, correct?

The mind is the product of the physical. The physical is mental. The physical exists despite our perceptions of it. Now what's your conclusion? That the physical is non-mental? Well if that's the case, the physical that you conceive of is 100% illusory. The physical can't have mental features if it pre-exists mentality. We can only know of things mentally and mental perceptions demonstrably alter reality (like the existence of color).

That's an assertion for which you have no evidence. You keep saying it's self evident but it is not and I just explained why. The physical precedes perception so it cannot be contingent upon perception. We perceive reflected light wavelengths and give them names and call them colors but it's simply a chemical reaction on our retina and a signal on the optic nerve we interpret. The light does not depend on whether or not we perceive it. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The physical can't have mental features if it pre-exists mentality."

When you can clearly delineate the difference in mental and non-mental features, since you say nothing non-mental exists, I'll answer that question.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 1:23:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 4:53:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Why is the moon positioned that exact distance from earth?

How cool is it that the moon was positioned closer to the earth giving it natural light millions of years ago? I just like thinking about a full moon close to the earth, it would look awesome.


If all of this is an accident, nothing has any inherent reason for existing.

Also if everything is random and an accident ... shouldn't these accidents be happening more often?

Start questioning what a reality derivative of the mind vs a reality not derivative of the mind would look like.

If we weren't here then the world would look like what the animals see. Objects will just be there ... i guess. I like how you think, and enjoyed your post. I believe this is all a program per say. That there is intelligence that was before us. That intelligence doesn't need a mind, just self awareness. I have a reverse solipsistic view. That we are all our own higher powers. A mind unbound and immortal. What is our purpose? To move forward and deal with infinity. We are all characters in a unfathomable game. Making or exploring realities that are derivative of greater minds.