Amazon.com Widgets

What does the universe consist of: idealism (mind-yes), realism (concrete-no)?

Asked by: MettaWorldPeace
  • Everything seen is first unseen.

    There is no need for the duality. All matter is composed of energy. We are energy. Our thoughts are energy. Our thoughts are real. If matter, or what we perceive as real, is merely a slower vibration of energy - then everything created - even mankind - is just a very slow ideal.

    The marble not yet carved can hold the form of every thought the greatest artist has.
    Michelangelo

  • We can't know the universe is the way we see it

    All evidence for anything is based on our senses. The evidence which says the world exists the way it does comes from what our senses tell us. But we don't know if our senses are reliable. Things are only 'real' to our senses. What if nothing exists? What if we only see things because some consciousness in us makes us see it? What if the only thing that really exists is our consciousness? We can't know. That's why I choose idealism.

  • Here's a thought experiment

    Let's suppose consciousness, thought, perception, ... Is all physical. Then under certain physical conditions you will get someone experiencing certain thoughts, memories, perceptions,... And under others different thoughts, memories, perceptions,...

    What if a configuration results in a hallucinated world, but because of its subsequent interactions with the physics of our Universe it never gets out of that hallucinated world? What if this continues even after death? (And given we don't know the basic requirements of consciousness and scientists haven't found anything special about neurons for why they should lead to consciousness but other matter doesn't, and given that we still don't even know about most matter in the Universe it's possible that physical forms would exist that would conduct consciousness in such a way.) What if it never ever perceives the Universe as the reality we would consider correct, but just like in our world the observer experiences their own "cause and effect" within their own 'reality'?

    What then would make our reality more real than their own?

    This could actually fit in very nicely with theories of multiple Universes.

  • Things aren't real just because you believe in them.

    This is one of the biggest reasons that science exists. We can't prove things exist until they are scientifically quantified. The rest is wishful thinking.

    Being a human being is hard when you're torn between the objective and subjective mind. Most of us see through an emotional lens, some more than others. We can only perceive reality through the senses of our bodies. Chances are, there's a lot of perception of our universe that we aren't perceiving. Science, however, gives us a way to translate what we can't perceive into something that we can. Things have to exist outside the mind. How else do we come upon physical objects/experiences that are new? Were they always in the mind to begin with, and have predetermined times and locations that they occur in to give the illusion that we are happening upon something that is new? Is it possible? Anything is possible. Is it likely? Absolutely not.

    We can't know the answer to that question anymore than we can know the shape of the Earth:
    "Is the Earth round?" Quantitatively speaking, yes.

    "Is it possible that the Earth could be actually flat despite being scientifically proven as being round?" Yes, it is possible, but it's astronomically unlikely.

    In other words, we're pretty damn sure that stuff outside of our minds is real.

  • The world is too solid

    The way the universe works, with all the laws of physics working with such regularity, it is hard to imagine the universe is not in some sense solid. On the other hand, there is something to the argument that our mind must be made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe.

  • Nyet, it is impossible.

    The world is only physical.
    Its not really important how you sense the environment, its still physical.

    Your thinking is physical. Your nerve system, neurons, electromagnetic signals, molecules for transmitting that... Even your mind works often unconscious. Only because you imagine something (aka your brain makes electromagnetic signals), it doesn't makes it real. Unless you prove it, of course.
    And it also wouldn't make sense. Because if a rat would imagine a rat God, it still doesn't exist.
    If you imagine ;I believe I can fly;, you wont do it. Every modern-developed species (mostly molluscs and Vertebrates) could imagine a infinite powerful God. Would it make sense if it would come true?
    Only because a small species (Homo Sapiens=Human) imagines a God via. The nerve sys., its still only an imaginary species, its not real.
    What if an alien via. The lary gharry-nerve sys. Imagines his got, does it really become real?

  • Nyet, it is impossible.

    The world is only physical.
    Its not really important how you sense the environment, its still physical.

    Your thinking is physical. Your nerve system, neurons, electromagnetic signals, molecules for transmitting that... Even your mind works often unconscious. Only because you imagine something (aka your brain makes electromagnetic signals), it doesn't makes it real. Unless you prove it, of course.
    And it also wouldn't make sense. Because if a rat would imagine a rat God, it still doesn't exist.
    If you imagine ;I believe I can fly;, you wont do it. Every modern-developed species (mostly molluscs and Vertebrates) could imagine a infinite powerful God. Would it make sense if it would come true?
    Only because a small species (Homo Sapiens=Human) imagines a God via. The nerve sys., its still only an imaginary species, its not real.
    What if an alien via. The lary gharry-nerve sys. Imagines his got, does it really become real?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Jared_Barnett_Architect says2014-12-11T04:55:08.033
They are symbiotic and were even before Socrates described the dualism to Plato. How Can one understand an idea without language? How can language have meaning without an idea? They simply cannot. Perhaps the question should be: which side do we value more?