Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[Marquis de Carabas]

The opposite of random is ordered. The opposite of designed is undesigned. Keep your false dichotomies to yourself.

 

[Upchurch]

You know, I've been thinking about it and I don't think this argument has been carried far enough. You can't prove materialism without using materialism, but neither can you prove that the mind exists.

I know some will say that they know the mind exists because they have one and/or that they are 100% positive that they "think", but aren't they just taking faith in that fact? How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

If we're going to reject what we perceive as external stimuli as possible illusion, why shouldn't we also reject what "we" "perceive" as internal stimuli as illusion also? Why the double standard?

 

[jan]

Atoms (“Matter”) randomly bumping around eventually randomly creates a human being who randomly develops language and randomly has a random number of ancestors who eventually make completely random internet posts???

I translate:

Atoms (“Matter”) bumping around without being created by a maker creates due to adaptive selection a human being who develops language without being told so by a god and having whatever number of ancestors she has who intenionally makes completely designed internet posts.

 

[jan]

How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

It's even worse: I never perceived a mind. By the logic used by some immaterialists, this proves that there is no mind.

 

[Upchurch]

It's even worse: I never perceived a mind. By the logic used by some immaterialists, this proves that there is no mind.

Touche. Another assumption taken on faith and backed by circular logic.

What is our threshold for acceptance? If there is even an us to have a threshold, that is.

 

[whitefork]

... but neither can you prove that the mind exists....

Quoting "that nitwit Hume" as someone called him:

But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes cannot turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions. Our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change; nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment. The mind is a .kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different; whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind; nor have we the most distant notion of the place, where these scenes are represented, or of the materials, of which it is composed.

from A Treatise of Human Nature.

"Never mind, no matter"

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

Lord Elmworth

Your senses come into existence immediately after you define (conceptualize) senses. What is before then, is undefined.
Understand, also, that concepts such as "come from", "pop into existence" are also definitions.
In Eastern Mysticsm, it is believed that Mind is absolute and non-local, and that the direction of thought is what creates your conditions which define your reality. Your physical body, your brain, eyes, ears, skin, nose are all the result of what you have thought in the past. This is a belief.

 

[Franko]

MCD:
The opposite of random is ordered.
The opposite of designed is undesigned.

So you are saying there is no relationship between:

ORDER and DESIGN

…and …

RANDOM and UNDESIGNED

???

Keep your false dichotomies to yourself.

If you are uninterested in hearing opinions which differ from your own perhaps you should exercise a little self-control and not read my post?

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
You know, I've been thinking about it and I don't think this argument has been carried far enough. You can't prove materialism without using materialism, but neither can you prove that the mind exists.

Yes, but you can directly observe (or experience) mind, the same cannot be said for “the matter”.

I know some will say that they know the mind exists because they have one and/or that they are 100% positive that they "think", but aren't they just taking faith in that fact?

Sure, but I still don’t see how you can say that it is more reasonable to assume “matter” than “mind”.

Mind you experience directly. “Matter” is only experienced indirectly via the Mind. To give “matter” precedence over mind seems like putting the cart in front of the horse.

How do you show, proof positive, that the mind/spirit/whatever, or anything for that matter, truly exists and isn't just an illusion?

Well, I would say that it is far more parsimonious and consistent to believe that the “matter” is an illusion than to claim that the mind is the illusion.

If Mind is truly an illusion, then that would seem to throw all observation into doubt.

If we're going to reject what we perceive as external stimuli as possible illusion, why shouldn't we also reject what "we" "perceive" as internal stimuli as illusion also? Why the double standard?

What double standard? I have already conceded that it is possible the external information is an illusion. As for you own internal information, I am unable to comment.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, but you can directly observe (or experience) mind

Can you? Do you not experience through perception? Are you not perceiving that you are thinking? How do you not know that "you" are merely being told through your senses that "you are thinking and experiencing"?

Sure, but I still don’t see how you can say that it is more reasonable to assume “matter” than “mind”.

I'm not. I continuing the argument to its end. You've argued that it is not reasonable to assume matter because we experience it through our senses, which may be a lie. I'm extending that argument further by saying, by this logic, it is not reasonable to assume mind because we also experience it through our senses, which may also be a lie. At what point to you exept what you're senses tell you?

Mind you experience directly.

"You" who? How do you experience anything directly, if not through your perceptions? How do you know what you are experiencing is real at all?

If Mind is truly an illusion, then that would seem to throw all observation into doubt.

Yes. This is what I'm asking. If any observation is in doubt, why shouldn't all observation be in doubt? How do you rationally draw the dividing line between, "I will believe these observations" and "I will not believe these observations"?

What double standard? I have already conceded that it is possible the external information is an illusion. As for you own internal information, I am unable to comment.

Then why do you continue to insist there is a "mind" when it would be more simple that nothing exists at all?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

My dearest Franko,

I read your posts because you so amuse me. We went over this, months ago.

I never said there is 'no relationship' between 'ORDER and DESIGN' nor 'RANDOM and UNDESIGNED.' Neither do I agree that they are strictly synonymous, however. I can observe something which is ordered and not immediately leap to the conclusion that it is designed. Order is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Design. Random and undesgined are the antonyms of order and designed, respectively.

All designed entities are ordered.
This entity is ordered.
Therefore, it is designed.

See the problem?

 

[uruk]

Nice attempt at responding to me post. Just replace the words
with your own without showing any proof or explination of your own views. How typical of someone fighting with no ammunition.
Your just hoping gall will carry you through the ounslaught.

O.K. let's revisit the Shirley case. What if a meteorite hits Shirly in the head while she is unaware. No Bill or other observer to manifest the meteor. We know that Shirley was hit because
we happen upon the grisly scene after the event. If there was noone around to manifest the meteorite and Shirley was unaware
, how did the meteor manifest?

And while were at it what evidence or proof do you have to support your beliefs. What is the process which brings matter into being from perception. Does perception create the matter
or does and if it does, how do you explain unexpected events
or systems which do not behave as you wish to expect them to?

And, where does this soul exist? how does it interact with the physical realm. you claim that the "TLOP" exist. where does it
it exist? and if the "TLOP" exists in some realm , well wouldn,t that "realm" be existance or "reality" which exist outside the mind.

And what is the process by which the outputs or inputs reach or exit the mind? How do the minds interact with each other?

If the minds are separate, doesn't the interaction from a separate mind count as an external source.

You said that once matter is created it cannot be destroyed.
if that "created" matter interacts with you , doesn't that count as an external interaction.

and why can't i create a unicorn by percieving it into existance.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: would she be hit by the brick?

CL Larsen
Shirley will get hit by a brick only, and only if someone is perceiving shirley (herself or others) being hit by a brick. If no one is perceiving the impact, the "event" will remain undefined.
If no one is perceiving the impact, that has the concept of "being hit", the "event" remains undefined.

Sorry, your explanation does not hold water. Let's say that you go there later, to discover Shirley dead, her head smashed by a brick.

Who killed Shirley? A, Bill, by throwing the brick? Or B, you, who perceived the brick in Shirley's head?

If you choose A, then your claim is wrong. If you choose B, then you are saying that you can - without perceiving it - perceive the consequences of the actions of another person, even though that person is dead. Which is self-contradictory.

(BTW: This "undefined" state of things implies that nothing happens if humans do not perceive it. This is empirically shown to be false. Trees do fall in the wood, without people perceiving it.)

You can imagine what may have happen...but what you imagine is not what is.

Exactly. Try to apply that to your own thinking.

 

[Franko]

you can directly observe (or experience) mind .

Upchurch:
Can you? Do you not experience through perception? Are you not perceiving that you are thinking? How do you not know that "you" are merely being told through your senses that "you are thinking and experiencing"?

You are still trying to fit square-Materialism into a round-hole. Here is how I hear your question:

Do you not receive information through receiving information? Are you not receiving information (Inputs) that you are Processing? How do you not know that “you” are not merely receiving information (Inputs) that (tell you) you are Processing (Thinking)?

Do you not receive information through receiving information?: Yes

Are you not receiving information (Inputs) that you are Processing?: Yes

How do you not know that “you” are not merely receiving information that you are Processing (Thinking)?: I don’t, but you were the one who claimed that Solipsism was a “dead end”.

I'm not. I continuing the argument to its end. You've argued that it is not reasonable to assume matter because we experience it through our senses, which may be a lie. I'm extending that argument further by saying, by this logic, it is not reasonable to assume mind because we also experience it through our senses, which may also be a lie. At what point to you accept what you're senses tell you?

At the point the information becomes logically consistent (at the point you recognize a pattern (or mechanism) to the information).

"You" who? How do you experience anything directly, if not through your perceptions? How do you know what you are experiencing is real at all?

Well, it sounds like you have shifted the topic and are talking about something different than what I am discussing.

I am discussing the Information. The receipt of Information is the experience. What you seem to be asking is How do you receive information directly if not by receiving information? How do you know the information you receive is “real” at all?

I would say that you know it is information because you received it. Whether or not it came from an external source is another issue.

Yes. This is what I'm asking. If any observation is in doubt, why shouldn't all observation be in doubt? How do you rationally draw the dividing line between, "I will believe these observations" and "I will not believe these observations"?

I suspect I use the same criteria as everyone -- logical consistency. Observations (Information) who’s patterns conform to what is expected within a given system confirm the validity of that system. Observations (Information) who’s patterns contradict what is expected by a given system, contradict that system.

When a contradiction is perceived it is the result of either A) a faulty perception (Input), or B) a faulty system (Theory (Processing or Cognition)).

why do you continue to insist there is a "mind" when it would be more simple that nothing exists at all?

Because it is patently obvious to the person reading this post that something exists.

 

[Upchurch]

Here is how I hear your question:

When you hear what I said rather than what you choose to hear, you can respond here.

Because it is patently obvious to the person reading this post that something exists.

But you have no evidence that that "something" exists nor that it is the "mind"? Interesting.

 

[Franko]

MCD:
I never said there is 'no relationship' between 'ORDER and DESIGN' nor 'RANDOM and UNDESIGNED.'

Yes, I have noticed that you Atheists are very good at not saying anything.

But you still haven’t answered my question … Was the origin of the universe and The Laws of Physics RANDOM (UNDESIGNED/UNPLANNED) or ORDERED (DESIGNED/PLANNED)?

Do you consider our posts (yours and mine) more or less RANDOM than the formation of the universe and the laws of physics? Please explain your answer.

Neither do I agree that they [Random and Designed] are strictly synonymous, however. I can observe something which is ordered and not immediately leap to the conclusion that it is designed.

Of course, that is what makes you an Atheist.

Order is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Design.

Really? What else is required?

Random and undesgined are the antonyms of order and designed, respectively.

yeah, you are repeating yourself again.

The opposite of random is ordered.
The opposite of designed is undesigned.

But you still haven’t answered my simple question regarding your own beliefs?

Well from the way I’ve heard Atheists talk random (unplanned) is the opposite of designed (planned).

we are discussing whether those “objects/entities/properties” [the universe/consciousness/ and TLOP] were randomly formed or designed.

Do you have an opinion on the subject?

All designed entities are ordered.
This entity is ordered.
Therefore, it is designed.

See the problem?

No.

Perhaps you can make your own point?

 

[Franko]

Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive.

But I saw it coming …

Upchurch:
But you have no evidence that that "something" exists nor that it is the "mind"?

No actually the fact that I am a figment of the Solipsist’s imagination is all the proof/evidence that I need for the existence of Mind.

How does the Solipsist prove that the “matter” is real again?

… Ohhh that’s right – faith in/and wishful thinking!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Your senses come into existence immediately after you define (conceptualize) senses. What is before then, is undefined.

Simply because something is undefined, to, say, my mind, doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. If my senses didn't exist how could I receive information to define something.

And at least somewhere you have to make a start with defining: you need information. And how is that information delivered? By something that has not yet been defined. And althought that something is not yet defined, it works and delivers so that your mind can eventually perceive.

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Understand, also, that concepts such as "come from", "pop into existence" are also definitions.
In Eastern Mysticsm, it is believed that Mind is absolute and non-local, and that the direction of thought is what creates your conditions which define your reality. Your physical body, your brain, eyes, ears, skin, nose are all the result of what you have thought in the past. This is a belief.

What the hell do 'absolute' and 'non-local' mean in this context?

I like the last sentence, however.

 

[Franko]

LE:
Simply because something is undefined, to, say, my mind, doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. If my senses didn't exist how could I receive information to define something.

Does your mind ever create something internally? Do you ever imagine anything in your head without external input (imagination)?

And at least somewhere you have to make a start with defining: you need information. And how is that information delivered?

By God or Fate (or TLOP, if you prefer).

By something that has not yet been defined.

Only if TLOP (or other minds) consider themselves similarly undefined.

And although that something is not yet defined, it works and delivers so that your mind can eventually perceive.

Yep, and once your mind has defined things it can start spreading those definitions to others.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive.

I was hoping to not derail the thread.

At what point to you accept what you're senses tell you?

At the point the information becomes logically consistent

Then please share how matter is logically inconsistent.

(at the point you recognize a pattern (or mechanism) to the information)

I recognize a pattern and mechanism to matter/energy and spacetime. Are you saying I should trust that it is there?

I am discussing the Information. The receipt of Information is the experience. What you seem to be asking is How do you receive information directly if not by receiving information? How do you know the information you receive is “real” at all?

Actually, what I'm asking, in context of your previous posts, is: How do you know that what you are thinking (Mind's Output due to its Processing) is truly the Output of the Mind or if it is, in fact, actually more Input and that there is no actual Processing or Output? In other words, as I've asked before, how do you know the mind exists?

I would say that you know it is information because you received it. Whether or not it came from an external source is another issue

But it is the critical issue. If your thoughts (Output) and experience is actually input, who is to say you have a mind at all?

I place my hand on the desk in front of me and I get the input of how it feels. It's texture, temperature, and firmness. I look at it and I get the input of it's color and shape. I smell it and I get the input of how it smells. I lick it and I get input of how it tastes. etc. Now I have an idea, a conception of the desk. But do I have this conception or has it and the rest of the previous senses been fed to me? When I hear in my mind that "this is a desk", is it my mind or just another sense that is being fed illusionary input from another source?

Observations (Information) who’s patterns conform to what is expected within a given system confirm the validity of that system. Observations (Information) who’s patterns contradict what is expected by a given system, contradict that system.

This is as applicable to the physical world as it is to the immaterial or spiritual one. Why do you select one and reject the other? This explination doesn't differentiate the two.

why do you continue to insist there is a "mind" when it would be more simple that nothing exists at all?

Because it is patently obvious to the person reading this post that something exists.

How is it patently obvious that something exists? Because you "hear" your thoughts? "See" your memories? "Feel" your emotions? How are these senses different from the physical kind? How are these senses tamper proof?

How does the Solipsist prove that the “matter” is real again?

… Ohhh that’s right – faith in/and wishful thinking!

How do you prove that the "mind" is real? The exact same way.