God exists only in your mind!!!

[KennyJC]

we can't know if there's something outside our minds because if we see and sense something it's in our consciousness, in our mind, otherwise we coulnd't be consicous of it.

Likewise if there was nothing outside our minds there would be nothing to be concious of. I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.

No communication could be done between this soul and world of us.

Then how do you know such a thing exists?

Here we have c7ity saying things that do exist don't exist and Liveinfaith saying things exist that don't exist...

You can't win.

 

[Sarkus]

I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.

Solipsists / solipsism.

 

[perplexity]

Likewise if there was nothing outside our minds there would be nothing to be concious of. I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.
......

Then how do you know such a thing exists?

......

You can't win.

Quite.

How then do you prove that the mind exists on the inside, so to speak, that apart from conjecture and except as a convenient extrapolation, there is anything at all beyond your mind?

It seems to me that such is every bit as tenuous as the existence or non exitence of God.

So long as a sufficent number people accept something as a truth, then it stands as such.

--- Ron.

 

[wesmorris]

'I see nothing attractive in the atheist worldview, and nothing that indicates it is more likely to be true than the theist's.'

So a "lack of belief" (in god(s)) leads to an unnattractive world-view?

'So, what would induce anyone to become an atheist other than a mistaken belief that science has somehow disproved the existence of God?'

It would seem that you see the folly of belief, yet deny it in the same paragraph?

You seem to deduce that "non-belief" is folly as well?

What exactly do you think must be "an athiest world-view"?

 

[c7ityi_]

Likewise if there was nothing outside our minds there would be nothing to be concious of. I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.

we could easily be concious of something even if THE mind is all that exists. we are conscious of the parts of our mind of course.

solipsism is bull... i don't believe in that. it's not like MY PERSONAL MIND is the only thing that exist, you totally misunderstand it just like the solipsists!!!!

 

[KennyJC]

c7ity & perplexity:

What you are suggesting is similar saying nothing exists outside of the heat generated from the Sun. Why your particular focus on the mind rather than other natural phenomena?


All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place... Therefor it is rational to assume that everything outside the mind exists.

The materialist perspective holds true as far as we can see and we have no reason to believe any different.

 

[nubianconcubine]

alright, how do you know that your reality is real? when you dream (assuming you do) you believe you dream is real while you are in it. you could live an entire lifetime in one dream. how can you be sure that everything around you is not just a figment of your imagination? you can't necessarily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything outside your mind exists.

 

[perplexity]

c7ity & perplexity:
What you are suggesting is similar saying nothing exists outside of the heat generated from the Sun.Why your particular focus on the mind rather than other natural phenomena?

Not at all. What exists beyond the Sun does not necessarily depend upon the Sun. What exists for you depends upon your perception of it.

All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place... Therefor it is rational to assume that everything outside the mind exists.

Rational if you know how to prove the premise, of what forms your mind, but you have yet to do so.
You have yet even to come with a theory of how your mind is formed.
Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.

The materialist perspective holds true as far as we can see and we have no reason to believe any different.

But the mind is immaterial, same as God.

--- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

c7ity & perplexity:
What you are suggesting is similar saying nothing exists outside of the heat generated from the Sun.Why your particular focus on the mind rather than other natural phenomena?

Not at all. What exists beyond the Sun does not necessarily depend upon the Sun. What exists for you depends upon your perception of it.

All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place... Therefor it is rational to assume that everything outside the mind exists.

Rational if you know how to prove the premise, of what forms your mind, but you have yet to do so.
You have yet even to come with a theory of how your mind is formed.
Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.

The materialist perspective holds true as far as we can see and we have no reason to believe any different.

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

--- Ron.

 

[nubianconcubine]

thankyou perplexity.

 

[wesmorris]

Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.

Either is a matter of faith.

I would say however, that the notion of god requires a notion of mind to recognize it. In keeping assumptions as simplistic as possible it therefore seems that mind is a more pertinent hypothesis...

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

That depends on one's assumptions. Logic with no assumption has no foundation from which to progress. Therefore, it seems to me that we must presume something about "being" such that we might build a basis for expansion. IMO, the simplest, most irrefutable assumption possible is that of "self". With self presumed, perception is not hypothesis, but fact based on a contingency that is quite literally self-evident. The contents of perception are another question entirely, but that perception exists cannot be rationally questioned. As such, it would seem that mind, being the house of perception is a logical consequence of awareness.

God is not.

To me, there's a noticable difference in the leap of faith that must be taken for "self" vs. "god", though I would agree either is ultimatley faith based.

It's just that the presumption of self is a leap of faith of zero distance.

 

[perplexity]

Either is a matter of faith.

I would say however, that the notion of god requires a notion of mind to recognize it. In keeping assumptions as simplistic as possible it therefore seems that mind is a more pertinent hypothesis...

Pertinent to who or what?

One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it.

Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong.

The process of the trial is then relatively quick and easy but I am not so sure about the reliability of it.

--- Ron.

 

[wesmorris]

Pertinent to who or what?

A clear comprehension of the organizational relationship in question.

One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it.

One may not if one has no mind with which to formulate such a statement.

Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong.

Or it could be simply that implicit to every word ever uttered is a source of the utterance. Hehe, you even need a "self" for self-loathing, no?

How is asserting "god" less vain that asserting self, eh?

 

[wesmorris]

Implicit to the existence of the universe is a means by which it came to exist - not a "creator".

 

[wesmorris]

"hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong"

LOL, as if the burden of such decisions are "convenient". Further, you fail to address the context of right and wrong above. Just because one is the arbiter or what is right or wrong for themselves doesn't imply that their morality is necessarily applicable outside their circumstance. You seem to imply with your thinking that to find something right or wrong must necessarily apply to everyone.

 

[KennyJC]

Not at all. What exists beyond the Sun does not necessarily depend upon the Sun. What exists for you depends upon your perception of it.

My analogy has no difference to what you are saying about the mind. If Sun is the cause behind the heat we feel, our brain is the cause behind the mind. If nothing exists outside of our mind, then why can't I say that nothing exists outside of heat given off by the Sun? The mind is a natural phenomena just like heat given off by the Sun.

Rational if you know how to prove the premise, of what forms your mind, but you have yet to do so.
You have yet even to come with a theory of how your mind is formed.
Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.

The brain forms the mind. Looking at living things, the complexity of the brain also determines the complexity of the mind. This is blantant observation and proof that the mind is a natural result of the brain.

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

Here we go with the 'immaterial' thing again. I'm not sure many Neuroscientists would agree with your childish stupidity:

'Most neuroscientists are convinced the mind is in no way separate from the brain. In the brain they have found a physical basis for all our thoughts, aspirations, language, sense of consciousness, moral beliefs and everything else that makes us human. Neuroscience finds no duality, no finger of God animating the human mind.'

It should go without saying that there is much we don't know about the brain, but I think it is safe to say we know enough so that no sky fairies are involved with what makes our mind tick.

'With 100 billion cells, each with 1000 to 10,000 synapses, the neocortex makes roughly 100 trillion connections and contains 90 million metres of wiring packed with other tissue into a one-and-a-half-litre volume in the brain.'

All that crap isn't just for show, you know. It does stuff... give it some credit.

I can't even see the point in thinking the mind is immaterial. Presumably you believe this because it gives you certain emotional benefits (you know... emotion... that stimulus that happens in your brain)... But again, it is just superstition and I don't think you can parallel work carried out by Neuroscientists with your blatant stuperstition.

 

[perplexity]

"hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong"

LOL, as if the burden of such decisions are "convenient". Further, you fail to address the context of right and wrong above. Just because one is the arbiter or what is right or wrong for themselves doesn't imply that their morality is necessarily applicable outside their circumstance. You seem to imply with your thinking that to find something right or wrong must necessarily apply to everyone.

The problem with the mind as the sole and final arbiter is notoriously that there are as many minds as there may be right or wrongs, which on occasion is wonderfully convenient. Saves having to wonder what a fair trial would consist of.

If therefore I simply do not wish to worry for your burden of the decision I shall reserve the right not to bother.

Do have fun though, in the mean time.

--- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

My analogy has no difference to what you are saying about the mind. If Sun is the cause behind the heat we feel, our brain is the cause behind the mind. If nothing exists outside of our mind, then why can't I say that nothing exists outside of heat given off by the Sun? The mind is a natural phenomena just like heat given off by the Sun.

You can say it if you want to. Whether it is meanigful to me is another matter.

The brain forms the mind. Looking at living things, the complexity of the brain also determines the complexity of the mind. This is blantant observation and proof that the mind is a natural result of the brain.

Here we go with the 'immaterial' thing again. I'm not sure many Neuroscientists would agree with your childish stupidity:

'Most neuroscientists are convinced the mind is in no way separate from the brain. In the brain they have found a physical basis for all our thoughts, aspirations, language, sense of consciousness, moral beliefs and everything else that makes us human. Neuroscience finds no duality, no finger of God animating the human mind.'

Where then is this mind that the brain forms?

Do you keep it in an bottle somewhere?

I see the mind of Shakespeare 400 years after he wrote; brain long since decayed while the mind lives on.

"A man no more knows how he thinks, just because he has a brain in his skull, than he knows how he makes blood, because he has marrow in his bones."
(W Ross Ashby)


--- Ron.

 

[KennyJC]

You can say it if you want to. Whether it is meanigful to me is another matter.

Perhaps if I said that we were going to go hugglez gawd for eternity it would have been.

Where then is this mind that the brain forms?

Do you keep it in an bottle somewhere?

Hiding behind some scientific unknowns are we? That is very much unlike a theist. Like the quote I supplied to you in my last post, it is within the brain as is testable by experimentation. Understanding how the mind works is another matter and I doubt we have an answer except that we know it is based upon the physical structure of the brain, predominantly in the frontal lobe. It's a bit like evolution (another thing theist idiots like yourself refute due to emotional connections with your imaginary friend), we don't understand everything about evolution and how it works, but we know that it happens.

I see the mind of Shakespeare 400 years after he wrote; brain long since decayed while the mind lives on

Firstly, his mind does not live on. Just because he wrote something down doesn't mean his mind still exists. Secondly, why not state a monkey picking it's arse and throwing shit at another monkey as an example of the mind in action? Not pretty enough for you?

I think deep down, you yourself know that you only believe in this 'soul' crap because you have an emotional need to. You won't admit it to me, or anyone here, but we both know it is the truth.

 

[Sarkus]

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

The "mind" is nothing more than an abstract term for one perspective of the vast complexity of very physical interactions within our brain.
No brain = no mind.

Other perspectives include "personality" and "self", and help us distinguish one complexity from another, and help analyse elements of that complexity.

Saying that the "mind" is immaterial is like saying that the workings of a computer are "immaterial".