Reality is basically a mind

Billy T said:
Read Bishop George Berkeley.

Briefly and thus somewhat inaccurately, He held everything is only ideas in some mind. Modern philosophers also recognize the "other minds" problem. I.e. I cannot be sure there is anyone else like me that has thoughts, feelings and a mind. (Behavior as if they did is possible and such beings are called "zombies.") Not only do zombies have no mind, they have no feelings or in the term more technically used "qualias." For example a zombie if burned by a cigarette will cry out struggle to get free etc. but feel nothing. They are biological machines programmed to behave AS IF they had feelings.

Personally, I think there does exist a material universe without any perceiver required (IN CONTRAST TO THE GOOD BISHOP) but this cannot be proved. I especially like Berkeley’s reason for the perceived world to follow natural laws -namely only if they exist can God work miracles as miracles are violations of the natural laws. In Berkeley's POV he was a lesser spirit creation of the mind of a greater spirit, God. Everything was God or the mind of God.
Click to expand...

The material universe cannot be independent of consciousness or the mind otherwise it would be "unreal". Thus unreality is non-informational and thus non-observational. It is nothing. And it has no relationship or connection to the spacetime manifold in which the universe can be real. The unreal universe is non-relational to the real universe and cannot exist, so it does not exist. There can be no external reality to a conscious observer and observation. Communication is the means of building an objectifiable reality in which our conscious brain can explain.

Physical matter exists within the reality of the mind and the communication between individuals. The mind is not an object. It is the reality.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE REMARKS!
 
Last edited:
Reiku said:
That's coming from someone who has a picture of an alien that doesn't even string sentances together correctly ... oh dear...:rolleyes:

... and besides, it was initially a joke.
Click to expand...

What a fag.

Who says I don't even string together sentences correctly? You are the one that doesn't string sentences together correctly. I wouldn't be talking. We would be better off without your post.

Your joke is totally irrelevant, why you would joke about some point that I make is totally idiotic. Your whole system is idiotic; it's cryptic and insane.

Mine on the other hand makes perfect sense. "Reality "IS" basically a mind" does make sense...... "basically" :D

In every case.

I was more making a position out of itself, stating the most obviousness of the whole debate. If you can't comprehend what comes in small packages, then why don't you try refuting yourself first.
 
sisyphus__ said:
What a fag.

Who says I don't even string together sentences correctly? You are the one that doesn't string sentences together correctly. I wouldn't be talking. We would be better off without your post.

Your joke is totally irrelevant, why you would joke about some point that I make is totally idiotic. Your whole system is idiotic; it's cryptic and insane.

Mine on the other hand makes perfect sense. "Reality "IS" basically a mind" does make sense...... "basically" :D

In every case.

I was more making a position out of itself, stating the most obviousness of the whole debate. If you can't comprehend what comes in small packages, then why don't you try refuting yourself first.
Click to expand...

OMG lololololol

Firstly, go and read over what i said again. I never said you couldn't string words together. However, you can't fuckin read them if that's would you deducted from my post...

... oh dear again :rolleyes:
 
Reiku said:
OMG lololololol

Firstly, go and read over what i said again. I never said you couldn't string words together. However, you can't fuckin read them if that's would you deducted from my post...

... oh dear again :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you even respond to peoples posts? Reiku?
 
Billy T said:
I believe this, but neither you nor I can proof it.
Click to expand...
Either the statement is true or everything we know about the universe is false. If that's a valid possibility then nothing can be proven.
 
Xelios said:
Either the statement {a material universe exists without any minds} is true or everything we know about the universe is false. If that's a valid possibility then nothing can be proven.
Click to expand...
That would depend upon how you define "false." Obviously if your definition of false is something like: "fact asserted or belief not as it is really is observable or measured in the material universe." AND the material universe does not even exist, then all fact asserted or beliefs about the universe are false, just as you stated.

If, however, your definition of "false" is something like: "fact asserted or a belief in conflict with any other (even only one) facts asserted or beliefs, all of which are part of an enormous set of mutually consistent asserted facts and beliefs." then what you state does not follow.

Perhaps mathematics is the best example where there are many "facts" or "much known / believed about nothing." Math is a huge body of mutually consistent asserted facts and beliefs, all about absolutely nothing material. Surely you do not want to say all mathematical facts are false, do you, just because there is no material thing they refer to. The same is true of the complex set of "natural laws" I believe in as facts. It is logically possible that I have only one false belief in my set - namely that they are about a material universe. I could even be wrong in the belief that I exist with a material body, if there is nothing material. That possibility is real, logically, but I CHOSE* not to believe it - too much indoctrination while getting my PhD in physics I guess. :D
-------------
*Again, it is a choice, not something that I can know for certain. The good Bishop Berkely is on more solid logical grounds than I am as he assumes nothing. Like DesCart, he knows he is thinking and that he does not know how that can be or came to be, so he inferes that some greater thing must have made him (which being a bishop, he calls "God.") IMHO, DesCart is quite a hypocrit and philosophical fraud. If you read his Discourse on Method you are only about 20 pages in when he has "deduced" he is imperfect, so God (developed a few pages earlier as "logical necessary") must redeem mankind and Chirst dying on the cross is how that is done. etc. He start that Discourse on Method with the assertion that he intends to "doubt everything" yet ends up with as orthodox a Christian POV as can be!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enmos said:
Tourette ?
Click to expand...
{Referring to Cortex_Colossus, I assume.} That certainly is a possibility, although normally only verbally manifested. Thus, especially considering his adopted name, I think one cannot yet rule out Hydro-Cephalous as Cortex_Colossus’s affliction. :shrug:

If he signs appropriate releases, etc. I would be willing to put a shunt into his fourth ventricles. I have operated on monkey brains many times but never done that particular procedure. :( – Stated in the interest of full disclosure.:p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
{Referring to Cortex_Colossus, I assume.} That certainly is a possibility, although normally only verbally manifested. Thus, especially considering his adopted name, I think one cannot yet rule out Hydro-Cephalous as Cortex_Colossus’s affliction.

If he signs appropriate releases, etc. I would be willing to put a shunt into his fourth ventricles. I have operated on monkey brains many times but never done that particular procedure. :( – Stated in the interest of full disclosure.:p
Click to expand...

LOL be my guest :D
 
Cortex_Colossus said:
You're alright BillyT.
Click to expand...
Thanks. BTW, I have no objections to any words: profanity, swearing, name calling etc. included. MacM once called me a "sack full of shit." - I liked that as it is literally true.* This "sticks and stones may break my bones but words wil never hurt me." POV is quite consistent with my general belief in liberties and freedom of speach. I am too old, and too well educated to not feel awkward in using the full venacular but trust you will keep these freedoms alive. - Right on! I say. Keep up the good work. To hell with the mods. (That is about my comfort limit.)
----------------
* I do dislike lies or statements that are likely to cause injury. Justic Holmes's example of that sort of thing was: Screaming "fire" in a crowed theater.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy is cool. I just wish he would keep a more open mind on physics, rather than just the ''experimental'' side of things... but... i guess... that was his job for many years afterall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top