(August 24, 2014 at 10:48 am)Surgenator Wrote: You mean that our minds live in a larger universe generally called as reality? Yes I am making such an assumption.

lol keep going

Let me ask you this-- which of your experiences of the "present" represent things actually happening right now? And which of them actually embody the physical reality of the things in this larger universe you're talking about?

Can you just state your view? This socratic method is getting annoying.

(August 24, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Can you just state your view? This socratic method is getting annoying.

If I don't know your position, how am I going to respond to it? I think I know your position, and I am in the process of confirming-- while you, apparently, are in the process of tap-dancing.

You said that rasetsu's "image from the eyes" was about a real thing. However, she specified (I think she's a she) that in all four of her possible sources, the image as the brain experienced it was exactly identical. This means that there is nothing intrinsic to anything in the brain, at least at the level of experience, that represents reality. Instead, the reality is a property of the object being observed.

You want me to drop the socratic method? Instead of just making the positive assertion "X is real and Y is not" why don't you explain what that means, and how a person can use his/her conscious awareness to confidently make that determination?

(August 24, 2014 at 7:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If I don't know your position, how am I going to respond to it? I think I know your position, and I am in the process of confirming-- while you, apparently, are in the process of tap-dancing.

First off, I'm not tap-dancing, I don't have the cordination for it. I have been answering your questions.

(August 24, 2014 at 7:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You said that rasetsu's "image from the eyes" was about a real thing. However, she specified (I think she's a she) that in all four of her possible sources, the image as the brain experienced it was exactly identical. This means that there is nothing intrinsic to anything in the brain, at least at the level of experience, that represents reality. Instead, the reality is a property of the object being observed.

If that is your understanding of rasetsu's question, then we are in agreement. However, I saw rasetsu's first choice to be different from the rest, because it had external inputs. Eventhough, the image is processed by the mind the same way as if it were imagined doesn't change the fact that it came something outside the mind. Hense, #1 is considered a about a real object, not an imagined, hallucinated, or remembered.

(August 24, 2014 at 7:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You want me to drop the socratic method? Instead of just making the positive assertion "X is real and Y is not" why don't you explain what that means, and how a person can use his/her conscious awareness to confidently make that determination?

You asked me if X or Y. I said X. I tried to explain it. You apprently didn't like my aswer or didn't understand it.

Okay, let me say a couple things.

First, there's a slippery slope with this kind of reality. We know that the brain deconstructs and filters sense information, forms it into ideas, and then assembles those ideas into an experience. By the time we experience something, it is fundamentally different than whatever reality it may or may not have originated at. But how much does it matter if the data is source to 30ms ago or 30 years ago?

Second, how would we know which case represents reality, and which are ratsetu's other options (or one of myriad others)? How do you know whether you are really seeing something with your eyes, or are just dreamind so? How do you know that your eyes and even your entire life are not essentially dreamlike?

I think our modern age-- of atheism, phsyical monism, and science, is fundamentally ironic. We have used experience-- and only experience-- to arrive at the conclusion that the universe isn't essentially experiential, but has an objective existence outside our experience. We've developed a model-- also an idea-- to demonstrate that ideas are about things rather than vice versa, and that things are responsible for the existence of ideas.

But what is the evidence to support this, really? More experiences? Third-party experiences? The experience of looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or a mass spectrometer?

(August 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, let me say a couple things.

First, there's a slippery slope with this kind of reality. We know that the brain deconstructs and filters sense information, forms it into ideas, and then assembles those ideas into an experience. By the time we experience something, it is fundamentally different than whatever reality it may or may not have originated at. But how much does it matter if the data is source to 30ms ago or 30 years ago?

No, the observe object would not become fundamentally different, just sligtly different, by the time we experience it. (I know I'm nitpicking here).

I think your missing the my main point here. In "30ms", the raw information came from your senses. In "30 year", the formated and stored information is coming from your memories. The pathway of the information is fundamentally different; hense, I distinguish them.

(August 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Second, how would we know which case represents reality, and which are ratsetu's other options (or one of myriad others)? How do you know whether you are really seeing something with your eyes, or are just dreamind so? How do you know that your eyes and even your entire life are not essentially dreamlike?

There are two methods that I'm aware of to distinguish between reality and dreamland. Reality can give a fundementally new experience. Also, reality doesn't obey your wishes.

(August 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think our modern age-- of atheism, phsyical monism, and science, is fundamentally ironic. We have used experience-- and only experience-- to arrive at the conclusion that the universe isn't essentially experiential, but has an objective existence outside our experience. We've developed a model-- also an idea-- to demonstrate that ideas are about things rather than vice versa, and that things are responsible for the existence of ideas.

But what is the evidence to support this, really? More experiences? Third-party experiences? The experience of looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or a mass spectrometer?

Your modern age view is imcompete. The modern age didn't come up just from a set of experiences, but also includes logical deductions. Science is the best example of this. Specifically Einstien's special relativity is almost purely based on logical arguments.

Let me ask you, what can we use outside of our experiences and logical deductions to successfully improve our understand of reality? As far as I know, these are the only two that have reasonable chance of succeeding.

(August 24, 2014 at 10:33 pm)Surgenator Wrote: There are two methods that I'm aware of to distinguish between reality and dreamland. Reality can give a fundementally new experience. Also, reality doesn't obey your wishes.

I'm not as confident as you that my mundane thinking and experiences represent reality, or that dreams do not. I think what you mean, re the OP, is that since a new experience could not have been generated by the self, a new experience is evidence of a reality beyond or outside the self.

But this possibility is not restricted only to a physical monism. The Matrix, or the Mind of God, or an idealistic reality could also do this.

Quote:Your modern age view is imcompete. The modern age didn't come up just from a set of experiences, but also includes logical deductions. Science is the best example of this. Specifically Einstien's special relativity is almost purely based on logical arguments.

Maybe. But what else is logic, really, than the experience that one or more ideas are compatible with each other? And how is any idea arrived at, but by the experiences of the senses, fed back on each other? Is it not possible that logic makes sense because it follows the exact same algorithms by which we process experience, thereby ensuring a perfect uniformity between logic and reality as we perceive it?

My evidence for this is that as we extend our observations of the universe, it appears less and less logical to us. Why would this be so, if reality was a property of objects in the universe, rather than of the mind only? It's not unusual for us to come up against ambiguity, paradox, and impossibility in our attempts to understand our experiences. And in the case of mind, we suffer a closed loop: that all our knowledge is dependent on the nature of experience-- something that cannot be truly known but must rather be assumed.

In the end, we feel that the world is real. It feels convincing. It feels reliable, somehow immutable (under the surface at least). And isn't that really the criterion we use to establish reality-- only that the world feels real?

(August 24, 2014 at 10:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 24, 2014 at 10:33 pm)Surgenator Wrote: There are two methods that I'm aware of to distinguish between reality and dreamland. Reality can give a fundementally new experience. Also, reality doesn't obey your wishes.

I'm not as confident as you that my mundane thinking and experiences represent reality, or that dreams do not. I think what you mean, re the OP, is that since a new experience could not have been generated by the self, a new experience is evidence of a reality beyond or outside the self.

But this possibility is not restricted only to a physical monism. The Matrix, or the Mind of God, or an idealistic reality could also do this.

You can occam razor those other possibilities. Granted, that occam's razor doesn't disprove the other possibilities, but you or anyone else I know offers good reasons to believe in them.

Quote:

Quote:Your modern age view is imcompete. The modern age didn't come up just from a set of experiences, but also includes logical deductions. Science is the best example of this. Specifically Einstien's special relativity is almost purely based on logical arguments.

Maybe. But what else is logic, really, than the experience that one or more ideas are compatible with each other? And how is any idea arrived at, but by the experiences of the senses, fed back on each other? Is it not possible that logic makes sense because it follows the exact same algorithms by which we process experience, thereby ensuring a perfect uniformity between logic and reality as we perceive it?

My evidence for this is that as we extend our observations of the universe, it appears less and less logical to us. Why would this be so, if reality was a property of objects in the universe, rather than of the mind only? It's not unusual for us to come up against ambiguity, paradox, and impossibility in our attempts to understand our experiences. And in the case of mind, we suffer a closed loop: that all our knowledge is dependent on the nature of experience-- something that cannot be truly known but must rather be assumed.

In the end, we feel that the world is real. It feels convincing. It feels reliable, somehow immutable (under the surface at least). And isn't that really the criterion we use to establish reality-- only that the world feels real?

Your definition of experiences is so broad, it emcompasses everything from emotions, beliefs, ideas, reasoning, etc... Then your complaining on why we are not using anything else. This is dishonest. It's like your asking me to prove gravity to you and complaining that I'm using science.

(August 24, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Surgenator Wrote: You can occam razor those other possibilities. Granted, that occam's razor doesn't disprove the other possibilities, but you or anyone else I know offers good reasons to believe in them.

Since all our knowledge of the physical world is presented to us only through experience, then Occam's razor is that the experiences are self-sufficient, and need not represent an actual (and unprovable) external world. Or if you want to get even simpler-- solipsism.

Quote:Your definition of experiences is so broad, it emcompasses everything from emotions, beliefs, ideas, reasoning, etc... Then your complaining on why we are not using anything else. This is dishonest. It's like your asking me to prove gravity to you and complaining that I'm using science

My definition of experiences is maximally broad, since there is absolutely no part of life, including our knowledge of what we take as reality, which isn't necessarily mediated by experience.

But what if experience isn't what we think it is? What does that say about everything else?

I'm making a conscious decision not to over-think this matter.