RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
September 20, 2015 at 3:57 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2015 at 4:10 am by robvalue.)
Rational: Good response, thank you. I was with you right up until the very end. By "mind" do we mean brain, or the consciousness produced by the brain? Mind hasn't been demonstrated to be anything in between, except metaphorically. This is where I'm going to disagree with your premise and your definitions. We have physical brains, and we (or perhaps, I) have evidence of some sort of experience brains apparently produce. There is no evidence of a distinct entity which creates the experience that isn't simply the brain itself. We could abstractly call the set of consciousness-like experiences the mind, but that is merely for convenience and doesn't define anything actually real into existence.
Our brain is not "in" the reality of experiences our brain produces in general, whether or not there is matter outside it.
So I think it's only reasonable to call everything in a perceived reality to be equally real, or else nothing in it is real. Since the brain is not actually in the reality but in another reality producing it, the brain isn't real in that reality either. Even if I entertained your definitions, your version of mind is not "in" the reality either. So simply examining the reality is not sufficient to establish whether or not there is matter existing along with the mind in whatever sense the mind does exist. The problem here is trying to say the mind exists as a process and then insisting matter must also exist as a process. That's not a correct comparison in my opinion.
On the other hand, the perceived world is the consciousness. It is the emergent process, as far as we can tell. So the whole world is the mind, if we use it that way. But that's simply a tautology of definition. I don't however accept the mind being separate from both the brain and consciousness. This is something that needs demonstrating if it's to be anything other than a hypothesis or metaphor. I think you may be mistaking metaphor for reality.
Our brain is not "in" the reality of experiences our brain produces in general, whether or not there is matter outside it.
So I think it's only reasonable to call everything in a perceived reality to be equally real, or else nothing in it is real. Since the brain is not actually in the reality but in another reality producing it, the brain isn't real in that reality either. Even if I entertained your definitions, your version of mind is not "in" the reality either. So simply examining the reality is not sufficient to establish whether or not there is matter existing along with the mind in whatever sense the mind does exist. The problem here is trying to say the mind exists as a process and then insisting matter must also exist as a process. That's not a correct comparison in my opinion.
On the other hand, the perceived world is the consciousness. It is the emergent process, as far as we can tell. So the whole world is the mind, if we use it that way. But that's simply a tautology of definition. I don't however accept the mind being separate from both the brain and consciousness. This is something that needs demonstrating if it's to be anything other than a hypothesis or metaphor. I think you may be mistaking metaphor for reality.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum