(April 18, 2012 at 5:58 pm)Perhaps Wrote: We're going to go in circles forever because I hold the position that the mind creates reality, while you hold the position that reality is independent of the mind. As far as the conflicts between premises go, premise 1 should be easily accepted by yourself, premise 2 is where you have a problem because of your position as it relates to mine, but that doesn't invalidate my argument if the premise is taken to be true. Premise 3 was miss worded, I agree, it should look something more like: My perceived self exists in the reality which I create. My identity is independent of my perceived existence in premise 3.
Actually, premise 1, which is accepted by both of us, does invalidate your premise 2. Reality, by definition, is independent of mind.
Your error here, which I have pointed out in the past and you failed to acknowledge, is that what your mind creates is a "model of reality" not "reality". These two are fundamentally different things. While in common parlance, people may equivocate between the two, to do so in a philosophical discussion is fundamentally incorrect.
(April 18, 2012 at 5:58 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Oh alright, so their perception of reality is false because they lack the proper mechanism through which to see, but yours is right on the spot because you have all five senses. Once again, what happens if your perception of reality is false as well. The very idea of defining something as independent of the mind is nonsensical in itself, take a step back and think about it. Even if you don't allow me the supposition that the mind creates reality, you can acknowledge that the mind creates the abstractions through which we understand reality and it also provides us with our perceptions which allow us to interact with reality - so what then is independent of our mind if the only way we can interact and understand reality is the mind?
Firstly, their perception of reality is not false, but only incomplete. Unless they fill in the absent parts with something based on absence of perception (and even then, if they fill it with something incorrect), the rest of their perception remains correct. Since I have more mechanism at my disposal, my perception is more complete than theirs, but it is not 100% complete either.
Secondly, the mind does not provide perceptions, it receives them. What we see, hear, smell, feel or taste are the perceptions. They are provided by the independent reality and received by the mechanism in place to do so, i.e our sensory organs. They are then transferred on to our minds. The perceptions that our minds receive are independent of our mind as well. They are determined by the external reality which creates all the possible perceptions and by the perception mechanisms, which filter and forward them.
However, we have set up a criteria for calling them perception only when our minds receive them. That is unless our minds don't receive the data, we do not call them perceptions. This does not mean that our mind provides those perceptions.
(April 18, 2012 at 5:58 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I wanted you to realize that your proof relies on the truth of my original statement. I want you to use logic, but I want you to realize that it comes from the mind, and therefore cannot be used to disprove the mind's role in creating reality.
How does my proof relies on the truth of your original statement. Yes, logic comes from the mind, but logic is not reality, it a model of reality. Your statement is nowhere assumed to be true. And therefore, we most certainly can use logic to disprove your original statement.
