Do you believe in free will?

[Perhaps]

So, you are proposing three categories of metaphysical existence - material, abstract and mental (the one you refer to as "the mind"). You see the third one as a separate category in and of itself, but that does not clarify any other details regarding its existence. Unless you can specify how it interacts with the other two forms of reality, there is no reason to even consider its separate existence.

It is what creates the other two forms of reality. It therefore controls how the material and the abstract behave. What are we past our perceptions? What exists outside of consciousness? What allows you to 'know' that things outside of your mind exist?

You contradict yourself. As you have maintained, the mind is dependent upon the brain for its existence and it does not outlast the brain. In that case, it is the material construct which would allow for the existence of the mind.

You are viewing the supposition from the reverse. When the mind ceases, so to do our perceptions of the material world - including the brain. We perceive the brain ceasing as the end of the mind, but it is the mind ceasing which causes an end to the brain's perceived existence.

Here's where you start going demonstrably wrong. Reality refers to the material world. What is true and what is not is determined by correspondence to that world. A true material world is a redundant expression.

The differences in perception do not affect the objectivity of the material world. They are due to the differences in the mechanism of perception. This explanation more than accounts for the differing perceptions of the material world - it also accounts for the same perceptions. Your explanation does not address why two people with completely different minds would perceive the same thing.

As I see it, your error comes from two faulty premises. Firstly, you sate, in contradiction to your earlier statement, that mind's existence is not allowed for by material construct. Second, in order to account for differing perceptions of an objective phenomena, instead of the more obvious solution of different mechanisms of perception, you go for the untenable position of attacking the objectivity of the phenomena. The result here is that you start placing the secondary form of reality (the mind) before the primary (the material). Since mind cannot exist without a material construct, since mental awareness cannot exist without a material world to be aware of - these statements place "mind" as a consequence of the material. Using subjectivity to try and switch places creates a contradiction. These two mistaken premises erroneously lead you to place "mind" outside the chain of causality - or rather, every mind as a first cause of its own.

What is the material world? What is true? We are confined by our perception; we are limited by our awareness. The true material world is simply what you perceive your world to be. Once again, the material world does exist, but as for how closely our perceptions of that world are to being what it truly looks like - we can never know. An objective material world (not like the one you believe you are experiencing) would explain the same perceptions, while the mind accounts for the differing perceptions among this objectiveness.

Simply stated, the idea that we are all experiencing a hard surface right now would be a good inclination towards believing that a hard surface is a part of the objective material world (that our perception is close to what the actual material world looks like). The idea that you see 'red' when I see 'blue' reinforces that color is merely a perception created by the mind and is not innate within the 'true' material world.

Very simple multiple choice question for both of you, are the electrical impulses in our brains material or non-material?

Material.

---

Let's suppose a thought experiment to help clarify some of my justifications...

1. You are the only person in existence in the material world
2. You do not possess, nor can you possess, a mechanism through which you can 'view' or 'see' the world
3. This material world which you exist in has the same attributes as the one which we exist within currently
______________________________________________________________________________________
4. Do colors exist?

Yes.

How do they exist if there is nothing to acknowledge their existence? What is existence outside of perception?

[oxymoron]

How do they exist if there is nothing to acknowledge their existence? What is existence outside of perception?

So... nothing existed until the first entity capable of perception existed? That's a bit ... dubious.

I think we all agree that there is something to perceive. Otherwise we get stuck in a solipsistic bubble which excludes even god.

[genkaus]

It is what creates the other two forms of reality. It therefore controls how the material and the abstract behave. What are we past our perceptions? What exists outside of consciousness? What allows you to 'know' that things outside of your mind exist?

You do realize that you are essentially undercutting your own position here? How can your mental reality create the material and conceptual reality and still be dependent on it?

As to your questions: Past our perceptions we have our conceptions. Outside our consciousness, exists everything other than ourselves. The realization that their existence is not affected by and therefore not dependent upon our mind.

You are viewing the supposition from the reverse. When the mind ceases, so to do our perceptions of the material world - including the brain. We perceive the brain ceasing as the end of the mind, but it is the mind ceasing which causes an end to the brain's perceived existence.

Do you not see understand the difference between the material world and our perception of it? Your brain is not the perception of material world - it is the material world. And the material world does not depend upon our perception of it. We perceive the brain as failing, because the brain is actually failing.

Besides, you are reversing cause and effect here. It would be the cessation of the brain that causes cessation of your mind. A good demonstration of this would be that people in coma, people who are unconscious or people with brain injury lose their perceptual and conceptual awareness - thereby indicating cessation of mind - but their brains continue to function.

What is the material world?

World that is composed of matter and exists independently of anyone's perception of it but can be perceived given the right mechanism for perception.

What is true?

That which corresponds to reality.

We are confined by our perception; we are limited by our awareness. The true material world is simply what you perceive your world to be. Once again, the material world does exist, but as for how closely our perceptions of that world are to being what it truly looks like - we can never know. An objective material world (not like the one you believe you are experiencing) would explain the same perceptions, while the mind accounts for the differing perceptions among this objectiveness.

Wrong. The difference in mechanism of perception would explain the differing perceptions much better. A study of these differences would also explain that the true material world is independent of our perception of it and how well does our perception relate the the true material world.

Simply stated, the idea that we are all experiencing a hard surface right now would be a good inclination towards believing that a hard surface is a part of the objective material world (that our perception is close to what the actual material world looks like). The idea that you see 'red' when I see 'blue' reinforces that color is merely a perception created by the mind and is not innate within the 'true' material world.

No, if you see blue and I see red, then means either one or both of us have something wrong with the mechanism of perception, i.e. our eyes.
The color of an object depends upon the wavelength of light reflected by its surface. The color perceived depends upon our eyes, which, again depends upon the wavelength. If I see red and you see blue, then there is something wrong with atleast one of us. The fact that color-blindness is a known condition is proof of that.

How do they exist if there is nothing to acknowledge their existence? What is existence outside of perception?

What does existence have to do with perception? We can perceive the Halley's comet only once every 76 years - do you think that it stops existing for the other 75? On the other hand, we've never perceived the other side of the moon. Does that mean that the moon doesn't have an other side?

[Neo-Scholastic]

It should be pointed out, nobody get resuscitated from brain death. You can take a lot of punishment before that happens.. but brain death. You're shafted.

This woman's NDE is about as close to actual death death that I've heard (for what it's worth)

[TheJackel]

It should be pointed out, nobody get resuscitated from brain death. You can take a lot of punishment before that happens.. but brain death. You're shafted.

This woman's NDE is about as close to actual death death that I've heard (for what it's worth)

This is a load of crap.. Testimonials are very poor evidence, and it disregards the fact that even with all the blood drained from the brain, neurons can continue to fire as the brain begins to die. EEG's can't detects neural activity below a certain point. And the most obvious bs of this is her stating she can hear them.. If she could hear them, it pretty much means her auditory system was still working.. Sound is a pressure wave, and requires your ear drums to even work. This video you posted is about as credible as the guy flying through space and meeting aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_7xFWymEbo

Another problem with here Testimonial is the total lack of actual details.. Which is common in such supposed testimonials.. <drill kept in something that looks like a tool box for wrenches>? ..Really lol? Funny, she didn't tell you exactly what that box looked like eh? And it doesn't take a genius to know what tools brain surgery will entail. In fact, in most cases the doctors will tell you how it's going to go down before you ever have the surgery. :/

You let us know when someone has an NDE ever taking a 50 cal bullet to the head to where his entire brain gets obliterated.. What's even more interesting is that we could cut thousands of braincells out of her and cultivate them and teach them to do things. If enough of them are cultivated in one group, they can even develop small personality traits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is a load of crap.. Testimonials are very poor evidence.

I didn't opine if her NDE was natural or spiritual. But she was about as close to death a you can be without actually being dead. That was the only point I was trying to make in response to FNM.

[TheJackel]

This is a load of crap.. Testimonials are very poor evidence.

I didn't opine if her NDE was natural or spiritual. But she was about as close to death a you can be without actually being dead. That was the only point I was trying to make in response to FNM.

I see ... My bad But the gist of the argument still stands of course

[toro]

It is what creates the other two forms of reality. It therefore controls how the material and the abstract behave. What are we past our perceptions? What exists outside of consciousness? What allows you to 'know' that things outside of your mind exist?

Nothing. And on a fundamental level, nothing exists in a definable state outside of your mind. But that is explained by simple relativity and QM - values are subjective and therefore indeterminate before interaction/coupling.

You contradict yourself. As you have maintained, the mind is dependent upon the brain for its existence and it does not outlast the brain. In that case, it is the material construct which would allow for the existence of the mind.

You are viewing the supposition from the reverse. When the mind ceases, so to do our perceptions of the material world - including the brain. We perceive the brain ceasing as the end of the mind, but it is the mind ceasing which causes an end to the brain's perceived existence.

No genkaus isn't. You are. The mind is an internal construct of the brain - a specific quantum state defined by a given set of neural signals that interacts with other signals, thereby physically ceasing and reconstructing. This explains its constant change.

What is the material world? What is true? We are confined by our perception; we are limited by our awareness. The true material world is simply what you perceive your world to be. Once again, the material world does exist, but as for how closely our perceptions of that world are to being what it truly looks like - we can never know. An objective material world (not like the one you believe you are experiencing) would explain the same perceptions, while the mind accounts for the differing perceptions among this objectiveness.

Simply stated, the idea that we are all experiencing a hard surface right now would be a good inclination towards believing that a hard surface is a part oYou are making two contradictory claims: there is an objective world, but if the objective material world (that our perception is close to what the actual material world looks like). The idea that you see 'red' when I see 'blue' reinforces that color is merely a perception created by the mind and is not innate within the 'true' material world.

You explain this difference by claiming there is some other "true" objective world and we for some reason don't observe it properly. You are then claiming this "objective" reality has properties the components of it cannot observe, and therefore do not interact with. If they don't interact with these properties, by your very own definition, they have no distinguishable existence and are irrelevant.

This additional construction of yours has no effect on the component systems. How can it if it doesn't effect them (if it did, it would be observable)? Somehow though, this is more "fundamental". Here's a different idea: there is no objective existence, and all existence is fundamentally subjective. This is confirmed by relativity, more modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, has testable hypotheses (all of which so far have been confirmed), and requires no super-soul metaphysics.

[genkaus]

Here's a different idea: there is no objective existence, and all existence is fundamentally subjective. This is confirmed by relativity, more modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, has testable hypotheses (all of which so far have been confirmed), and requires no super-soul metaphysics.

You do realize that if all of existence was actually subjective, then it would necessarily require some super-soul meta-physics? Subjective means dependent upon a consciousness. If all of existence were subjective, then it would necessarily require an underlying consciousness (the super-soul) it can depend upon. I think what you are trying to indicate here (and what quantum mechanics actually confirms), is not about the subjective-vs-objective nature of reality, but about the fully determined-vs-fundamentally indeterminate nature.

To my knowledge, no subjectivity (fundamental dependence of consciousness) has ever been established.

[TheJackel]

Nothing. And on a fundamental level, nothing exists in a definable state outside of your mind. But that is explained by simple relativity and QM - values are subjective and therefore indeterminate before interaction/coupling.

Actually what proves that there exist reality outside the mind is that the mind can't exist without cause.. It's rather irrelevant of what states existence takes, or is capable of producing. And no, nothing can never exist as a definable state regardless if there exists a mind or not. Existence doesn't require observation to exist anymore than it would require a bouncing ball to exist. There simply would be existence without observation or appreciation.