Do you believe in free will?

[Perhaps]

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.

The mind creates our reality. In order to make sense of the objective world we conceive our existence as dependent upon the material (brain), but it is the mind which created this idea to begin with. When we are not conscious how do we know - in the truest sense of the word - that things continue to exist? When the mind ceases to exists nothing exists relative to itself; why then would it be different during the existence of the mind?

But let's suppose that things do exist outside of our mind, and continue to do so once our minds cease to exist. It still remains that the reality which was created by the deceased mind no longer exists.

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.

Once again, suppose that a conscious being never existed, what then becomes of the material world? It matters not if it exists, let alone the fact that it can't be proven to exist; it is nothing without the mind. In the case of the coma patient, what exists relative to themselves when their mind ceases? - nothing, therefore the mind is the cause of cessation of the brain. Nothing matters outside of ourselves, our reality is completely void until our minds create it.

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.

Under what justification could anyone possibly state that the material world is independent of our perception of it? One must use their perception to even attempt to validate their own argument, which would be self falsified by their own accord. To show that the material world is independent of our minds one must not use their mind, which is nonsense.

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.

And if everyone has it wrong? What then becomes of your assertion that we do in fact perceive the true material world? I'll say it again, as I have before, we are limited by our perceptions; we are confined within our minds.

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?

We conceive that it exists the other 75 years, we also conceive that the other side of the moon exists, therefore they both exist within our minds. To exist is simply to be created by the mind, nothing can exist outside of it - or at least nothing which we could ever know to exist.

[genkaus]

The mind creates our reality. In order to make sense of the objective world we conceive our existence as dependent upon the material (brain), but it is the mind which created this idea to begin with. When we are not conscious how do we know - in the truest sense of the word - that things continue to exist? When the mind ceases to exists nothing exists relative to itself; why then would it be different during the existence of the mind?

But let's suppose that things do exist outside of our mind, and continue to do so once our minds cease to exist. It still remains that the reality which was created by the deceased mind no longer exists.

Differentiate between the conceptual model of reality created within and by our mind as a reflection of actual reality and the actual reality itself. When we were unconscious, we didn't know anything. When we are conscious, we know that things continued to exist because we realize that their existence does not require our consciousness. Finally, it is the model of reality created by our brain that ceases to exist - not some alternate form of reality.

Once again, suppose that a conscious being never existed, what then becomes of the material world? It matters not if it exists, let alone the fact that it can't be proven to exist; it is nothing without the mind. In the case of the coma patient, what exists relative to themselves when their mind ceases? - nothing, therefore the mind is the cause of cessation of the brain. Nothing matters outside of ourselves, our reality is completely void until our minds create it.

You must stop being so confused between our reality and reality. "Our reality" is a model of reality created by our perception and its existence or non-existence has no bearing on reality itself.

Besides, proof? Matter? What are you talking about here? Both of these qualities assume existence of a conscicous being. Talking about them while presuming absence of consciousness is nonsensical. Equally nonsensical is the assumption that without proof or significance things are nothing. Reality is still itself, irrespective of whether someone is their to perceive it or attach significance to it.

Further, a great amount of things we attach significance to (things that matter) exist outside our brain. Their existence is unaffected by the fact that we attach significance to them and it remains unaffected once we cease to attach any.

Under what justification could anyone possibly state that the material world is independent of our perception of it? One must use their perception to even attempt to validate their own argument, which would be self falsified by their own accord. To show that the material world is independent of our minds one must not use their mind, which is nonsense.

A simple test for contradiction would suffice. While we can perceive a logical contradiction, such a contradiction cannot exist in reality by the very nature of reality. With this we can establish that the fault lies in the perception and reality is in fact independent of the perception.

And if everyone has it wrong? What then becomes of your assertion that we do in fact perceive the true material world? I'll say it again, as I have before, we are limited by our perceptions; we are confined within our minds.

If everyone has it wrong, then there is no right or wrong anymore. If reality depends upon our perception, then I can perceive something red and you can perceive the same as blue and we'd both be right at the same time. Then the concepts such as true or false, right or wrong, lose all their meaning. The you can say "Reality is subjective" and I can say "Wrong, it's objective." and we'd both be right and both be wrong. Is that the position you are hoping for?

We conceive that it exists the other 75 years, we also conceive that the other side of the moon exists, therefore they both exist within our minds. To exist is simply to be created by the mind, nothing can exist outside of it - or at least nothing which we could ever know to exist.

So, you're saying that the comet goes out of material existence for 75 years, exists only as an idea in our mind and then pops back into material existence 75 years later? Or that the other side of the moon exists only as an idea in our head and doesn't physically exist? And if I can conceive of it, then that thing can be said to exist and it can possibly come into material existence as well?

My god, we can all become gods then.

[TheJackel]

The mind creates our reality. In order to make sense of the objective world we conceive our existence as dependent upon the material (brain), but it is the mind which created this idea to begin with. When we are not conscious how do we know - in the truest sense of the word - that things continue to exist? When the mind ceases to exists nothing exists relative to itself; why then would it be different during the existence of the mind?

Lets see if I can help here.. Since you are a Pantheist, you might actually like this.. Now I understand that you think the mind creates reality, but the fact is that it doesn't.. Reality creates the mind, and the mind is the expression of reality. So lets examine this from understanding why a conscious state can't exist without cause. I do this in an example dealing with just the perception of time, and the understanding of information science:

First lets start with the basics and start with information science / theory:

Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation

I strongly suggest reading that link prior to reading these abstracts:

Abstract 1:

there are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback. So what are they?

* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value (as previously noted above). Thus the 3 fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above

The next important thing to understand is the ABC's that give you a more fundamental understanding of the above, and of information science in regards to what is necessary to support a conscious state or mind:

Abstract 2:

1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can seem to be no possible existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist under literal context.

3) Energy =/= Information: Both substance and value. Two sides of the same coin. It's the literal source to all person's, places, and things. It's all matter, energy, or things with mass. It's every dimensional value. it's the core to all attributes, phenomenon, and processes! It is the sum total of all existence.

Energy =/= information =/= cause

This is unarguable:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

These things above help you understand why consciousness is an emergent property and expression of information processing, and informational processes. It helps you understand the following as well:

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization

Abstract:

The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors

So if you really want to break it down into something really easy to understand, here ya go:

E = Existence = Energy = information = force = cause = emergent properties = you, me, the stars, and everything else.

Or:

E = Existence
E = Energy
E = Everywhere
E = Emergence or Emerging properties
E = MC^2
E = Evolution
E = Everything
E = Everyone
E = Me to

And if you like, E = easy to understand without having to go into Everything E can do, or how E does Everything it can do. E is thus the only Established and Empirically supported truth we have thus far. E Enables us to do the things we do, and be who we are. And without E there is nothing, no Existence, no me, no you, not anything. And well, it's good to know that E Exists simply because nothing can't. It's good to know that E can neither be created nor destroyed. This means we will Exist in some form or another regardless of what happens after death. E is Even Every letter in the alphabet since it is the Energy that makes up the very Essence of Every letter.

E Explains itself and is self-Explanatory.. It's also Eternal, and gives us the ability to Even have Emotion..

It's simply "E"

So even if you don't understand all the physics or how everything works, the above is rather easy to grasp... You can just simply state that everything derives from "E".


So what about time? How does this relate to time? And why does time itself tell us that the mind is the product of reality and not the creator of reality?.. Well, let's find out by addressing someone's question. You can find it here:

http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/0...#c64288380

Question asked:

Time is scientifically defined as part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. Then again, this is the science look to time, but to humanity, life and from the concerned aspect… Time…what is time?

This is interesting, and it's a valid question to ask at the end.. But how does this deal with our discussion? Well, let's find out by exploring my response to the above quoted comment:

My Response (edited):

Time is essentially the progressive and successive instances of now. The flow of time is the inertia of information. And without the inertia of information, there can be no means to support things like cognitive systems capable of producing a conscious state or a self-awareness. Without the inertia of information there can be now system with feedback, no interactions, or actions to which could drive a force to causation. In simple terms, time is an expression of process, existence, and duration of to which is the core basis to force and causation.

So in giving that time is the instance of now, and the inertia of it to the next, we often think it's the conscious instant of now. However this is wrong because it takes time for information to process. This means that a source of inquiry such as a baseball that has been pitched to you, in order for it to be hit by you, must first be sensed and then processed before any state of awareness of the ball can be realized, or put into a consciously aware state or time frame of reference. This means that the conscious state is pretty much a reflection and processing of the past to where the actual instant of now is before the conscious state ever emerges..


Need a better analogy?:

The conscious state is like the image displaying on your computer screen. The image is an emergent property of all the processes in the background to which happen before the image is ever displayed, or could be displayed. These processes are what produce the image being displayed.

So to understand this, you must realize that this deals with time frames of reference to where these processes must be sustained in order for the image, or your conscious state to continuously be displayed as a continuously emergent property. There is no other possible way as this is the only way it can happen!

Thus for every time frame instance of an image displayed, or frame state of awareness, there are several before them to which produces them. Yes the chicken and the egg solved here! This concept directly applies to consciousness, and a state of awareness as it does to your computer screens displaying of your desktop. Your conscious state is like that, it is fundamentally like the image being displayed on your computer screen in terms of the basic necessary processes that must happen to support it's emergence, and it's basic functionality. However, there was another question asked here that I don't mind going over:

Question asked:

But does the past, present and future exist in oneness time? Or it is just in accordance to the brain? (T (pls. don’t follow the aspect of the body concerning the following) ;

My response:

No, There is only the instant of now, and a reflection of the past. The past actually no longer exists. Hence, once you progress one instant to the next, the instant prior no-longer exists. The reflection of this past is just the lag due to processing that must happen before the instant that had already happened can be realized to have happened. And the future doesn't exist either until it happens.. Perhaps to clear this up for you, I can explain how time works in regards to existence:

Everything in and of existence shares a universal key frame of time. Hence, all things that exist, exist at the same time and all happen at the same time. This time frame of reference is the instant of now. The relativity people get confused about is just perception of time..

Example:

Tom is in the middle of jumping and a thought about how fun it is in Minnesota at around 5pm.. But Jane is in the middle of doing her home work in Boston MA at around 6pm. Their time lines are different, and their perception of time is different, but they are doing both things at the same time. They both share the Universal key frame, or instant of now..

Now I can go into time particle dilation to go deeper into this, but the important thing to note here is that this applies to everything, and that is the basics of relativity.. But if you need a more detailed discussion on "time".., you can go here:

Time: The Godly Impossible Creation

So to conclude:

If the inertia of energy, to which is the capacity of information as both substance and value, were to ever reach a state of absolute suspended animation to where there is no inertia of.., there wouldn't be you, me, or any possibility of a conscious mind, state, or awareness. There could be no progression of thought, no means to be aware.. Existence would be one cold static blank state..It wouldn't be nothing literally, but it would be as close to nothing as you could possibly get. And without such inertia of energy / information, there would be no life either. So it's a good thing energy can interfere with itself to which gives us the possibility of us being here at all! So even if you wanted to claim some alien being planted us here on Earth, it doesn't solve the problem or riddle of why we are here.. Does it?

So to sum up the conclusion further:

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, or anything else that is possible as possible. it's the only thing we can scientifically, and logically conclude to be "A universal set of all sets"..

---

So let me know if anyone can come up with a better argument for reality that makes actual coherent sense. Because let's be honest, the answer will have to be a Universal Set Of All Sets. And existence itself will have to have universal rule sets for all states, forms, and places of reality that exist in and of existence itself. Existence is a single entity that is all inclusive to where all things, objects, places, substances, and entities are governed by it, made of it, and are literally of it.. And so far, everything is made of energy to which includes energy itself.. And energy can only be made of what existence itself is made of.. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out actually.. But it will take a genius to figure out how it all works, and what exactly it can do.. Just a change in energy fields in the theorized higgs could cause different masses of particles and atoms in some other corner or existence to which would result in different emergent physical laws just because the mass of the particles and atoms would be different... And none of that would violate any of the premises I posted above. This would even apply to Occam's Razor...

[Perhaps]

My god, we can all become gods then.

Correct, that is what the mind allows us - we just call it free will.

---

Honestly, your counter-factual of the coma patient has me stumped, but I'll have to think about it. If the coma patient does regain consciousness, then what does that mean about their reality? An intuition of multiple minds existing comes to my mind, but I don't know how I want to formulate it yet. It could also have to do with the functionality of the mind itself - it may not have ceased, but simply stop functioning in its awareness of what it is creating.

[genkaus]

Correct, that is what the mind allows us - we just call it free will.

So why don't you have the free will to grow wings and fly?

[toro]

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.

Determined/undetermined are collapsed or uncollapsed states that are relative points of view (Rovelli). Points of view are information values and such information has no absolute value (Shannon). Values are relative/subjective (Einstein) [subjectivity was eatablished]. Conciousness is not required to collapse states (Zeilinger). Therefore consciousness is indistinguishable from any other material state (Bitbol) [subjectivity is independent of consciousness].

There. No super soul.

[Perhaps]

Correct, that is what the mind allows us - we just call it free will.

So why don't you have the free will to grow wings and fly?

I think I do have the capacity, but I exist in the reality my mind creates, and that reality doesn't allow for me to do so.

I view the mind as being omnipotent, and to ask the question of whether it is able to create a situation which doesn't correspond with the reality it created thus far is similar to asking the notorious 'can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it'. It's simply a misunderstanding of omnipotence.

This becomes more complicated when you introduce other minds and an external material world as well. I'm not sure how I would address these; I haven't devoted deep thought to this subject in a long while, although this conversation has spurred me to do more so recently.

[oxymoron]

I think I do have the capacity, but I exist in the reality my mind creates, and that reality doesn't allow for me to do so.

Beliefs are just noises in your head till you can show the evidence that they are actually the case.

[Perhaps]

Beliefs are just noises in your head till you can show the evidence that they are actually the case.

The supposition that reality is created by the mind would be the evidence of my statement's truth value.

Try to prove that reality is not created by the mind without using any material constructs in your premises and then we could address my supposition as false.

[genkaus]

Determined/undetermined are collapsed or uncollapsed states that are relative points of view (Rovelli). Points of view are information values and such information has no absolute value (Shannon). Values are relative/subjective (Einstein) [subjectivity was eatablished]. Conciousness is not required to collapse states (Zeilinger). Therefore consciousness is indistinguishable from any other material state (Bitbol) [subjectivity is independent of consciousness].

There. No super soul.

This is where you are wrong. The problem here is equivocation between subjectivity and relativity. Subjectivity, by definition, means dependnence on consciousness. Therefore, either you can establish subjectivity or you can establish independence from consciousness. These positions are mutually exclusive.

Unless the distinction between the quantum meaning and the layman meaning of terms such as POV and information is established, the distinction between relative/subjective becomes fudged leading to the error you just made.

---

I think I do have the capacity, but I exist in the reality my mind creates, and that reality doesn't allow for me to do so.

I view the mind as being omnipotent, and to ask the question of whether it is able to create a situation which doesn't correspond with the reality it created thus far is similar to asking the notorious 'can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it'. It's simply a misunderstanding of omnipotence.

This becomes more complicated when you introduce other minds and an external material world as well. I'm not sure how I would address these; I haven't devoted deep thought to this subject in a long while, although this conversation has spurred me to do more so recently.

It seems like you haven't put nay thought into this at all. You are essentially putting forward a circular proposition.

1. I exist in reality.
2. Reality exists in my mind.
3. My mind exists in me.

You premise itself is illogical. You cannot hope to prove anything using this premise because proof presupposes an objective existence of reality.

---

The supposition that reality is created by the mind would be the evidence of my statement's truth value.

Try to prove that reality is not created by the mind without using any material constructs in your premises and then we could address my supposition as false.

Way too easy.

1. Reality is what exists independently from any ideas about it. (Tautologically true)
2. If mind creates reality then it is not independent of the mind's ideas about it.

Therefore, mind does not create reality.