if the mind cannot confirm matter without precepts, how can you confirm that reality exists outside of the mind?
(remember that communication is STILL from preceptions)
------------------
General Philosophy
Printable View
if the mind cannot confirm matter without precepts, how can you confirm that reality exists outside of the mind?
(remember that communication is STILL from preceptions)
------------------
General Philosophy
Alright, I'm really trying to slip into a way of thinking that you guys seem to have mastered. I find your thoughts quite provoking, and this question to be a wonderously fun one. However, this is my hypothesis *which I'm sure you all can rip to peices, and that is fine* but... If every mind has their own preceptions, and it's reality, then everything must have it's own place in reality. Therefore everything that we percieve, must in some form, perceive us to a degree, thus we are in it's reality. In which case, doesn't this make reality then universal, and applying to all things, much the same as the air touches everything? *scratches head* damnit, i think 3 things are going on.. 1. i'm confusing myself... 2. the pain meds from breaking my collarbone today are kicking in, and 3.Perhaps i just can't express myself fully on here... hehehe....
------------------
hannibal--
here's to you! man, i do that all the time. i get started thinking of something i wanna say and by the time my post is sent--BAM!!!! i re-read it and even i can't decypher what i was saying!
well, let me try to help you with this one.
imagine that in one hand you have a diamond.
ask yourself this:
is the diamond hard?
how do you know unless the diamond is scratching something or is placed against something in order to test its hardness?
damn! forget that. new topic-post later.
i suppose the question above was something i was thinking earlier.
i know of particular 'people' (i will refrain from posting philo. names) think that reality is nothing more than a compilation of experiences. experiences being subjective in nature, how can there be more than that?
lets suppose that you are standing in front of a chair. suppose that you want to confirm that the chair DOES, in fact, exist in reality beyond your own experience/perceptions. how would you go about asking me if the chair exists without using a description?
(desriptions are simply based on perception, again)
you can't.
well, you might say that the chair is made of tiny, microscopic molecules that come together through sub-atomic blah blah blah...but still, that is a description based on your own perceptions. you think or believe that the chair is made of molecules...but that is still your perception (i.e.--the way you see it).
does that make sense?
oh yeah...and thanks for the new topic idea! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
General Philosophy
Hello mon Shatoux!
Experiences are indeed subjective in nature, but in what way do they have to be more than that? Les Perceptiones (that generate experiences) are subjective in the sense that:
1) they depend on one's own perceptional devices, which slightly differ from people to people (I might experience 'blue' in a slightly different way that you do).
2) they are interpreted in terms of one's own set of previous knowledge and mind frame (Assuming that Jupiter rules in the skies, I might interpret thunderclaps as god's farts).
3) when communicated, they serve specific purposes, depending on the context in which they apply (When I say "Mind the stairs", rather than describing the stairs, I mean that you might fall, like, let's say, I did yesterday).
Now, is it possible that perceptions, though subjective in nature, serve as an objective description of what exists?
Well, I think that "objectivity" is thought as an absolute; I do not endorse this thought, because it implies the existence of an Ultimate Reality (which I do not endorse either). You may think of "objectivity" as "trans-subjectivity", when subjective perceptions/thoughts/feelings/ideas are communicated and shared among community. Actually, this is what makes a group of people a "community"; the fact that they share a common language, a common worldview - regardless of the differences that inevitably exist.
------------------
All the descriptions of which you guys have given, about drawing on experiances which then incorporates things into your thought, making it prove that it is your reality through the interaction with the item in question... Well.. the original question reminds me a lot of infinity. Inifinity being an idea that the human mind cannot grasp. You can't imagine a space with no beginning and no end. Because you try to look for the end, but it's infinity and it carries on forever. I guess that's just what this whole topic reminds me of, because with reality I guess, it has to be based upon perceptions of the mind, or else, it would be like infinity and we would not be able to function, we'd mearly be things, that can't perceive.... *re reads all taht, scratches his head, and then nods*
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SHATOUSHKA: if the mind cannot confirm matter without precepts, how can you confirm that reality exists outside of the mind?
(remember that communication is STILL from preceptions)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(yes I understand)
The Mind is Real and all that lies "outside" it is also very real. Mind is no more than a tool which can experience and confirm that which really exists, through tools acquired from Nature which help it perceive.
An Absolute "Reality" does not exist, because ALL that there is, is Reality, and it cannot be attributed to one particular thing or concept.
I agree with vecteur in this.....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>vecteur: Well, I think that "objectivity" is thought as an absolute; I do not endorse this thought, because it implies the existence of an Ultimate Reality (which I do not endorse either).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
....just IMHO though.
i'll agree that the idea that what particular 'blue' one sees can be different to another...but again, as vecteur pointed out, it is based on personal foundations in experience--which is, again, personal.
no matter the foundation, it remains the same.
if we two were in a room and one said, do you see that chair--of course i would say, 'yes'. you could ask if i see the chair being red in color. again i would reply, 'yes'.
despite our background (and) experience, it is concluded that we see the same object.
but how do you know that the object is really there? perhaps i am recognizing the same thing you recognize. i can see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it when it is slammed on the floor...but that does not mean that because i confirm it--that it exists.
what if 'i' just happened to be the manifistation of your mind confiming what you are questioning (in existence)? how do you know that 'i' am there? because i say so? because i have my own experiences different from yours? how do you know that?
i am siding with hannibal.
suh, i challenge you to a duel at noon.
------------------
General Philosophy
Shatoush, I cannot give a very scholarly rebuttal, but I will try to explain it in my own words.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Shatoush: i'll agree that the idea that what particular 'blue' one sees can be different to another...but again, as vecteur pointed out, it is based on personal foundations in experience--which is, again, personal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If one sees a color as 'blue' and calls it so, and another sees the same color, and also calls it 'blue', it does not matter if that color is different in hue to each of them, nor does it matter if the color is Actually any other color but 'blue', what matters is that more than one person confirm it in agreement, which confirms that there surely is a color in which two different perceivers confirm that a 'blue' color, as they have named it, exists. In this, an individual Mind comes to a conclusion, that what it sees is not just a "personal" experience any more, but universal to a great extent.
To give a better example from your point of view, you can ask, who is actually color-blind? For if a Million say that it is Green, and just One perston says that he sees Blue, what would the color be in Actuality? In this, we could never know what that color Actually is. But do we abandon our search of understanding on this fact that we might never "know". The rest who see it a Green can come to an agreement, that the majority who see the color as Green, will use it as a signal meaning 'GO'. Now, if this green in Actuality is Blue, does not matter.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>but how do you know that the object is really there? perhaps i am recognizing the same thing you recognize. i can see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it when it is slammed on the floor...but that does not mean that because i confirm it--that it exists.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it does not confirm that it exists if ONLY "you" confirm it, but it does if some one else agrees with you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>what if 'i' just happened to be the manifistation of your mind confiming what you are questioning (in existence)? how do you know that 'i' am there? because i say so? because i have my own experiences different from yours? how do you know that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This too doesn't matter. Just by the fact, that someone who calls itself 'Shatoushka', will most probably reply this post, and is most probably a human being with a logical Mind just like me, confirms that there is another person who exists. If we are figments of each others imagination, really does not matter. Unless you are searching for a GOD to confirm it, which you know will lead to what.
The 'Matrix' is a good exercise for the Mind, but once you realize that it wouldn't matter, one should not go into extreems and loose ones logical sanity over it.
------------------
....just IMHO though.
just out of curiousity...(a 2 part question)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The 'Matrix' is a good exercise for the Mind, but once you realize that it wouldn't matter, one should not go into extreems and loose ones logical sanity over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why not?
--------------------------------------------
*note: the quote refers to something of 'matter'--meaning, 'it wouldn't matter'....what is this 'matter' that you are referring to?
what wouldn't matter? what would? what consitutes 'matter-ing'?
------------------
General Philosophy
Why not what?
Why not still keep on chasing an assumption, which may or may not exist?
Or, Why not "believe" in it and keep on investigating it any way?
Or, We are definitely manipulated by aliens, I Know it, and if I find out the secret I will be free (free of what?), so I will spend the rest of my life searching for that secret.
That secret could be a secret within a secret, and that secret too a secret within a secret, and so on...
Suppose we were actually controlled by some other Mind, if that is true then it becomes very much possible that that "Mind" could be controlled by another Mind, and so on. It would end up in an infinite regress.
Where and how would you find a starting point? For there isn't any.
The other Mind which could be controlling us, would be a Cuase that is Effecting us, and their Mind would be an Effect of a previous Cause, and Cause and Effect have no beginning or end. So it doesn't matter if some aliens are manipulating our Minds, bucause the same could be hapenning to them, and so on.
And, even if you find out anything, at that point, you could still be deluded into thinking, or led to "believe" that you found out "somethnig", which may not Actually be the truth. How would you differentiate? It becomes a futile mental exercise if you understand Cuase & Effect, and so it does not matter.
------------------
....just IMHO though.