If he has a body, he experiences time through the changes in his body. Most urgently, increasing thirst, and by the end of five or six days, dying. If he were fed and watered at intervals, he could experience less significant changes: sleep and waking, boredom and terror, beard and fingernails growing, the arrival of food and need to eliminate. That's how you generally mark the passage of time in solitary confinement, hospital or long train rides: mealtimes.

But then walls and a body are something. Even a disembodied consciousness is something. The problem here is not with time - which you're absolutely right has no autonomous existence - but the concept of "nothing". — Vera Mont

Let's imagine someone waking up from a coma or a long deep sleep in the room. They would be confused about why they are in a confined space with walls and silence. In this situation, they wouldn't even be able to guess the time.

Indeed all they would have is the concept of nothing. They might try to remember what happened before they went into the deep sleep, but what if their mind is blank and they can't recall anything?

If time existed in the universe, they should still be able to determine what time it is and how much time has passed since they were in the space (because the confined room is part of the universe), which implies non existence of time physically in the world. They would have no clue about the time until someone tells them or they find out by asking around when they were put into the room and how long they have been there. This would be the case even if they are eventually released from the room and return to normality. Time is a mental entity perceived in the mind.

But wouldn't he still feel as if time passed? He would be able to estimate how much time passed based on his awareness of his own thoughts, creating an internal clock. His sucessive sequence of thoughts also creates the perception of time. — finarfin

Yes, you are correct. The estimation of time passed since being placed in the confined space and the perception of time through observation of changes in external objects would likely be different. It is difficult to determine which time perception would be more accurate as it would depend on various factors and individual experiences.

This concept of different time perceptions could indeed be an interesting scientific and metaphysical experiment, exploring the subjective nature of time and how it is perceived by individuals. It could provide valuable insights into the human experience and our understanding of time itself.

To me, the world created by the mind, and the world created by sense perception are one and the same world. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think they are different. The world created by your minds is totally different from the perceived one. For example, the world depicted by an artist such as painters, novelists, poets would be the world created by mind.

I was not the one proposing the separation between mind produced world and sense produced world. To me, the world created by the mind, and the world created by sense perception are one and the same world. But we need to be aware of the cases where the senses mislead us. And I think your proposal to separate these two is not warranted. So the problem you present here with your question, is just an indication that your proposal is unacceptable. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't the senses part of your mind? Are the senses separate entities from the mind operating themselves disconnected from the mind? You say you were not proposing it, but it sounds like that is the point you are insisting on. I was not proposing anything, but saying what the traditional idealist was saying about the world and perception.

I think that there are regularities to the way things occur in the universe, due to the universe having such regularities biological evolution could and did occur. — wonderer1

I think the regularities in the universe is the same nature as the perception of cause and effect (the cement of the universe), time described by Hume. They are just the products of mental operations.

None of them provide any content. — Janus

If there was no Logic providing any content, you wouldn't have your computer or smartphone running and connected to the internet, typing up the message posting it. The whole computer architecture, software, apps, network etc are all based on the logical system working with the microprocessors in the servers, hubs and networks as well as all the operating systems in the personal computers and smart phones.

t is a characterization of Kant's philosophy that applies to synthetic philosophies in general. Wherever there is creativity, it is a product of the imagination. — Janus

I would appreciate the direct quotes from Kant's own books supporting your points. Thanks.

Hello Bob Ross.

I have no problem with the imagination being used to try to sort of something empirical—it is when we going beyond the empirical that gets sketchy to me. — Bob Ross

Can you trust all your empirical perception and observation? Are the data you gathered via your senses 100% error free?

Every valid aspect of science is a prediction about something which could be possibly experienced. Metaphysics is about that which, in principle, can never be. — Bob Ross

If you are insisting on only accepting possible experienceable phenomena as your valid science, I think you are limiting your knowledge to bare minimum. I doubt so called valid scientific knowledge in that nature would be much use.

Viewing it from a telescope is a form of experiencing it. How do you ‘view’ whether the world is actually made of a physical or mental substance? Or that there actually are Universals, or just particulars? — Bob Ross

The knowledge derived from the visual experience via telescope from millions of miles away from the astral objects without any kind of direct contact is nothing more than imaginary conjectures and inferences. Metaphysics use reasoning as the main methodology for their knowledge.

Positing hypotheses to try to predict objects within possible experience is not metaphysics. — Bob Ross

Metaphysics can deal with any objects and methodology if they are related to their topics, and also as part of their investigations.

All of these (except maybe ‘dialectic logic’, depending on what you mean there) share that pertain to the form of argumentation and not the content. — Bob Ross

The whole Marxist movement and running of the countries has been based on the Dialectic Logic. And All those logic listed above are used in many different sciences and technologies for applications to real life situations and device designs.

Of course! Metaphysics, in the sense that I defined it in the OP, is about ontological things; that is, about that which is beyond the possibility of experience (e.g., Universals vs. particulars, nature of time, nature of space, substances, etc.). Now, all we can ever know empirically is from our experience, so the best we can ever do in terms of explaining the ‘nature’ of things is what is conditioned, right off the bat, by our possible forms of experience (and, not to mention, our means of cognizing the world) (namely space and time) and thusly are only valid constrained to them. Take away your forms of experience, and everyone else’s, and what is intelligible left (with any metaphysical claim you can think of)? Absolutely nothing. — Bob Ross

Many of the concepts such as Time, Space, Substance are also studied by Physics, Chemistry and QM too. You are not just discarding metaphysics, but totally discarding also the general Science as well.

How do you know something is beyond possibility of experience, if you had not experienced it at all? If something is truly beyond possibility of experience, then you wouldn't even be able to mention it, because you have never experienced it, and your stance is that whatever beyond possibility of your experience is unknowable? Therefore it couldn't possibly be your criteria for declaring it is metaphysics. Is everything that is beyond your experience, metaphysics? You cannot declare what is unknowable and beyond possibility of experience to you as metaphysics, because it is unknowable. It is just unknowable.

I just don't think it is the case that all metaphysics topics are something that is beyond possibility of experience, because it also deals with experienceable objects as well.  I am not sure what you mean by experience too.  Does it mean visible and audible and touchable objects only?  Things that we talk about, fantasize, and even imagine, should they not also be mental experience in nature?

So if you propose a separation between the perceived world (world created by sensation), and a mind created world, the perceived world is demonstrably less accurate. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if you block out and disable all your senses, then what knowledge of the world would you get?

Agree, the implications of the term 'create' are especially significant in this context. I could have equally called the essay 'the mind-made world', I guess. — Wayfarer

:100: :up:

Even Berkeley said "esse ist percipi", not "esse ist
creatus"

:cool: :ok:

There are imagined world, perceived world and the world itself. If you are an idealist, you would be believing the perceived world as the real world? If you say, the world is created by your mind, I feel your world is likely to be very much in illusion. A perceived world sounds more accurate.

Yes, I feel the OP is a large topic, and I must admit I haven't gone into the core yet. I was asking questions from the elementary epistemological point of view. Maybe the topic itself seems Philosophy of Mind problem rather than Epistemology.

Anyway, this is a very interesting topic, and I would like to investigate deeper for the further discussions.

My idea about the world is Evolutionary nature rather than either Physicalism or Idealism. I will think, build my points on that idea, and return to compare with your views.

A world. There's a difference. — Wayfarer

The title of the OP says "The Mind-Created World" :chin: :roll:

A world. There's a difference. — Wayfarer

Isn't the created world in your mind more prone to be illusive than the perceived world?

:cool: :ok:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'extreme idealism', but give these modern editions of Berkeley a squiz. He's surprisingly persuasive. — Wayfarer

If you say, Esse est percipi, then it is an idealism. But if you say you create the world in your mind, then I see it as an "extreme idealism". :)

Logic supplies no content; it consists in procedural rules. — Janus

Could you please clarify which logic you mean here? There are vast many different types of Logic.

Deductive Logic
Inductive Logic
Predicate Logic
Philosophical Logic
Modal Logic
Non-Classical Logic
Dialectic Logic

Kant's philosophy is the product of logically constrained imagination; that is it consists in imagining the entailments of some basic premises in a logically rigorous, i.e. coherent and consistent, way. — Janus

Could you please elaborate your points with the relevant quotes from Kant's CPR or any of his own writings?

I say prelinguistic because apparently some animals can do simple counting. — Janus

Wow really? Heard first time. Which animals can count?

Anyhow simple counting is not mathematics. Mathematics can give (birth to) answers for complex problems. In that way it is not like exactly literal language either.

Can counting be viewed as mathematics? This could be another topic.

Symbolic language — Janus

Mathematics

My definition of metaphysics is that is the study of that which is beyond the possibility of experience, and not that it is a process of using the imagination. For most metaphysicians, they use principles like parsimony, explanatory power, internal/external coherence, (logical) consistency, intuitions, etc. to determine metaphysical theories. — Bob Ross

There are many aspects of science which they cannot observe and verify empirically, but still have to deal with. In those cases, science uses hypotheses which are imagination in nature. When metaphysics works with science, it can use reasoning and inference for the unobservable objects. If you are only relying on the observable and verifiable objects only, you would have very little to work with.

For instance most of the astronomical objects are unreachable from earth. They are only viewable by telescope from a far distance. You can see them, but you cannot verify them, but they still use inference to come to the theories and answers. In this case, their studies and investigations are metaphysical rather than scientific. Hence there are parts where science and metaphysics cross each other's boundary too.

Logic devoid of empirically verified content is indistinguishable from the imagination. I can make a logically consistent argument for the world being comprised of one giant cookie monster. — Bob Ross

Where empirically verified content is devoid, Logic uses inference for coming to their conclusions which is one of the main empirical scientific methods.

Of course, it attempts to answer questions we humans want to answer, but there is a reason we can’t legitimately: there is no way to ground it in reality, since all we have of reality is our experience of it and the questions metaphysics tries to answer (as a matter of ontology) is beyond that experience. — Bob Ross

I don't understand this point here. Could you please elaborate in detail with some examples please? Thanks.

But mathematicians are very imaginative people. What they have done goes far beyond what you describe. — jgill

Sure. Last time I did math was in my high school days, a long long time ago :D I was describing it in the simplest manner.

However, you seem to agree with the idea that math is not embedded in the universe, but it is a human language type tool working from reasoning, if I am reading you correctly.

If mathematics is embedded in the universe, then why don't the other animals with high intelligence such as Monkeys, Apes and some dogs make use of mathematics? Surely they exist in the universe just like humans do? Why is it that only humans use mathematics? What have humans got, the other species haven't got?

Good point. I believe that humans are alienated from the universe. They live in the world, but they are not part of the world. The world presents itself to humans as an unknown object (M. Heidegger). Humans cannot fathom the world in full, and definitely is not part of the world, i.e. the universe. (Kant, Schopenhauer)

Even if all humans reside in their own bodies, they don't know what is happening in their own body, or how long the bodies will keep functioning for them. After deaths, bodies disintegrate into the space separating the mind evaporated into the thin air. Where is the connection between the humans and the universe?

All humans are alienated, and separated not just from the world, but from other human beings too. No one can access another's mind, for example. We only communicate via language use, and of course, with the gift of reason, we can come up with knowledge, logic and mathematical intuitions which are part of the reasoning. Without these tools, we would be just like other wild animals hunting for food for survival.

In my The World Religion book set there are 6 books and 1 book covering each

Buddhism
Catholic
Hindu
Islam
Judaism
Protestant

They all seem to have different God for their own religion. So there are too many Gods, and I don't know which God is the real God.

If you believed in Buddhism, you could become a God yourself, if you get the full nirvana and enlightenment after so many years of studies, meditations and prayers. I am not quite sure if you are upgraded to a Buddhist God, you could expect to get any divine privileges such as immortality, omnipotency , omnipresence, omniscience, or resurrection after death etc. If not, what's the point?

In the case of Hindu, there are many different Gods for different areas of work they do just like the Greek Gods in the Homeric times.

The rest has their own God and the holy scriptures, traditions and beliefs. So which God do you have to believe? Or do you have to believe them all, if one is religious?

Other options are, of course, don't believe them all (atheist), or keep open minded as an agnostic.

I thought about this topic briefly, and this is what I came up with. It could be wrong. If you see any points that are not right, or don't make sense, please let me know. Thanks.

I was reading Hume on Time, and his idea of time is that it is the internal perception of mind, just like cause and effect, when objects exist in duration and succession. So without the external objects, and without changes in duration and succession, there would be no time. I agree with this view on time.

Indeed, time does not exist in the external world. It is in human perception when the mind perceives changes of the external objects, or movement of the objects in succession, the perception of time happens internally.

The time we are using now on the clocks is the universal cultural agreement by the movement of the Earth around the Sun (365 days per one rotation), and also rotation of the Earth (24 hours per one self rotation), and it is just measurement of the duration for general life conveniences. It has nothing to do with the actual time itself. They could easily declare today is year 0, and 1 day will be 100 hours on some other duration measurements, and the whole time contract will work differently.

The reason that time travel is not possible in the physical world is that actual time doesn't exist in the physical world.

Time is just a product of human perception, which is mental in nature. If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed while he was in captivity in the space, because there was no events, changes or movements at all around him for his perception to realise the time durations happened in that space.

We only feel time because every morning, we see the Sun rise, even if it is raining or cloudy, it still is brighter than the night, and the daylight changes to the evening, and nights again, hence knows a day has passed. Therefore with nothing existing, there is definitely no time. With everything existing, still there is no time, because time is in the human mind inaccessible to the outside world and other humans.

I can't speak for Wayfarer, but as an idealist, my own thoughts on that are idealism inevitably leads to god for just that sort of reason. — RogueAI

Perhaps that is the reason why we don't know anything about God, because he is hiding in the idealist's mind. :D

:cool::ok:

Is extreme idealism not prone to illusion and misrepresentation of the world? Even with all the justification, your own mind created evidence, logic and justification without the external reference would be still illusive and deceptive. How do you prove it is real, and doubtless knowledge?

G.W.F Hegel by Stanley Rosen - Yale University Press 1973

A great book elucidating Hegel's system.

I am not sure if the OP's definition on Metaphysics is formally accepted by the public and academics. Metaphysics doesn't use imagination and conjectures all the time as its investigative methods.

For instance, Kant's Metaphysics arrives at its conclusions via rigorous logical arguments. Aristotle's Metaphysics analyses the abstract concepts and universals again via logic. I don't see any imagination there at all. Plato creates the new world of ideas and forms again with the supporting arguments.

Modern Metaphysics has evolved into working with Epistemology, Theology, Ethics and Science, and it asks and investigates the topics these subjects cannot deal with or ask, such as the "why" questions.

The OP's unorthodox definition of Metaphysics seems to lead to the bizarre conclusion with the extreme view discarding the valuable aspects of the studies which are actually essential and important in Philosophy.

Formal logic and Symbolic logic are not able to deal with the real world phenomenon and states very well. They are OK for dispositional propositional truths findings, and as "tools for understanding the world" - (www.marxists.org), but for real world applications, Dialectic Logic seems a better system.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/system2.htm

I have thought about this topic briefly, and this is what I came up with. It could be wrong. If you don't agree with any of the points, please let me know.

Math describes the objects in the external world, and that is it. It is just a numeric and logical language operating from the mind. Our spoken and written literal language describes the objects, world and even mental states in the propositions we express. But math can only describe the objects and world in numeric forms.

Unlike the literal language, math cannot describe mental states of the human mind. For example, the literal language is able to say something like "I l feel tired." or "I am anxious." "I am excited about the new book I just ordered." Math cannot describe that at all in any shape of form or ways.

Therefore math is limited to be applied to only physical objects, movements of the objects, location of the objects, temperature, speeds, brightness pressures etc of the external world.

When one says, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. In this case, there is absolutely no necessary connection between the apples and the numbers. The number was added by the observer and the counter empirically. The apples are physical objects in the world. The numbers, and the deducted total are from the human mind observing and counting the apples.

And when you say, the car was travelling at 60 miles per hour, it is the same case. The car and 60 miles per hour has no necessity at all. It was just measured by a speedometer (speed = distance ÷ time
) or laser speedo gun at that moment of observation, the car was running at the speed.

So, math is just a measuring and calculating tool using numbers applied to describe and predict the measurable properties of the external objects and movements. Math is not embedded in the universe. Of course not !

:cool: :ok:

That seems to me to prefigure the answer from Austin. — Banno

Sure.  Is it not what Austin was also pointing out in his book "Sense and Seinsibilia"?

"there are no criteria to be laid down in general for distinguishing the real from the not real. How this is to be done must depend on what it is with respect to which the problem arises in particular cases. Furthermore,even for particular kinds of things, there may be many different ways in which the distinction may be made."  (Austin, p.76).

Without knowing what particular case of "Real" the OP is asking about, we really don't know what he is even asking about. No? :)

What is real? And how can you know that for real? — A Realist

Is the OP question grammatically correct ? "Real" is an adjective which needs a noun after it in English grammar. What is Real X? How can you know that for real X? Is this not what OP should have asked?
X= any abstract or concrete object, e.g. world, book, God ...etc.

Just asking "What is Real" sounds something not right grammatically and contextually. What object is the OP asking as Real?

Depending on how you define it, yes. In the sense I defined it in the OP, no. — Bob Ross

I have nothing to define, but would you not agree that the OP's claim sounds like Metaphysical itself?

Claiming that the world is unknowable for whatever grounds has been a typical Metaphysical conclusion made by various philosophers in history. The world itself is a metaphysical concept too. :)

"X is unknowable." is also a Metaphysical comment. Because if it were Science, they will make up some hypothesis on the object they want to find out. But Metaphysics don't use hypotheses for their methodology. It just declares "X is unknowable." (with the supporting argument), and it would be a good enough Metaphysical knowledge.

‘HOW IS METAPHYSICS POSSIBLE?’ Kant’s Great Question and His Great Answer by Nicholas F. Stang

https://philarchive.org/archive/STAHIM

What say you? — Bob Ross

Isn't this a metaphysical question? The Metaphysicians have been asking and investigating on the nature of Metaphysics and its legitimacy of the claims. One of the point of CPR by Kant was to find out, "How Metaphysics is possible as a Science."

Quite compelling quotes from Wiki. I suppose there would be controversies on some of the historically famous and influencing scientists.