Do "minds" generate the world around it? — Cobra

That is the question I am curious about too.

Mostly because this question has real life applications. And answering this question can help countless people who struggle with sensory deficiencies and how it effects the psychological aspect of the mind.

But this thought also leads me to ask myself this question does consciousness conform to reality or does reality conform to our consciousness?

And if it is the latter does knowledge have any relevance?

Than I am forced to ask if it is consciousness that creates reality why can’t we manifest what we want? Whatever I choose to believe will become my reality.

And? That's not a sentence?

Yes, it is. It's a sentence-type we in the trade call a question. The aim of using a question is to elicit further information.

But in vain, for it seems there was nothing to elicit.

That was a word. Not a sentence. A proper sentence has a subject and verb for minimum. My point was trying to point out the difference between the reality itself and memories (or other mental reflections) of reality. I thought this is a huge topic in Philosophy of Mind and Metaphysics, albeit being classic and fundamental.

Can you validate the reality without sensory activity? I don't feel that they are in the realm of validation. Because they exist in different dimension.

To be able to validate these concepts, you must first define what reality is. Does reality means the World? Or just external matters outside of your perception? Can you ever define what reality and World is? Tell us first what your definition of reality and world is.

A proper sentence has a subject and verb for minimum. — Corvus

Huh?

ETA: Just to emphasize, Banno is a native English speaker. Your factoid on English is just that... some factoid... something some grammar teacher taught you once. That doesn't make it correct. There is no Académie d'anglais. Feel free to ask Banno for clarification, but there's something fundamentally wrong about trying to lecture native English speakers about how they're supposed to speak English.

I have not tried lecture him. I just did let him know that "And" is not a sentence. A sentence requires at least a subject and verb to be qualified as one. Being a native English speaker doesn't mean that how he communicates with English is always correct or right.

A sentence requires at least a subject and verb to be qualified as one. — Corvus

So? "Okay" isn't a sentence. "Aha" isn't a sentence. "Yes" isn't a sentence. "Yes, sir" isn't a sentence. But "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a sentence. Apparently, though, "So?", "And?", "Okay", "Aha", "Yes", and "Yes, sir" all communicate something meaningful in English, yet "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" does not.

Being a native English speaker doesn't mean that how he communicates with English is always correct or right. — Corvus

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gire and gimble in the wabe.

Pray tell, what point are you now lecturing me about? I don't accept your standard of correctness or rightness of English, so if you're going to lecture me about it, you're going to have to justify it with something a wee bit better than begging the question.

ETA: For your question begging fun:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minor%20sentence

I was talking about validation of reality. But I don't understand why now the topic has turned to lecturing and native English speakers.

I was just replying to the other person on his response to me. He was insisting "And" was a sentence. I told him that it is not. There is nothing more to it than that. You seemed to have joined this "bandwagon of native speakers of English, and if one is not, then he must be wrong". It is not even logical, or making sense to say that all native speakers English is alway correct. Anyway, it is not my interest debating about this with you anymore. I am just interested in the definition of reality and world, and possible validation methods on them.

He was insisting "And" was a sentence. I told him that it is not. — Corvus

Well technically he's right. It's a minor sentence. Whether or not it's a "proper sentence" sounds like something we shouldn't really care about.

You seemed to have joined this "bandwagon of native speakers of English, and if one is not, then he must be wrong". — Corvus

You seem to be missing a foundational point. Were it not for a "bandwagon of native speakers of English", there would be no such thing as English. Real linguists study how native language speakers speak; real lexicographers document how native language speakers use words; and so on. The definition of the language is in the commonality established by this bandwagon. (And just so there's no confusion, the context of "correct" here is simply "correct English").

Anyway, it is not my interest debating about this with you anymore. — Corvus

Good. In the future, you should not care about this stuff at the start. There's literally no point in telling someone about "proper sentences" having nouns and verbs. We're all speaking English; if something clear is being communicated, there's not really anything left to say. Just focus on content.

To be able to validate these concepts, you must first define what reality is. Does reality means the World? Or just external matters outside of your perception? Can you ever define what reality and World is? Tell us first what your definition of reality and world is. — Corvus

That is my question I ask to all scholars who acknowledge science as the final truth?

How can you differentiate the reality of the external (World) and the internal (In your mind)? Is science able to discriminate the two? And what evidence must we search for to discriminate the two?

To answer these questions will validate scientific finding without doubt.

It’s a paradox that I struggle with in my mind and why I am on this forum.

That is my question I ask to all scholars who acknowledge science as the final truth?

How can you differentiate the reality of the external (World) and the internal (In your mind)? Is science able to discriminate the two? And what evidence must we search for to discriminate the two?

To answer these questions will validate scientific finding without doubt.

It’s a paradox that I struggle with in my mind and why I am on this forum. — SteveMinjares

The goal of science, or one of the goals, is to be able to describe what happens when no human being is around. It's far from trivial, being able to disentangle what belongs "out there" as opposed to "in here", there may be no neat cut-off point in this respect.

I suspect the more math intensive something is, the less it corresponds to our own representation of the world. When we apply numbers to things in the world, what we seem to be doing is describing some structure and not what's "inside the structure". Russell talk about this, though the doctrine tends to be called "epistemic structural realism".

Why this seems to be true, as opposed to something else is not well known, so far as I've been able to see. It's one of the hardest questions of them all.

No you don't speak in minor sentence or a word in philosophical discussion. You are not having a pub talk with your long lost friends as if just reunited after long time. Or it doesn't sound one is serious or sincere, or you don't know what he was actually wanting to hear or say. That was not cool.

By the way, I was talking to Banna. Who are you, and why are you speaking to me on behalf of him? I wasn't even talking to you. It sounds like you are ganging up for someone, and shouting loud all over the street for no reasons.

Who are you — Corvus

I am just a member of this forum.

No you don't speak in minor sentence or a word in philosophical discussion. — Corvus

By whose authority? You're just another member of this forum.

Yes, this isn't a pub. But, it is a philosophy forum open to the public. You would do better treating us like the peers we are, than low lives you have to get off of your high horse to talk to. Try adult-adult like transactions, and stop trying this adult-child mode.

Anyway, I thought you were done with this argument?

But when a member is engaging off topic conversation due to the way he communicated, I would have thought it would be sensible to stay away, or just carry on with discussing the topic, rather than taking sides. It gives impression you are ganging up for some personal argument rather than participating in serious philosophical discussion. Furthermore it gives impression that for some peculiar reason that you are insulted personally, when I told him a simple message that "And" is not a sentence. The real problem of course is not whether it was a sentence or word or a piece of cheese. The real problem is the uncertainty of his intention by uttering such a word in a philosophical discussion which has to be all serious and sincere, logical and crystal clear.

Well minor sentence? If you are a philosopher, would you accept that? To be honest, I don't accept the concept called Minor Sentence. It doesn't matter who wrote it or where you found it from. Just because it is in some Dictionary site, it all makes sense and right? No!

When you mentioned about it, and wrote the link, I rejected it immediately. Because it is like saying Minor death, and tell you that it is life but also a death. It is a word but also sentence? No to me, words are words. They make up sentences, but they are not sentences themselves.

It is like saying, a brick is a minor house, because it makes up a house. But is it? No. Illogical concepts and senseless ideas must be reasoned, and discarded immediately. That is what philosophy is about.

Yes, I don't feel this argument is worth your time or mine. But I just added what I thought, not to continue but to stop, and carry on with the investigation on validation of existence and reality without sensory activities.

(-Facepalm-)

Well minor sentence? — Corvus

No! — Corvus

No. — Corvus

...are examples of minor sentences. That in mind, your diatribe is kind of hard to take seriously.

They were the words making up the part of the replies in the conversation. You have the other sentences clearly indicating what they mean, and the scope of the meanings getting delivered to you by all the sentences that are describing and supporting the situation. We have been engaging good conversation here, albeit trivial and off topic.

Whereas the uttered word by Banno was "And?" out of blue without any context or any scope of the meaning he intends to deliver. When you utter a word to someone who never exchanged any other words previously out of blue, then no one can expect or guess what the intention or meaning of the word is. And? ... the only thing I was sure at the point was, that it was not a complete sentence.

Yes.

Experience is a cycle and the universe is a cycle.

Together we create an expansion effect.

A sense-retard is still a prevailing cycle and can build in mind the model of the other cycle that prevails externally or blindly follow the time-lapse nature of retarded-consciousness.

I feel that without your sensory mechanism, all you have is past memories of reality. Therefore your knowledge on reality would be limited to that. Perhaps you can still imagine and guess on reality, but that would be very limited knowledge if it could produce knowledge at all.

But I wanted to ask you even before that, what is your definition of reality. Does reality mean the World, the universe, or simply things around you, which is also called as external matters?

But I wanted to ask you even before that, what is your definition of reality. Does reality mean the World, the universe, or simply things around you, which is also called as external matters? — Corvus

I doubt my eyes but I see, I doubt my ears but I hear, I doubt touch but I feel, I doubt my nose but I smell, I doubt my mouth but I taste. I only trust what the spirit witness.

What am I?

Answer that question for me and that is my reality.

I doubt my eyes but I see, I doubt my ears but I hear, I doubt touch but I feel, I doubt my nose but I smell, I doubt my mouth but I taste. I only trust what the spirit witness.

What am I?

Answer that question for me and that is my reality. — SteveMinjares

Problem is that, they might be illusion or dream. How do you know they are the real or your dreams? You are already doubting about them.

And the other question is, is reality then always private? Does it then exist within only your perception?
So, if you cannot perceive any of them, does it mean that reality does not exist? The good old idealist vs. realist arguments, but I am still struggling to know which one is definitely correct.

And the other question is, is reality then always private? Does it then exist within only your perception?
So, if you cannot perceive any of them, does it mean that reality does not exist? The good old idealist vs. realist arguments, but I am still struggling to know which one is definitely correct. — Corvus

My teacher once told “The one who seeks knowledge let him find it. If the knowledge they seek is found they will be troubled by what they know.”

That is why I preach about faith and trust. I also discourage the pursuit of control and power. Control and power may lead to self mutilation and mutilation to others.

Questions are infinite and the more you know the more questions will arise. If any speculation ever becomes validated than you will be burden by wonder. Wonder of why and if there is more. Finding yourself in a never ending cycle of questions and answers. This is the trouble he speaks of, the restlessness and the turmoil of thought.

Hell is described as Aporia, the existence of doubt, arrogant thinking and being devoid of compassion, love, mercy and forgiveness.

The only pursuit is peace and joy and the spread of it.

Our purpose is the acts of Compassion, Love, Mercy and Forgiveness.

This how reality is defined.

The answer to the question is no. No sensation, no reasoning of any kind is possible. Rocks do not reason. No reasoning no argument for validation is possible.

The answer to the question is no. No sensation, no reasoning of any kind is possible. Rocks do not reason. No reasoning no argument for validation is possible. — Athena

This may sound like a ridiculous scenario but bare with me. I understand I am transitioning away from the topic of spirituality to more like science fiction but “When in Rome” right?

I disagree with that statement due to the possibility of telepathic communication and how it may exist now through nature. This presumption was brought on because scientists discovered evidence of its existence through there research.

This discovery or potential of this discovery may change how we perceive reality.

If telepathic communication is possible then sensory input may become obsolete or not necessary to perceive reality.


“Scientists Prove That Telepathic Communication Is Within Reach“

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-prove-that-telepathic-communication-is-within-reach-180952868/

Even without the sensory faculties, your ability to experience hunger & thirst, emotions, your hormonal operations would not be compromised and so on.

Descriptions of reality are asserted through rulesets created by the intellect, not rulesets contingent upon "reality", whatever it is. Your rulesets don't need to meet any criteria besides your belief and your application of them. That's what faith is, that's what your views about arrogance, knowledge, whatever else, are. Just remember that most people are trying to form rulesets that can reliably predict the future, or follow some shared understanding, or describe things in accordance with ideas like logic, reason and etc.

If i.e you discourage the pursuit of power and control, your reasoning for doing so is X and if X is a claim about reality, then we can to some extent test this claim. We should do this because if X is incorrect then your reason for doing what you do is likely also incorrect. You could just ignore this possibility and nothing is stopping you from doing that but there is an argument that says that you should care. Your conclusion could be your own personal reality, a mixture of bias, anecdotal evidence and interpretation labelled wisdom. If X is verified, your reasoning is not validated in a scientific sense, your complicated interpretation cannot be validated by any science.

That you claimed X about reality and we can verify whether X is true or not causes problems for the idea of just creating your own reality. That your complicated interpretation cannot be validated by science doesn't stop other intellects from disagreeing with your reasoning. If you adhere in a basic sense to how logic and validity works, you try to be reasonable then you can also be demonstrated to be incorrect in your claims about how X means we should do Y. And so, there are significant limitations for you, they are only overcome by your flaws, basically, that you can be wrong but convinced you are correct, unreasonable but convinced you are being fair.

I'm not saying it's that simple but I think that's a fair starting point.

Just remember that most people are trying to form rulesets that can reliably predict the future, or follow some shared understanding, or describe things in accordance with ideas like logic, reason and etc. — Judaka

You also need to acknowledge things change, our environment change and that is why rules change.

I guess to put it simply, don’t get to comfortable things always change and you will need to adapt to the new rule set when it does. This concept always needs to be considered due to the existence of time and the unawareness of instances that cannot be observed.

Predicting things and finding structure is like building a damn and always assuming it will always be there. There will be rainy seasons that will cause a flood breakdown the damn you build.

As for my definition of reality, I am opened minded enough to a say I may be full of it. But that is my way of respecting change and excepting that my ideals and beliefs need to always be expendable. This way I can be receptive to new Truths.

This is my humble philosophy “Pop a beer and enjoy the ride.” If it is great, if not well it was one hell of a ride.

If you had sensory perception before, but now for some reason, you lost it. In that case, your present sense of reality would be totally dependant upon your memory of reality you once had. But in that case, can you say that your sense of reality at present is correct?

If you have never had sensory perceptions in your life, then your sense of reality would be totally based upon on your imagination only, which obviously will be wrong from the real objective reality.

In many modern philosophical schools and traditions, your reality is your sensory perception. They are the same thing.

The concept of reality in Heidegerrian terms is that being which appears or presents (aletheia) into your perception.

Another thing about Reality is, that it must have some sort of objectivity. If you see something, but no one else can, and if you can hear something, but you are the only one who can, then is it reality? I don't think so. It is your illusion and you might have problem with you hearing mechanism.

If you can see something as something, then all other people who are presented to the object must be able to see it. If you hear something, then others around you must also be able to hear it. So, it can be qualified as real object or real sound, and they are part of the reality.

This may sound like a ridiculous scenario but bare with me. I understand I am transitioning away from the topic of spirituality to more like science fiction but “When in Rome” right?

I disagree with that statement due to the possibility of telepathic communication and how it may exist now through nature. This presumption was brought on because scientists discovered evidence of its existence through there research.

This discovery or potential of this discovery may change how we perceive reality.

If telepathic communication is possible then sensory input may become obsolete or not necessary to perceive reality.


“Scientists Prove That Telepathic Communication Is Within Reach“ — SteveMinjares

I totally welcome creative thinking, we could not land on the moon or explore Mars without it. Right now too many people behave like the church of old when it tried to be the sole authority over what we think. What fools these people are to restrict discussions to technological correctness as they know all that is important to know. Not only is that an excessively high opinion of what we know, but it would stop any further advancement if people didn't dare to think beyond the limits of common thought.

I believe we call telepathy a 5th sense? I am not sure how different thought waves are from sound waves and all the wireless digital information our computers and cell phones receive? I think there are so many mysteries we are better off enjoying them than we would be if some idiots had the power to restrict what we think about. And when it comes to telepathy there is a lot that indicates we should give it more attention.