We agree that appearance is mind-created. Here we also seem to agree that the appearance is a perspective on mind-independent reality. — hypericin
:roll: :monkey:I don’t think it’s indirect realism, as the external world can’t be said to exist outside of or independently of the mind. But neither does it not exist. — Wayfarer
...There is no need for me to deny that the Universe is real independently of your mind or mine, or of any specific, individual mind. Put another way, it is empirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind. But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object....
A corollary of this is that ‘existence’ is a compound or complex idea. To think about the existence of a particular thing in polar terms — that it either exists or does not exist — is a simplistic view of what existence entails. This is why the criticism of idealism that ‘particular things must go in and out of existence depending on whether they’re perceived’ is mistaken. It is based on a fallacious idea of what it means for something to exist. The idea that things ‘go out of existence’ when not perceived is really their ‘imagined non-existence’– your imagining them going out of existence. In reality, the supposed ‘unperceived object’ neither exists nor does not exist. Nothing whatever can be said about it.
‘By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, “non-existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, “existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one.’ — The Buddha, Kaccāyanagotta Sutta
And this 'idea' is incoherent because it implies either (A) a Matryoshka doll-like infinite regress of minds-which-exist within minds-which-exist within ... ad infinitum (i.e. 'it's turtles all the way down) or (B) that "some mind" which "whatever exists for" is not ultimately "whatever exists". :sparkle: :eyes:Basically, I'm simply arguing that whatever exists, always exists for some mind. — Wayfarer
I can't understand his mathematically-based arguments, and a lot of what he says is over my head. — Wayfarer
Objection, your honor, the defense is being evasive. The question was not asking about any particular genre of science, but merely about a scientific rather than philosophical position. Please direct the defense to answer the question about Ultimate Existence.So tell me, according to current science, what does ultimately exist? — Wayfarer
Well which "current science" is your non-scientific question referring to, Wayf? — 180 Proof
... which is why I asked for specificity.The question was not asking about any particulargenre ofscience, ... — Gnomon
I've no idea what you mean, sir, by "a scientific rather than a philosophical position".... but merely about a scientific rather than philosophical position.
(From my member profile) Existence is a brute fact – radically contingent – so whatever exists is contingent as well. No thing is "ultimate".what does ultimately exist?
And this 'idea' is incoherent because it implies either (A) a Matryoshka doll-like infinite regress of minds-which-exist within minds-which-exist within ... ad infinitum (i.e. 'it's turtles all the way down) or (B) that "some mind" which "whatever exists for" is not ultimately "whatever exists". — 180 Proof
:roll:So you know things exist and you don't need a mind for knowing that? — baker
A proper idealist wouldn't care about politics or science, but Wayfarer clearly does. — baker
(via infinite regress: mind dependent on mind dependent on mind dependent on ...) which is self-refuting. — 180 Proof
Existence is a brute fact – radically contingent – so whatever exists is contingent as well. — 180 Proof
As I pointed out, "mind dependent on mind dependent on ..." is incoherent, thus meaningless and doesn't "conform" to anything.How does mind dependent on mind....not conform to your description of it being 'radically contingent'? — Wayfarer
"Nihilism" in what sense?... if everything is contingent, then it is impossible to avoid nihilism
No. Existence just is the case (constituted, but not exhausted, by "the totality of the facts" ~Witty, TLP). An infinite regress precipates from a claim that some unjustified yet noncontingent Y justifies X; however, 'existence is contingent', that is, not necessary, or is unjustifiable – literally nothing constrains existence (i.e continuing to be) from becoming nonexistence (i.e. ceasing to be) and therefore, in this sense, existence is also unbounded. By all means, Wayfarer, feel free to refute me by proposing a 'constraint on existence' that isn't also ... existence itself (ergo also not a constraint :smirk:).if 'existence is radically contingent', then how does that claim avoid 'infinite regress'? Aren't they the same? — Wayfarer
:chin:... if everything is contingent, then it is impossible to avoid nihilism
— Wayfarer
"Nihilism" in what sense? — 180 Proof
How does mind dependent on mind....not conform to your description of it being 'radically contingent'?
(leaving aside the fact that if everything is contingent, then it is impossible to avoid nihilism.) — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.