I have always thought perspective is a result of consciousness, as opposed to a part of it.
Our consciousness allows us to experience our environment and therefore creates a unique perspective based on that information. Perspective cannot exist without consciousness, but is not an intrinsic part of our psyche.

Memory never ceases as it is embedded in the fabric of the universe.

Care to elaborate?

I repeat, how might Solipsism be falsified in principle? — tom

That is the principle of it. There is a possibility that Solipsism can be proven false and, given infinite time, any possibility becomes a certainty therefore Solipsism is falsifiable.

Any distinction you are making that claims this is not a fundamental truth is lost on me.

Higher dimension, mysteries? Probably — tom

Assuming you are not being sarcastic: if you admit this is a possibility then given the above principle you must admit Solipsism is falsifiable.

Perhaps you might indicate how Solipsism is in principle falsifiable? — tom

I admit that with current techniques and levels of technology this is impossible but if we were able to observe more then one's own mind to exist, then Solipsism would be false.
Perhaps we might do this by digitizing a person's mind and either copying or transferring it into an artificial body. Perhaps the answer lies in the mysteries of higher dimensions. I can only speculate but it is an undeniable possibility and a very likely scenario.

Actually, that is false. That "only my mind exists" is logically coherent and unfalsifiable, in principle. — tom

Currently unfalsifiable. New techniques or technologies may allow us to directly observe a mind and it will be through the scientific method that we will make an analysis.

Does attempting to explain the software programs of a computer via a description of its hardware allow us to understand the content of the software? — Joshs

Id argue yes, to an extent. The "hardware" can help us understand the limitations of the "software" and therefore allow us to narrow down what the software is capable of.

I think its an understatement to say that our framework for physics in incomplete. You only need to point to quantum mechanics and gravity to show that. However, all these things are undeniably part of the same system, I'll call it the omniverse, and must therefore be interlinked with one and another. I can't deny that physics needs a shift in order to begin linking the omniverse's many intertwined systems into a complete whole.

To answer it, all we need do is define a mind as a point in a system. Then, if we can define another mind we have two points and can build a model of the system to one dimension. All we need do then is define what properties differentiates the two minds based on the possible values of that dimension.

You can use religion, speculation or the scientific model to do this, but only one of those things will produce accurate results. The only thing we are missing is an observed second mind.

No. Science is defined by the Principle of Demarcation. Not everything we are interested in is falsifiable or testable. — tom

This defines good science, i.e. a way science can produce the best possible results. However, you can still use the same scientific method regardless of what you are observing.

1. Only my mind exists.

2. There exists a Reality independent of my mind.

Science can't help you with that one. — tom

Actually it can, we just don't know how to apply it yet. (Edit: how to make the necessary observations)

But you would have to assume that free will doesn't exist — filipeffv

Not necessarily. Free will could be a manifestation of the infinite possible outcomes of the reactions within the brain and that our "consciousness" is the brains method of controlling/reducing the number of outcomes. Or, it could be what we experience as our brains navigate the higher dimensions of time and attempt to interpret that information. Free will would be our ability to choose which possible path we take through higher dimensions.

everything is a successive and progressive process of causes, it necessarily assumes a free first cause — filipeffv

I agree that there should be a first cause, just not necessarily a "free" one. In order to determine the nature of "the first cause" we must understand what came before. As the Big Bang Model suggests, nothing came before the first cause, which is perfectly plausible since nothingness is both unstable and infinite. Therefore, if the first cause is within what is possible, then it must be a part of nature.

the chemical process of mind are not causes, but effects — filipeffv

As you said above, they as a successive process of cause and effects. Each cause creates an effect, and each effect is a cause that creates another effect. The distinction is redundant.

As for the next section, i have to admit i don't really understand what you mean and will concede your point with a smile and slightly glazed look in my eye.

The point of my whole thread (Physical vs. Non-Physical) was to question this distinction between what science can explain and what some other method can explain. — Harry Hindu

There are many explanations to what is and what is not and science is the best method we have so far come up with to find them regardless of whether the subject is physical, not physical, natural or super natural. This is because science is merely a method of analysis and can be applied to anything.

Wow. Didn't know what Big Pharma was. Interesting reading

Do you believe it?

I don't think life can exist infinitely. Life needs energy to survive and the universe will inevitably expand out until it is a cold, dark place. Suns will burn out. Planets will either collide or become so separate they are beyond the reach of their cosmic horizon and any energy still left in the universe will dissipate so it will never be reached by nor reach anything else. Its just a natural part of entropy.

Nothing will last forever, unfortunately we are not nothing.

The only reason I pursue "The Truth" is because it fascinates me. However, I think it is important for the human species to better understand how the universe works in order to exploit those processes and better the lives of individuals. For example: understanding quantum mechanics might enable us to streamline a number of tasks like interplanetary travel via quantum entanglement.

I use quantum mechanics as an example because it is a field we humans are not intuitively designed to understand and cracking it would represent an enormous leap in our technological, scientific and philosophical prowess. The more problems we solve, the better we get at solving problems.

Also, we should pursue "The Truth" simply because we are in a seemingly unique position to do so. The universe might not be around forever. Even if it is infinite, expansion will inevitably render "The Truth" unobtainable behind the cold, dark distances of space.

Social Sciences are not made by universals and natural laws — filipeffv

I've never been convinced of this. It is possible social behavior is determined by the chemical and physical processes in the brain and that would indicate they are just as much a part of natural law as processes like gravity and the movement of planets. I imagine these processes are just far too complex for us to fully understand yet and therefore seem random or unpredictable.

I don't think "hard science" is a very useful term. Science is science.

I just read Imagining the Tenth Dimension, by Rob Bryanton. A curious little tome that helps one visualize ten dimensions and contextualizes them into the omniverse.

At first, i thought talk of higher dimensions was metaphysical nonsense but after reading this (and watching the odd YouTube video about geometry) I realize that, at the very least, imagining the omniverse in ten dimensions could be a useful tool in defining our universe's position in the cosmos.
Have a look see and message me your thoughts:

Imagining 10 dimensions: the movie - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA
Perfect Shapes In Higher Dimensions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s4TqVAbfz4

I have recently concluded that whether or not multiverses are real is not a very interesting question since currently we have no way of observing the truth of it.
However, I do find that considering reality in 10 dimensions, the 7th and beyond relating to multiverses, is a useful tool when determining the characteristics of the universe we can observer by comparing it to the arbitrary characteristics of other "possible" universes.

Greetings all,
I'm Joe and I'm new to not just this forum, but also philosophy in general. It is an exciting subject an I only wish that it was in the curriculum when I was at school. I hope that you will tear my arguments into tiny, easily refutable chunks so I can analysis your thought processes and better my understanding of the universe :D