Philosophy Now Forum

Hi effie,

effie wrote:...people DO see electrons. As a matter of fact,people that have recovered from innate blindness report that in the beginnig all that they can see is light. LAter they are TRAINED to see chairs,beds etc exactly like you and me. The only difference is that we were trained when we were really young,so we don't actually recall it.

So you mean they can see photons, not electrons. No one can 'see' 'electrons' as its takes an 'electron' microsope too 'see' these and to do it we turn them back into photons. Its easy to test, find a black room and release one photon into it and our eyes can detect it. I'd be interested in what these people meant by 'light'? Did they mean there were no colours? Why is it a surprise that they were 'trained' to see such objects? As you say, its the natural development of sight previously denied but I understand it must be interesting to see it in occur in an adult.

Kake, who began this thread with

Nothing exists outside the mind.
Anybody want to contend?
I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

... has not replied to anyone's reply since he began this thread.

Conclusion? We do not exist outside his mind.

We do not exist outside his mind

Or maybe his is the only mind that doesn't exist ...

There is more than one way of knowing AKA seeing.

Knowing is not necessarily vision bound.

Sometimes we can feel what we are knowing. For instance, we know that we have a leg hanging from our hip without looking at it, or varifying it, with our eyes.

We know that we are conscious, even though we cannot draw consciousness on a piece of paper with a crayon.

In this same way, some of the more subtle persons within our species know there is life outside/beyond the mind.

S9

Hi Auk )

You're right,we see photons,not electrons

Vision,in the way we perceive it, is not a natural development-it's a taught activity,just like reading,talking etc. I will find the articles which refer to the phenomena I mentioned and I'll post them,so you can read them. They are really interesting!

Subjectivity9 wrote:...In this same way, some of the more subtle persons within our species know there is life outside/beyond the mind.
S9

Pretty much everbody 'knows' that there is 'life' outside and 'beyond' 'the mind'. What do you mean?

kake wrote:Nothing exists outside the mind

By 'mind' are you referring to 'thoughts'?

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons.

No you don't. You are being disingenuous. When I point to a chair, you see the item to which i point.

The chair doesn't exist but in our head.

Nevertheless, the chair exists!
Everything exists that is perceived. Perception = existence. You perceive your 'thoughts', therefore, they, too, exist.
Everything exists.

Hell, the electrons don't even exist.

They exist if perceived.
Thoughts exist, memories exist, hamburgers exist...
Everything exists in context.

Arising_uk wrote:Pretty much everbody 'knows' that there is 'life' outside and 'beyond' 'the mind'. What do you mean?

No, "everybody knows" no such thing.
There is no evidence, nor can there be any evidence, that anything exists that is not perceived.
Millennial old mysticism tells us this, and QM now supports this.
If something is not perceived by Conscious Perspective, there is no thing in existence not so perceived.

nsmeless wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Pretty much everbody 'knows' that there is 'life' outside and 'beyond' 'the mind'. What do you mean?

No, "everybody knows" no such thing.
There is no evidence, nor can there be any evidence, that anything exists that is not perceived.
Millennial old mysticism tells us this, and QM now supports this.
If something is not perceived by Conscious Perspective, there is no thing in existence not so perceived.

Not sure what position you take? Is it that an external world does not exist? I was just saying that pretty much everyone knows they are a body in an external world and as such know that this world exists externally to their mind. You disagree?
What "Millennial old mysticism" does QM support?

Arising_uk wrote:Not sure what position you take? Is it that an external world does not exist? I was just saying that pretty much everyone knows they are a body in an external world and as such know that this world exists externally to their mind. You disagree?

That what I was saying, yes.

What "Millennial old mysticism" does QM support?

That all is 'one'/a 'unity', and that "Consciousness(/Mind) is the Ground of all Being" (Copenhagen interpretation of qm).
There is no 'in here' vs 'out there' dichotomy but that which ego perceives.
It is ego that discerns 'subject/object' dichotomy.
There is no world 'external' to Conscious Perception.

Any statement beginning with "everybody knows" is both a fallacy and erroneous, and best avoided.

Arising,

I mean that there is life transcendent of what our mind can tell us, transcendent of the physical as well, or even beyond our limited concepts of what life is as a material event. I mean that there is Eternal Life as apposed to finite life. Eternal life is without birth or death, has no beginning and no end.

Sorry I have a habit of thinking people know something, just because I do. I should have explained further.

But in order to know this, Eternal life, we must plug into a more subtle way of knowing, which is beyond the mind.

S9

nsmeless,

Finite existence takes place in the finite mind, much like a dream. Life is not necessarily only finite, not if it is Eternal life. Mysticism says there is Eternal life, and a finitude of perceived objects are only temporary.

S9

nsmeless wrote:That what I was saying, yes.

Really? So right now as you read these words you do not know that you are a body in an external world? What are you then?

That all is 'one'/a 'unity', and that "Consciousness(/Mind) is the Ground of all Being" (Copenhagen interpretation of qm).

Sounds like good old Idealism to me. Do you have animals as "Consciousness(/Mind)"? Like ours, different? My take is being is the ground of all consciousnesses and self-consciousness is others, an external-world and 'language'.

There is no 'in here' vs 'out there' dichotomy but that which ego perceives.

But what is the 'ego' perceiving then? If there is no " 'in here' vs 'out there' dichotomy" whats this "that" that you are referring too?

It is ego that discerns 'subject/object' dichotomy.

I'd say its called being a body in an external world that grounds this experience of being as a being in an external world and 'language' that allows such things as "'subject/object' dichotomy" to be raised as 'looking' out there is no dichotomy.

There is no world 'external' to Conscious Perception.

Not sure what you mean by Conscious Perception? But perception appears to disagree?

Any statement beginning with "everybody knows" is both a fallacy and erroneous, and best avoided.

True but an accurate reflection of the answers given by all those I have met and asked if they think they are a body in an external world or think they are an instantiation of a universal mind.

Metaphysics with the terms "Copenhagen interpretation" and "QM" also appear to be based upon the avoidable fallacy that Physics works in Language other than the subset of Mathematics and the process of Experimentation in the external world.

Subjectivity9 wrote:nsmeless, Finite existence takes place in the finite mind, much like a dream.

I think that "finite existence" is an oxymoron.
The mind exists, no? Everything exists; there is no 'thing' to not exist.
How can existence be generated by that which exists? It seems a meaningless tautology; something in existence creating existence creating existence... ad infinitum??

I perceive that 'existence' takes place in the only Consciousness/Mind on the block.
It happens through us, Conscious Perspectives (Souls).
Many Perspectives, One Consciousness/Mind.

Life is not necessarily only finite, not if it is Eternal life.

You are offering the fallacy of 'begging the question'.
I harbor no such beliefs, nor can such a proposition be supported by science or philosophy (critical thought). Physics and math even have ways to ignore those pesky infinites that pop up on occassion. Ignore those in the relativity equations and the equation remains balanced with the same results. Like a 'bug', like a 'mirage'. Nor have I any 'personal experience' with any such thing other than, perhaps, metaphorically. A finite brain with finite thoughts available with everything in existance also weighing out as finite, with no (nor can there be) evidence of anything in existence being 'infinite/eternal', I have no need of that hypothesis.
Any 'eternal/infinite' can only be accepted, for me, at the moment, if translated as truly timeless (which is not the commonly accepted definition). 'Time' is not a Universal, nor is our 'linear time' but, it seems, an in the eye of the Perspective/beholder type of thing.

Mysticism says there is Eternal life, and a finitude of perceived objects are only temporary.

All existence ever is one (Planck) moment, timeless.

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

'Time' is something that exists as memories/thoughts of some Perspectives, but not Universal.
The notion/belief of 'eternity' can only exist in those particular Perspectives that perceive existence 'linearly'.

mysticism
Belief in direct apprehension of divine or eternal reality by means of spiritual contemplation distinct from more ordinary avenues of human knowledge.

There's nothing said about 'finite' or 'infinite' according to that philosophical dictionary.
(Could this, perhaps, be recognized as a 'false dichotomy' by 'mystics' who realize 'false dichotomies'?)
There is enough ego to go around that mystics can disagree on much and agree on little and the only Truth that the mystic can transmit is
.
.
.
.
.
."In Silentium, Verum!" ("In Silence, Truth!") - Book of Fudd (1:1))
*__-

Arising_uk wrote:

nsmeless wrote:That what I was saying, yes.

Really? So right now as you read these words you do not know that you are a body in an external world?

I 'know' no such thing.

What are you then?

What is right! ('Who' is ego!) (or was Who on first??)
I am Conscious Perspective.
What do you think you are, one body floating around in an 'external world' with other bodies floating around in their external worlds, everyone perceiving each other as 'external'??
Maybe you are a 'me' floating around inside a (-n external?) body, as in 'my' body? (Damned persistent Aristotelian ghosts!)
Perhaps, as some do not perceive the 'connection', they imagine autonomy? Thats the 'feeling', anyway...
I am Conscious Perspective, by which the Universe exists as a 'unity', like a 'tapestry' of which 'this' body and 'that' body and this 'galaxy' and that 'hamburger' and this 'thought' and that 'dream' are integral features of the complete momentary (Now!) Tapestry (Big Bang) of Universe.
And 'I' am the sum-total of all Conscious Perspectives of 'me'.

Do you have animals as "Consciousness(/Mind)"? Like ours, different?

If i translate your question correctly, my response is;
All that live, and perhaps more, are Conscious Perspectives.
All that exists, exist as/in Consciousness/Mind.

My take is being is the ground of all consciousnesses

Plural???
Ok, thats fine, but it cannot be supported scientifically or philosophically, and this is a philosophy site.
'Materialism' has been refuted/discredited/obsolete for so long...

and self-consciousness is others, an external-world and 'language'.

Don't know what you mean.

There is no 'in here' vs 'out there' dichotomy but that which ego perceives.

But what is the 'ego' perceiving then?

The ego perceives distinction between subject and object. Other than through the 'ego lens' there are no such distinctions.
All that can be perceived is Mind.
We directly perceive what is (including 'thoughts'), the ego is thoughts and beliefs about what is 'directly perceived', interpretations, which adds 'definition'.

If there is no " 'in here' vs 'out there' dichotomy" whats this "that" that you are referring too?

All that is perceived is 'Mind'; "your" body, "your" thoughts, ALL that is perceived...
There is no inherent distinctions to be drawn (but by ego, that which perceives 'subject'/'object' distinctions) between 'your" body and the Andromeda galaxy.
All are limited perceptions of Mind.

It is ego that discerns 'subject/object' dichotomy.

I'd say its called being a body in an external world that grounds this experience of being as a being in an external world

Huh?

and 'language' that allows such things as "'subject/object' dichotomy" to be raised as 'looking' out there is no dichotomy.

'Language' (another perceived item/feature) is not necessary for the egoPerspective to perceive 'subject/object' distinction, nor is it necessary to form 'beliefs' about it.
"To be raised" in conversation, perhaps, requires language...

There is no world 'external' to Conscious Perception.

Not sure what you mean by Conscious Perception? But perception appears to disagree?

Oops, I meant Conscious Perspective.

Any statement beginning with "everybody knows" is both a fallacy and erroneous, and best avoided.

True but an accurate reflection of the answers given by all those I have met and asked if they think they are a body in an external world or think they are an instantiation of a universal mind.

Than thats what you should have said;
"Some people 'know/believe' (according to the results of my polling of 4 or 5 people (myself included)) the following...
I repeat, "everybody knows..." is a fallacy when/wherever found (in the current context).

Metaphysics with the terms "Copenhagen interpretation" and "QM" also appear to be based upon the avoidable fallacy that Physics works in Language other than the subset of Mathematics and the process of Experimentation in the external world.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. I cannot respond. I see no "avoidable fallacy".
"Physics works in Language"??
What's your 'problem' with language? Why capitalize it? It is just one more perceived feature of the UNI(one!)verse.
Because you repeat your magic mantra "in the external world" (rather than support it scientifically or philosophically), don't make it more that a 'creation' of words and notions and feelings and beliefs.