[Mr. Vega]

Hey, this forum has gotten boring, so how bouts for a nice debate that hearkens back to the time where people actually thought about stuff before they posted.

CP, you've said stuff like this tons of times:

you can take comfort in that it is really all only a bunch of molecules moving and interacting.

Well, I think you're wrong here. Cause materialism is built on the assumption that physical objects have an existence that is independent of our sensing of them, so if we disappeared, they'd still be there. That's an unprovable assumption. The only thing a desk is is a packet of information from different senses that we put together and call a desk. Doesn't it make much more sense for the mind that receives this sensory information to be the fundamental construct of reality, not matter?

Discuss.

[Flipside]

An interesting thought. It's kind of asking what Blue looks like, 'blue' doesn't exist, it is merely the interpretation of various inputs of a particular wavelength of reflected photons.

However, it also needs to be held in mind that, if we disappeared, there would be no more blue, however, there would still be that wavelength of photon. Maybe in a million years, a new species will tune in to that particular wavelength and call it 'schmerg', and it would be impossible for me to guess what schmerg looked like, because whatever creature perceived it would be using sensory apparatus that I have no concept of experiencing.

[Mr. Vega]

How do you even know reality goes on after we die (and by die I mean if death means we stop existing entirely)? I admit my argument looks like it's implying that I'm the only mind in existence (now that was fun trying to cobble up a refutation for that), but you just can't prove that the trees will just keep falling if noone is capable of hearing them. Yeah, we could just say that matter exists on it's own; that's what we've always done, but whether or not that it's true or not doesn't change how reality behaves at all. The independent existence of materials is completely superfluous.

[Mr. Vega]

Yes, if you turn your head back and forth at night at the moon and away from the moon, it will still be there every time you look at it. Even if matter is an illusion, it is at least consistent. Either the rules of what we will sense in certain instances are indeed independent from us, or those rules are a part of our mind but we posses no means for changing those rules.

[Flipside]

I suppose science is the art of the 'most likely' explanation, ether worked because, at that stage, we were using the 5 senses we had, and only mildly enhanced, nowadays we artificially extend those senses, and can see in ways that we were completely incapable of when we believed in Ether.

However, I do agree with some of your point, since I think that, particuarly in the case of Quantum-level science, everything we 'identify' is an effect rather than a cause. When dealing with Mind, you are dealing with something that relies very heavily on labels, stories and re-iterated beliefs. For example, I believe that trees were around millions of years before there were any humans to hear them fall (since the ability to recieve auditory input is an old one), and therefore logic suggests that we do not need to exist to hear them when they fall, but that is still a concept carved out of a mixing pot of personal beliefs, learning and research, and since most of those are influenced by other people, who have their own 'mixing pot', you can soon see that things get fractal As you say, there is no real way of proving it.

[CP5670]

CP, you've said stuff like this tons of times:

Well, I think the last time I said anything like that was six years ago. But I'll answer:

Well, I think you're wrong here. Cause materialism is built on the assumption that physical objects have an existence that is independent of our sensing of them, so if we disappeared, they'd still be there. That's an unprovable assumption. The only thing a desk is is a packet of information from different senses that we put together and call a desk. Doesn't it make much more sense for the mind that receives this sensory information to be the fundamental construct of reality, not matter?

These statements are all unprovable, so that doesn't really matter. The problem with what you are saying is that it's not entirely clear what a "mind" is. If you take a mind to mean only yourself and your own perceptions, then you exist in a universe of your own and anything you perceive in common with another person (who is not a "mind" as far as you're concerned, but just another object you perceive) is uncorrelated and purely coincidental. In other words, your opinion is always the right one, so there is no reason to discuss anything. I would say that if you get completely stuck with one of these ideas, that is enough reason to abandon it and try something else, all else being equal.

Trying to build a wider concept of a mind that includes more than your own point of view doesn't quite work either. If you arbitrarily draw the line at human brains, what makes a human? Does it include all the intermediate species between humans and apes that existed at some point? If you be more general, does a mind include those of animals, robots, or non-living objects for that matter? They all "perceive" things in the sense that they react to external events in some way. What you eventually get with this line of reasoning is that every individual particle is a mind, in this context. This idea is reminiscent of quantum mechanics, but it has little in common with the original concept anymore.

you just can't prove that the trees will just keep falling if noone is capable of hearing them.

Sure, I can. That will happen if the trees are all colors.

[BlackDove]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Child Pornography.

Man, what a let-down. I have only myself to blame.

[Stormkeeper]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Child Pornography.

Man, what a let-down. I have only myself to blame.

I thought so too.

[Roanoke]

I really hate these existential, lofty let's-debate-if-a-desk-is-actually-a-desk discussions. 

[Colonol Dekker]

Shrodingers cat.
You won't know til your gone. Or not as the case may be. . . .that's gonna be a more annoying concept.

[Ghostavo]

Nihilism FTL.