All of Existence is Dependent Upon Mind and Without Mind Nothing Exists

reply to post by AlienView

Good point but before we go on, what is the mind anyway? Is what we define it as all of it? How much of it has been discovered? If mind contains everything then mind is essential.

"Mind is the forerunner of all actions. All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows. Surely as the wheel that follows the cart, being pulled by an ox"-Buddah

Aphorism
Yet you could never produce something called a mind if you searched your whole life. Folk psychology at its finest. Too easy.

**Gut lovingly tweaks Aporism's nose. "Ow-Uh!," says Aphorism, "Me blipping nose is all red, mate!"

"Don't get much more real than that, eh, Aphi? And just think, if you didn't have a 'mind' you wouldn't have even known it happened!. Sorry ol' chap, but a demonstration was in order because you were getting quite hysterical!

You see, my mind most consciously perceived that if I were to tweak your nose and made it all red, that by the utter realism of the pain in your nose and having you look in the mirror at that red and painful-looking monstrosity in the middle of your face, you would snap to your senses!

Just my opinion, but I don't think your "stumper" above is the question but, rather, the answer---the big reveal. The grand metaphysical fundament.

Turns out that the MOST real thing in the universal cosmos of infinity is a weightless, massless creative wonder. It constructs , and has brought into existence, many of the things you've bumped your (rather red now) nose on in the past.

By it's very nature the mind, or consciousness, demonstrates itself--it produces--and thusly we know it does exist. It's much greater than you or I, Aphorism. It need not submit itself to silly word games.

Consciousness will remain long after we leave our earthly bodies. We'll might even still partake in it then!

Derrida's deconstruction is considered at university to be a philosophical thought exercise along the way, not a permanent landing point, lad:

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a literary theory and philosophy of language derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology.[1]

The premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence, where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence.
Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic meaning.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just having a little fun with you, Aphorism, and I understand the philosophical sophistication behind your debate, but maybe your philosophy is in flux and it's time to put Derrida away?

AlienView
All of Existence is Dependent Upon Mind and Without Mind Nothing Exists.

How can we show anything to exist without a mind defining it? Not energy, not matter, but mind is the fundamental principle of all of existence. Can you show an existent or even a non-existent state existing independently of mind?

This a standard philosophical notion. Like, "what was there before there was thought..?" I'd ask, so what does this notion actually mean to you, your daily life, your evolution? How do you work that into being a more interesting being, a more evolved being?

In find quite often people will latch on to some minor bit of abstract philosophy like, "without my pov there is nothing to observe as I am the observer" but then there is no translation into how this "profound" notion helps them evolve. They proclaim this thought as if it answers all and then they can't figure out how to pump gas in their car, or have a meaningful relationship.

So what does that notion do for you?

reply to post by The GUT

And just think, if you didn't have a 'mind' you wouldn't have even known it happened!

Say rather, if they didn't have a nose they wouldn't have known it happened.

Does a plant have a mind? Yet it knows when the sun goes down and it's time to stop photosynthesizing and start respiring.

Does a thermostat has a mind? Yet it knows when it's too hot or too cold.

Does a jellyfish have a mind? Yet it knows to propel itself upward in the water column by day and sink by night.

Appeals to personal experience cut no ice in this argument.

Itisnowagain

iamea

AlienView
reply to post by iamea

 

Yes but 'what if'' is a mental construct, a state of mind - I can not comprehend any state of existence without mind defining it - Mind must exist first - was there ever an existent state without mind? = that woud be impossible and illogical.

Consciousness can exist without the mind present, really, I woke up from a dream one night, looked at my hands and got the shock of my life, as i said to myself "WTF ARE THEY"

You said to yourself??
How many are you? You said to who? Who is speaking to who?

The mind is what speaks so 'WTF ARE THEY' was what could be referred to as the speaking mind. Look to where those words appear from and what heard them. 'WTF ARE THEY' was an appearance - to what do the words appear to?

When you did not know what was being seen it was just an appearance - it was nothing knowable - yet the mind wanted to put a name on what was being seen. There always appears to be something but that something is nothing until the mind draws lines and boundaries. The primordial soup is always present and the mind makes things out of it.
Apparent existence is a Rorschach inkblot.

I was suggestion that consciousness has a place not associated to mind. I would not need to have multiple personalities in order to experience this.

From my perspective the mind is part of the body, and if you leave the body you still exist.

Have you ever had a dream?, do you think that is the mind creating that dream? and if so then why can you not dream about whatever you want?

I have had personal experiences where the mind has left the body, but I still exist. It is very strange I admit, btw non of this was through taking drugs.

I think I am saying that you can be without your mind, but consciousness will still be present.

I do not know if you believe in reincarnation or not, but they say we have our mind wiped clean on re-entering this reality.

What about the concept of people loosing their mind?, or is that only a figure of speech.

reply to post by The GUT


GUT we are on the same page so to speak but let me explain why I use the word mind rather than consciousness.
I have an on going debates on the subject of conscious AI [artificial intelligence, computers] and those who say a machine will never really be conscious even though and in fact computer scientists are working on this right now. You see they may be right, maybe a machine may never be fully conscious depending on how you define conscious BUT in another sense it will have a super-consciousness even without having a self-awareness - it will have a mind, a mind that can out process, out think any biological being - Conscious or not becomes irrelevant, it stil possesses all the functions of mind - mind does not require consciousness - it just is and in my opinion is an a priori principle of all that is, isn't, and what was and will be. Consciousness on the other hand is a by-product of mind - The enigmatic entity called mind by my definition is the primary principle of all that is - all else is commentary.

reply to post by The GUT

**Gut lovingly tweaks Aporism's nose. "Ow-Uh!," says Aphorism, "Me blipping nose is all red, mate!"

"Don't get much more real than that, eh, Aphi? And just think, if you didn't have a 'mind' you wouldn't have even known it happened!. Sorry ol' chap, but a demonstration was in order because you were getting quite hysterical!

You see, my mind most consciously perceived that if I were to tweak your nose and made it all red, that by the utter realism of the pain in your nose and having you look in the mirror at that red and painful-looking monstrosity in the middle of your face, you would snap to your senses!

Was it you or your "mind" that perceived it? So far, it seems, you've created a little fiction as a placeholder for yourself, maybe to seek intellectual comfort—who knows—but likely as an article of blind faith. But don't worry, it's quite common for a "mind" to act in such a manner, assuming that it can act at all.

If it is the "mind" that thinks and remembers, then surely we have no need for the brain. And surely, you wouldn't "mind" having a full-frontal lobotomy, since it is the mind, and not the body that thinks and perceives and is fundamental.

Consciousness is fundamental, yet only a body can be conscious. Funny, that. I wonder who seduced you into believing such a thing? Because it seems no rationality or honesty has been employed to reach this conclusion. Let me guess, you don't like to use anything of the scientific method because it's too "sciency".

Just my opinion, but I don't think your "stumper" above is the question but, rather, the answer---the big reveal. The grand metaphysical fundament.

Turns out that the MOST real thing in the universal cosmos of infinity is a weightless, massless creative wonder. It constructs , and has brought into existence, many of the things you've bumped your (rather red now) nose on in the past.

And this "real" thing, that just so happens to be without weight, mass, form or any properties, is more real than that which imagines it is endowed with a mind? We call this fantasy in rational times. But like you imagined you pinched my nose, maybe by chance you also imagined that you carry with you something called a "mind". Of course, what makes sense to you, is something that cannot be sensed. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

By it's very nature the mind, or consciousness, demonstrates itself--it produces--and thusly we know it does exist. It's much greater than you or I, Aphorism. It need not submit itself to silly word games.

How does "consciousness" demonstrate itself? By being weightless and without mass? Something without weight and mass and form is incapable of producing anything. Try producing something with just your mind and consciousness, without using your body, and you will see that your theory is a retardation of common sense.

Consciousness will remain long after we leave our earthly bodies. We'll might even still partake in it then!

Will it? First something must exist in order to remain. Try to convince me of the former before you assert the latter.

Derrida's deconstruction is considered at university to be a philosophical thought exercise along the way, not a permanent landing point, lad:

I haven't landed on anything, gramps. The "mind" is not my perch; it is yours. Make believe isn't considered a philosophical thought in universities either. But I suppose if you find comfort in it, there cannot be anything wrong with that.

reply to post by Aphorism


I don't know how The Gut may reply to you Aphorism but this concept comes to 'mind'. When you say:

I haven't landed on anything, gramps. The "mind" is not my perch; it is yours. Make believe isn't considered a philosophical thought in universities either. But I suppose if you find comfort in it, there cannot be anything wrong with that.

Make believe? I suppose you mean fantasy. What is fantasy? That which is not real. What is real? I suppose one could say that which is not fantasy - otherwise how would you know it is real if you can not compare it to what is not real?
And how could you do this if not for the existence of mind? And what is mind some might ask? Mind on the other hand need not ask as it is by my definition the precedent to all, the precedent to thought. And again I assert:

"All of Existence is Dependent Upon Mind and Without Mind Nothing Exists"

AlienView
reply to post by Aphorism

 

"All of Existence is Dependent Upon Mind and Without Mind Nothing Exists"

I suppose if you look at the word existance. and then break it down. It is

Ex I Stance, Taking a stance outside of the eye.

or as the Beetles put it "nothing is real, nothing to get hung about, strawberry fields forever"

reply to post by AlienView

Make believe? I suppose you mean fantasy. What is fantasy? That which is not real. What is real? I suppose one could say that which is not fantasy - otherwise how would you know it is real if you can not compare it to what is not real?

By fantasy I mean it is made up. I say this because there is nothing there to put the label "mind" upon, and this leads one to ask "what is it you are actually talking about?". Show me the mind, so that I may believe you've experienced it with not just your imagination. Until then, "what is it you are actually talking about"? Must we only imagine it?

And how could you do this if not for the existence of mind? And what is mind some might ask? Mind on the other hand need not ask as it is by my definition the precedent to all, the precedent to thought. And again I assert:

"All of Existence is Dependent Upon Mind and Without Mind Nothing Exists"

If it exists, then you may show me where it exists, and explain to me what it exists as, and how it has any effect on anything. Minds cannot think until they exist, and if minds are primary to thought, one must first prove that a mind is there. But so far you're talking about the word "mind" and nothing more.

Humans cannot think without a head. Therefore, your "mind" is not precedent to that which supports it, contains it, and sustains it. It cannot be primary. But the mind is not even secondary, it is not even a bi-product of something greater, because so far it simply isn't there.

"Nothing in existence is dependent upon mind, and without mind everything has been existing just fine."

reply to post by AlienView


It could be possible, that even a shooting star isn't really happening, it is just a perception of our mind and the thing or black hole beneath consciousness is something entirely different than the solar system of even the universe.

But that creatures from outer space and here in earth resemble a soul conquest or spiritual conquest, it would make sense that the creation of the universe is reality.

reply to post by AlienView


Mind is below consciousness…that is the real God of being!

Consciousness has neither beginning nor end.

Mind is just the contour of what defines being.

Being is the element of the nature of reality: animal or man or jinn or angel?

Consciousness is that which is indefinable therefore it is eternal, infinite, and inscrutable, only known by itself for itself.

There is no God but consciousness!

Perception of reality depends upon existence of a perceiver.

Reality exists , perceiver or not.

reply to post by Tusks


Reality is the perceiver and the perceived.

Willtell
reply to post by Tusks

 

Reality is the perceiver and the perceived.

Philosophically and metaphysically that pretty much says it all, Willtell! Nice.

I would add that consciousness would seem more conducive to being experienced, enjoyed, and made the most of. To "practice" it even.

Aphorism: Trying to "un-name" it sure don't seem a lot' o' fun for more'n a minute or two as a thought experiment over a bottle of red wine with friends.

"She" just walked by and lovingly and lightly grabbed my curls and gave my scalp enough fingernails to send a chill up my spine. I sure couldn't show you that Aphorism, or Axtynasty, but why waste time philosophizing and trying to "prove to you" that anything and everything does or doesn't exist?

Why would anyone want to un-name a gourmet meal or the wonder of the pyramids...or a world-class orgasm for that matter, eh? Which reminds me...

Right. See y'all. I got bidness. Don't ask me to define 'bidness' unless you need some adjectives once you get busy and start living heheh!

reply to post by Willtell

Reality is the perceiver and the perceived.

Where is the perceiver when the 'perceived' is removed?

reply to post by AlienView


Now i know where the saying "I dont MIND so it doesnt MATTER" comes from

reply to post by Astyanax

Unemployed.



If the perceiver loses existence when the perceived vanishes, then, apparently, both are required. So if the perceiver "shuts his eyes" so to speak, the perceived loses existence. That implies that without a perceiver nothing can exist and a perceiver has to start the process by coming out of a totally void Universe.

Unless I'm missing something.

AlienView
All of Existence is Dependent Upon Mind and Without Mind Nothing Exists.

How can we show anything to exist without a mind defining it? Not energy, not matter, but mind is the fundamental principle of all of existence. Can you show an existent or even a non-existent state existing independently of mind?

You mean like Earth, before life evolved?