It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising...The Mind creates reality....
...Those who study things like the Unified Field of Consciousness or Idealism realize this is what we should find because Mind creates reality....
...Nobody has ever touched matter. When you touch a hard table or a soft pillow the electrons from your hand repel against the electrons from the pillow or table and your mind perceives things like hardness and softness.
The Mind constructs reality.
This may be an obstacle that's hard to overcome because many scientist are materialist
And it's only with artifical certainty that one argues which was first in my opinion.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Korg Trinity
Many people don't know how to go about getting what they want. For example, a guy sees this beautiful young lady and he says, "I want her." While he may actually want her, he may not have a clue as to how to go about getting her.
Right then and there, all bets are off. What winds up happening is that he remains actionless and she tires of wasting her time waiting and moves on. The same principle can be applied to anything in life. Your dreams will wait, but only for so long.
Originally posted by FrostyPhilosopher
[Ellipses represent where I have removed sections of text to get down to the points I want to respond to directly.]
This is a huge issue you are talking about, and it's good to see some people thinking about it!
I think there are two different issues at play here, though. One is the materialism vs immaterialism vs dualism vs etc. debate. That debate is a question of ontology, a question of what types of things there are in the world. The second is the direct realism, indirect realism, idealism debate. That is a debate about epistemology, about how we know things, how we know about the things that are. Two different, but possibly interrelated questions.
You are right that an idealist like George Berkeley (1685-1753) would tell you that we are not interacting with matter. In fact, he thought matter was impossible! Many philosophers of the past would have agreed with him too, and a few still today, but not many. His epistemology was idealist, as was his ontology. According to Berkeleyan idealism, we know these things directly, and they are completely mental. Now, does this mean that he thought there was no world out there? Surely not! He thought that these mental things were just as objective as I am sitting on this chair. Also, he was a nice guy, he wanted to donate a considerable sum to start a university in the US, but died before he could make it happen. Berkeley, California is named after him, as is the university.
Now, there are other views out there! For example, Berkeley once said that there were two possible views out there, his and that of John Locke (1632-1704), so he spent a lot of time criticizing Locke to show that his view was right. Personally, Locke is a favorite of mine. His view is called Indirect Realism. Locke thought that there was a physical world out there full of tables, chairs, trees, bodies, etc, but that what we interact with, what we "touch" in our mind, is just a representation, just a mental thing. So you see, your two claims can be combined under a Lockean framework. We can both say that there is matter out there, and that we never directly observe it, never "touch" the stuff epistemically. So, for Locke, there are mental things, and material things; we only interact with the mental ones, but that's fine because they represent the material ones. I could go on about this forever!
And then you come to the direct realist materialists. These guys are the kind you were talking about, they think that we directly perceive the world, and that it is made of matter. I agree that there are problems with such a view, but it is extremely popular in academic circles right now. For a good defense of this view, look up Skepticism and the Veil of Perception by Michael Huemer, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers (2001).
Now, you are right, physicists today will tell you that the world is not really solid like we thought, that it might be made up of vibrating bits of space, energy all the way down. This does not, however, entail idealism. It just shows that the physical world, which would be there if there were minds or not and is not just a mental thing, is different than we used to think, but that's fine.
Originally posted by drew hempel
Ramachandran neuroscientist details the Ghandi Neuron -- how the mirror neurons get decoupled from our cortex inhibitors so that we experience phantom limb or also experience other people's physical sensations as our own. The pure electromagnetic sensations are not limited to the individual which is an illusion.
He says the mirror neuron works on a virtual reality.
[edit on 31-3-2010 by drew hempel]