An overview of mentalist metaphysics, including the world mind and world idea

In response to SoS seeking a nugget of what idealists believe, and some specific questions from Teuton, I have attempted to clarify what mentalism offers as its metaphysical model. I will attempt to answer specific questions raised by Teuton about what I mean by world idea and world mind, as this is a central concept to the model, without a grasp of what I mean (not necessarily agreement with what I mean) the model will remain incomprehensible gibberish or appear to be incoherent. I wrongly assumed a basic understanding, from my history of posts. (note to self – not all forum viewers are reading and memorising every single word put on the forum by LI). I am here attempting communication of the metaphysical model, while I do make supporting references to some past and present predictions of the model, I am not attempting to prove the reality of the model or the world mind – although obviously I will attempt to answer whatever questions are raised by anyone with a long enough attention span to last through this essay.

As an idealist position, mentalism suggests that we each experience our own subjective experience of the world, and that when two observers agree on an observation, such as ‘that’s a tree over there’ this is not objective agreement, this is intersubjective agreement because it is two or more subjective experiences in agreement. A third observer in a different frame of reference may make equally correct, but different, observations of a situation. In this sense we are each stuck inside our own subjective bubble of experience, and have no access by experience to the objective.
First it must be clearly stated that mentalism does not dispute the physical world or the laws of physics, on the contrary, the physical laws do work in the physical world we experience, and science is our best way to uncover these laws. Mentalism does say that the physical world exists, but says that this is a mental existence, the physical world is subjectively experienced by each of us as a mental world, and I will try make how this works in the mentalist metaphysical model clear in this essay. What is denied is any kind of mind independent world, such as a material world of the old style materialists, or anything expressing the belief that the world exists independently of observers.

The initial challenge here for mentalism is to explain how subjective experiences can agree, and more specifically how one experiencer, said to be trapped in a subjective bubble, can interact with the experience of another experiencer, trapped in his own separate subjective bubble, without any observer independent world.

In order to clarify meaning before addressing this challenge I must point out that I do not suggest there two different things (1) the ‘actual environment around us’, in addition to (2) our subjective copy of it. Our mind-made constructed environment, constructed in space and time IS the environment we experience, and there is no other environment of which it is a copy.
As illustrated by dream, a mental environment and mind-made body can be experienced by the constructing mind as-if the body ‘houses’ the mind in a mind-independent environment. This is not to say that dream proves the waking world is produced in the same way as a dream, it is to say the dream proves that mind has the ability to experience its own internal content as-if that content is external to the mind. That content is a dream-body and dream-environment, internal to the mind (either by an act of imagination or an act of recall or a type of hallucination, the entire dream is in any case mental content, and it is experienced at the time of the dream as-if it is external to the mind.) In mentalism this process is called externalisation, the mind has the ability to externalise its own content, to appear as-if it is external to the mind (which it is not) and external to the body (which it is).

The challenge can now be explained; the individual subjective experiences (of our environment) are constructed from ‘source data’ which is common between individuals and interactive. The individual mind externalises its constructed body and environment in the form of three dimensional space, sequential time and individual forms – the cosmos we experience – based on shared ‘source-data’. The individual subjective experiences can be in agreement because they share the same source data. Each experiencer can modify the source data using his/her body because the body is itself created from the same source data as the environment (one idea can modify another). If one experiencer modifies the source data, other experiencers using the modified data to form their experience will experience the change in their environment made by the first, even though the first experiencer modified the source data via their own subjective bubble of experience.

If I look at your car, my mind builds its constructed subjective environment from the source data, and other experiencers do the same thing. We can roughly agree on the features of the car such as colour, location etc. because of the shared source data. If I scratch the car (in my subjective experience) I interact with the source data and change it, such that other observers now agree that the car is scratched because of the changed source data.
A veridical perception, in mentalism, is one which this source data is used, and is constructed into an experience in space and time by the individual mind, and the representation is valid. An illusion is similar except for whatever reason the representation is less valid (a white object in red light is experienced as a red object). A hallucination is one where the experience is generated from the individual mind alone, similar to objects in imagination, without the common source data, so the hallucination is a purely subjective experience not shared by other observers.
Thus, if I use ‘mind power’ to scratch your car, at best I change my subjective experience, causing a self-induced illusion but I don’t change the source data, and so only I experience a scratched car – another experiencer will not experience the scratch on the car (- unless I am a skilled hypnotist and can induce a similar illusion in the other observer!)

In order to show why there are not two different things (1) the ‘actual environment around us’, in addition to (2) our subjective copy of it, I will show that the source-data itself cannot be said to be ‘an actual environment’ (which we subjectively copy), because it is not spatiotemporal. What the subjective representations (i.e. experiences) represent is the source-data, and they represent it in space, time and form. Since our experienced space and time are parts of our experienced (3D + time) world, they too are constructed from this source-data. Therefore, since space and time are constructed from this source-data, the source-data itself is not spatiotemporal, and cannot be considered as a space and time environment.

The source data used by individual minds to form their own subjective experience can be called the world idea. This phrase will be explained shortly. There is clearly an interpersonal nature to this data, as the model requires each observer to access the same source data. In mentalism, unlike solipsism, this source data is not generated by the individual mind, and to suggest my mind does so would be to suggest that my mind creates your subjective experience! (or for me to deny that you have subjective experience, which I cannot reasonably do without claiming access to your mind and your experience …). In mentalism, my mind creates my subjective experience; your mind creates yours, if you have experience.

It is the mentalist position that the whole experienced cosmos is mental, including the space and time in which we experience the cosmos. The experienced cosmos is a construction built from data supplied by the world idea – called ‘world’ because it contains the data for the whole world, or cosmos, called ‘idea’ because the data is received by the individual mind and is therefore mental in nature. The world idea is not simply the ‘physical cosmos called mental’ because it contains the data to form the experience of a cosmos in space and time but the world idea is not in space or time (which are components of the experienced cosmos, to assume the data that forms the experience of space and time is itself in space and time is self-contradictory.)

In turn, one asks what is the origin of the world idea? Poetically speaking; just as a human thought presupposes a human mind to think it, the world idea presupposes a world mind to think it. The relationship of individual mind and world mind is examined in more detail later, but for now each individual mind is a part of the world mind. ‘As above, so below’ is an ancient and profound statement. What we understand from our own mind can be a model of what we can understand of this world mind – but a model for our understanding, not a statement of reality. This is not by chance, nor is it humanising what is beyond human since the human mind has its origin and essential nature in the world mind so the human mind can provide simple lessons in the metaphysics of the world mind.

The world mind is the origin of the world idea, called ‘mind’ because it is the generator and host of mental information (the world idea, the source data, is accessed by individual minds and is therefore mental). However it is different to the normal human experience of mind because it is not subject to time in the way the human mind is – human thoughts arise, exist and dissipate in the dimension of time, whereas world idea is not spatiotemporal. In my model, space and time are contents of mind, so the mind cannot be ‘located in experienced space’ (e.g mind is not the brain). However it does have a duration in time (birth to death of the individual – sadly no immortal ego in this model!), and thoughts are temporal because they arise, exist and dissipate as time passes.
This world mind must be present as subject for the whole duration of the cosmos, and thus it is the subject of the cosmos (object) if there are no sentient entities present (so a tree falling in a deserted forest does make sound). Since it is present for the whole duration of the cosmos (whole duration of time) it is eternal.
Therefore world mind is omnipresent at all points in space and time.

Most readers on Ratskep (assuming I still have any ) will shy away from religious speak, but for anyone looking for a personal creator god, here ‘he’ is – the world mind is the ‘creator’ of the cosmos and omnipresent in the cosmos, ‘he’ sees everything you do and think its no good locking the bathroom door, he still sees you wanking in the shower. Such readers would be advised to stop reading here, as we have bad news coming up for the delicate of faith

There is an apparently paradoxical nature to the world mind which should be mentioned, in order to complete the mentalist metaphysical model. It presents to our understanding two aspects, static and dynamic, somewhat like the human mind in thinking activity and passive awareness reached through meditation exercise. As dynamic it is the generative force behind the world idea, and must be so at each and every instant of time (eternal). As passive it is the ever present awareness which knows the world idea but is also present in the absence of the world idea, i.e. the absence of time (timeless), this aspect is called ‘source’ because it is the source of the world mind and world idea – in human mind terminology its movement or activity (‘thinking’) generates the world idea, while it’s passive state is like the human mind aware only of its own awareness without an additional object. Just as the human awareness is still present in activity, so is world minds passive state of awareness is also present in its activity – there is no paradox here in saying it is both timeless (out of time) and eternal (in every instant of time) when viewed from our perspective. The world mind, which can be considered as the active phase, and the passive phase called source, are different impressions or phases of one-and-the-same, there are not two distinct entities here. Both the timeless source and the eternal world mind are aspects apparent to our thinking, not distinct entities.

Based on this metaphysics, mentalism has long predicted Physics will finally settle upon a cyclic process of cosmic creation and dissolution and drop the single big bang model (prediction not yet fully confirmed, although the big bang is losing support and there has been talk of possible ways to detect the influence of previous universes on this one (bloody smart folk, those physicists) – watch this space).

Slipping back into religious jargon, our creator god just got his ass handed to him – the creator god cant exist without the creation! And there are periods when there is no creation
We can visualise this, in religious jargon or mystical terms (i.e. metaphor) as god thinks the cosmos into being, gods thought is our cosmos, we are ideas in the mind of god! When god meditates upon his own awareness alone, there is no cosmos and gods mind is empty of content other than its self-awareness. Phew! That was close call for god!

Just like a human mind produces thought from itself and within itself, without need of a second material to work on and without producing any second substance external to mind, then the world mind generates the world idea from and within itself without need of or production of any new substance. The individual mind accesses this source data and subsequently the experienced cosmos is formed within the individual mind. Therefore, mentalism claims that the experienced cosmos is of the same essential nature as the mind which experiences it (mental), which is of the same essential nature as the source-data (world idea) used by the experiencing mind to form the experience, which is of the same essential substance as the world mind (active phase) which is of the same essential substance as the world mind when passive – and the most appropriate word to describe this substance is ‘mental’ because mental is already used to describe the human mind and human thought this mind and its thoughts present in each human individual is ‘mental,’ has its mental origins in the world mind.

The multitude of individual minds access the same source data as each other, without the source data ever having to leave the world mind, because the individual minds are themselves within and part of the world mind. An idea in the individual mind cannot be other than also in the world mind, just as a member of the set of odd numbers below 20 can not be other than a member of the set of numbers below 20.
The ‘complete original’ source data is generated by the world mind and accessed by individual minds – although each individual mind only accesses a fragment of the complete world idea at any moment from which it forms its subjective experience– a fragment in three senses. First an instant of time, second a single perspective of space, third only part of the data available.
The first point explains how we experience a sequential sequence of static moments, giving the experience of a flow of time, like an animation is a sequence of static images giving the experience of a smooth flow.
The second point refers to our experienced space being located around our body-location.
The third point can be illustrated by considering my laptop in front of me – I see its external details and have a rudimentary idea of how a key press causes an input, I don’t access the full data available on the workings of the laptop, but as my understanding grows I can access more and more of the data which was there all along.

The human mind has awareness, which is individualised in the individual mind, but it is part of the awareness of the world mind, so this fundamental capacity of awareness is rooted in the world mind. The real ‘self’ is the individual instance of awareness, this distinguishes one individual mind from another, and must determined by a higher level than the individual mind (it is the world idea which performs this individualisation, not the individualised mind). Individuality needs to be distinguished from the ‘ego-self’ which is a thought, (or more accurately a collection of thoughts and tendencies embedded by habit) a construction which is generated by the individual mind.
Traditionally mysticism tells is that it is a possible, but difficult and desirable goal, to stop dead this mental habit i.e. to ‘slay the ego’ and live thereafter as an ego-less individual (called enlightenment). Mentalism clarifies this; it is possible to subdue the function of egoism (the habit of the mind to function as an ego) into passivity, but not possible to ‘slay the ego.’ The spiritual enemy is not the ego but egoism.
It is not possible to live in the experienced world other than as an individual entity, and any claims to the contrary are silly, while it is possible to live in the experienced world without the functioning of egoism – with the cravat that the ego is dormant not dead, and can reappear at any moment, despite the claims of the mystics.

This model gives rise to the possibility of ‘temporary enlightenment’ and mentalism describes in detail the laws and mechanisms active in the ‘glimpse experience,’ stating that all individuals will have at least one such experience and can giving guidance how to actively seek more. However, here is not the place to go into details of this fascinating subject, it being more applied or practical mentalism than metaphysical model.

In the mentalist metaphysics the active aspect, world mind, cannot be when there is no cosmos, since its activity causes the cosmos. However, the passive phase (called ‘source’) can be present either with a cosmos or without, and so the later is more fundamental and the former is an intermittent phase of the later. What this model predicts is that the cosmos appears from the passive source (i.e. from and as content of timelessness awareness, without formation of an additional substance outside the awareness) and in so doing space and time arises, which has a duration, then ends and there is again only timelessness without space and time – this formation, duration and dissolution is a cyclic process. Something (everything!) comes from no-thing, in a manner that no external substance is formed, which is a process of division from and within the non-dual (source) the cosmos of space, time and things – the awareness at first has only awareness as its object, but by a process of division generates objects for awareness – the cosmos is a product of ideation by the awareness called the source.
This is a model of the ‘cosmic creative process’ using language evolved to describe the contents of experience, so ‘division of the non-dual’ and ‘intermittent phase’ should be understood to be a descriptive, ‘poetic’, rather than literal terms.

A consequence of this metaphysics is the nature of time itself, which is still not fully understood by physics, but has long been understood by mentalism, which allows mentalism to predict the understanding which will be reached eventually by the ingenious physicists using scientific method. (mentalist prediction not confirmed yet – watch this space!)
Mentalism says that the real nature of time is obviously mental, but more open to scientific method is the confirmation of the claim by mentalism that the real nature of time is discrete or ‘quantized’ – the passage of time is a series of distinct static instants, not a smooth flow. To summarize why this is the case; the nature of the world idea which experienced time is based upon is static not flowing because it is not spatiotemporal, so a unit of time, a ‘moment in time,’ is a static snapshot of this static reality, followed discretely by a different static moment. A good physical model of the discrete reality of time is a cinema film or animation where a series of discrete static images changing quickly from one to the next provide an appearance of smooth flowing time.
While this seems quite like a B-theory of time, for reasons I will not go into at this point, mentalism says B-theory models which say time is static and so deduce, like fatalism, that ‘the future is already set’ will be proved to be wrong – the future is not set, fatalism is wrong, according to mentalism. To explain why this is so is beyond the scope of this overview as to do so requires a discussion on free will, fate and destiny.

Another consequence of this metaphysics is that the physical world and individual minds are derived forms of ‘ultimate reality’ not, as often claimed, illusion. However, this has long been understood as a mental not material reality.
First, the material and the physical world. In years gone by, when materialists still believed they would find ‘matter,’ the fundamental stuff of the physical world, mentalism stood against this view because mentalism says there is nothing independent of mind, and the physical world is a form of mental. Science has now reduced its understanding of matter to energy and most materialists have given up on ever finding actual fundamental ‘matter’ turning their belief instead to the physical, which has never been disputed by mentalism (mentalist prediction that there is no such thing as mind-independent fundamental ‘matter’ has been confirmed, mentalist prediction that there is nothing mind-independent – watch this space).

Second, the reality of the physical world and individual minds. The ultimate reality is the source; non-dual and timeless, beyond experienced time and experienced things. The world mind is an aspect of this reality, but only intermittently, and during these interludes the world idea derives intermittent reality from it. If we take ultimate reality to mean ‘unchangeable reality’ then the world mind and its world idea, being intermittent, are not ultimate reality, while the source is. The individual minds drawing their awareness from the awareness that is the source, but individuated by the world idea, are ‘fragments’ of the same reality, and the experienced cosmos is the world idea constructed in the form of experienced space, time and form, so it is constructed from, and representational of, the derived reality of the world idea – a second derivative of reality, but a derivative of reality non-the-less.

Mentalism is not very concerned with the physical workings of the world, leaving that largely to science, commenting only if science begins to suggest the nature of the world or awareness of the world is in any way non-mental. The mental nature of the world of experience is the starting point of mentalism, not the end point, where mentalism concerns the physical world of our experience it is mostly practical guidance on how we should best live in the world and interpret experience of the world. A scientist who is a mentalist conducts his science just like any other scientist. Mentalism is more concerned with the working of the mental forces behind the experienced world (which we could experience as for example karma or reincarnation) and with the workings of the human mind, how the human mind can be trained and developed, in line with the mental nature of the cosmos.
Let it be frankly admitted, mentalism is derived largely from inner experience, but unlike simple mysticism this is balanced because it refers to experience in the physical environment as the final acid test for its metaphysics and practical application. Thus it uses the inner mind and outer life of the seeker as a laboratory to provide the material for reflection and evidence in support of the metaphysical model and philosophical practice. While the model is accessible to intellect alone, real philosophy should be for living – as such the model will remain a complex and dry abstraction of reality unless it is applied to the reality of the individual in both inner mental life and outer life in the environment.
Mentalism is a full and complete philosophy, offering models for the understanding ranging in scale from the cosmic origin and dissolution through to individual moral and ethical choices or the quiet internal arrival of intuition. Mentalism asks and answers the three central questions of what am I? What is reality? What is the relationship between reality and I? Mentalism explains the artistic creative experience, the mystics private ecstasy and Maslow’s peak experiences. Mentalism explores the potential of the human mind, and the potential of the human entity as well as the possibility of a cosmic purpose in answer to the perennial human question ‘why?’

The entire philosophy can be summed up by the fertile phrase ‘its all mental.’

Could you elaborate on that please?

Grace wrote:Could you elaborate on that please?

Edit to add
My initial thought was that your having a laugh at the length of the OP, but if your actually serious, what exactly would you like me to elaborate

Within mentalism, could brain structures, and so behaviour, have developed as if caused by the process of evolution by natural selection?

zoon wrote:Within mentalism, could brain structures, and so behaviour, have developed as if caused by the process of evolution by natural selection?

Yes, absolutly so.

I can't believe we have to go over the dream argument again. I'm a little sad about that. I'm kind of moping around trying to decide why I would want to have a discussion with you about philosophy before you get your memory loss treated.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I can't believe we have to go over the dream argument again. I'm a little sad about that. I'm kind of moping around trying to decide why I would want to have a discussion with you about philosophy before you get your memory loss treated.

We dont need to go over it again, dont be sad. As long as you understand that you saying 'I dont like it' or 'I dont accept it' doesnt stop me from liking it or accepting it, we're good.

As I have said, I dont suggest it proves that the waking world is exactly like a dream world (I dont say it is exactly like one), I just say it shows the mind/brain can experience its own inner content as-if that content is an outer external (to mind/brain) environment. And I dont recall you ever countering that argument convincingly.
If you say the dream is an imagination, or a memory of the waking world (or what ever brain produced experience you choose to explain a dream) my point still holds good, that the whole experience of a dream-environment appears as-if external to the body and mind/brain of the dreamer, while it is in-fact internal to the mind/brain.
If you say its random firing or activity in the brain, the central point is still good - this 'brain activity' is experienced as-if its an external environment.

I use the dream because its a common experience, most of us dream at some point. Its not the only possible example, just a simple and common one.

Instead, I can talk about minds being waves on the ocean if you like, I know you love that analogy

Dont be sad, and dont be moping, if you dont want to discuss mentalism, its fine - I wrote that to present a picture of what I say, so that you can better understand my position, to discus 'physicalism is a subset of idealism' not to convince you that I am right.

By presenting it as a block I thought it gives me a change to actually get off the starting blocks and present a case for explaining how the intersubjective agreement amongst subjective experiences can be understood without assuming an observer-independent world while also explaining the concepts of world idea and world mind. I think thats been done, so jobs done.

Holy Shit! That's a lot of text to respond to one little line I wrote!

SpeedOfSound wrote:Holy Shit! That's a lot of text to respond to one little line I wrote!

Well, as this forum doesnt have the 'fuck off' smilie - I had little recourse other than words
(joke, no offence intended)

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I can't believe we have to go over the dream argument again. I'm a little sad about that. I'm kind of moping around trying to decide why I would want to have a discussion with you about philosophy before you get your memory loss treated.

We dont need to go over it again, dont be sad. As long as you understand that you saying 'I dont like it' or 'I dont accept it' doesnt stop me from liking it or accepting it, we're good.

As I have said, I dont suggest it proves that the waking world is exactly like a dream world (I dont say it is exactly like one), I just say it shows the mind/brain can experience its own inner content as-if that content is an outer external (to mind/brain) environment. And I dont recall you ever countering that argument convincingly.
If you say the dream is an imagination, or a memory of the waking world (or what ever brain produced experience you choose to explain a dream) my point still holds good, that the whole experience of a dream-environment appears as-if external to the body and mind/brain of the dreamer, while it is in-fact internal to the mind/brain.
If you say its random firing or activity in the brain, the central point is still good - this 'brain activity' is experienced as-if its an external environment.

I use the dream because its a common experience, most of us dream at some point. Its not the only possible example, just a simple and common one.

Instead, I can talk about minds being waves on the ocean if you like, I know you love that analogy

Dont be sad, and dont be moping, if you dont want to discuss mentalism, its fine - I wrote that to present a picture of what I say, so that you can better understand my position, to discus 'physicalism is a subset of idealism' not to convince you that I am right.

By presenting it as a block I thought it gives me a change to actually get off the starting blocks and present a case for explaining how the intersubjective agreement amongst subjective experiences can be understood without assuming an observer-independent world while also explaining the concepts of world idea and world mind. I think thats been done, so jobs done.

It's a flawed argument. You admit it proves nothing but you keep dragging it out like it does. All it amounts to is that my brain can imagine and think about things and remember things and oh yeah, it has dreams that I vaguely remember if I wake up in the middle of one.

So what? we all knew that didn't we? That we can imagine a pink elephant or a spoon bending? But imagine a pink elephant, who happens to be gay, wearing a blue cardigan sweater with pink polka dots, smoking a corn-cob pipe while standing on one leg, batting his one eye, spectacle on the other, and with a gray hat that has blue horizontal stripes, except for the visor which has red vertical stripes.

That is not possible. Just like it is not possible for your mind to externalize even 5 seconds of actual reality as you find it in the moment. The best you can do with the elephant is to come up with some marker concept and vaguely have it in mind. Dreams are the same as this. You think you can imagine great things because you have ACCESS to all the parts. You can intentionally move deeper in any direction and find detail.

Waking reality is the same way. You think you are experiencing the whole scene but it is actually only a feeling you have and this has been proven over and over. You do not see but a small part of it at once.

So you dragging this shit up over and over as a bit of philosophical sleight of hand. To plant the idea that minds can make realities even though minds have enough trouble keeping track of more than a smidgeon of actual reality.


I have spent hundreds of posts on this with you and you just pause six months and come back with the same old shit.

Try and prove that the dreaming mind creates an actual reality for itself with all the glory. Oh wait! You did say that it proves nothing right? Then why bring it up?

The main objection I have to your thesis is that you take little ideas about the mind and give them super-powers. The only thing we know about mental is from what we have learned from the inside and out. With all your talk of the mental I think is time you write a 2000 word essay on how you justify your concept of the mind and it's world-making abilities.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I can't believe we have to go over the dream argument again. I'm a little sad about that. I'm kind of moping around trying to decide why I would want to have a discussion with you about philosophy before you get your memory loss treated.

We dont need to go over it again, dont be sad. As long as you understand that you saying 'I dont like it' or 'I dont accept it' doesnt stop me from liking it or accepting it, we're good.

As I have said, I dont suggest it proves that the waking world is exactly like a dream world (I dont say it is exactly like one), I just say it shows the mind/brain can experience its own inner content as-if that content is an outer external (to mind/brain) environment. And I dont recall you ever countering that argument convincingly.
If you say the dream is an imagination, or a memory of the waking world (or what ever brain produced experience you choose to explain a dream) my point still holds good, that the whole experience of a dream-environment appears as-if external to the body and mind/brain of the dreamer, while it is in-fact internal to the mind/brain.
If you say its random firing or activity in the brain, the central point is still good - this 'brain activity' is experienced as-if its an external environment.

I use the dream because its a common experience, most of us dream at some point. Its not the only possible example, just a simple and common one.

Instead, I can talk about minds being waves on the ocean if you like, I know you love that analogy

Dont be sad, and dont be moping, if you dont want to discuss mentalism, its fine - I wrote that to present a picture of what I say, so that you can better understand my position, to discus 'physicalism is a subset of idealism' not to convince you that I am right.

By presenting it as a block I thought it gives me a change to actually get off the starting blocks and present a case for explaining how the intersubjective agreement amongst subjective experiences can be understood without assuming an observer-independent world while also explaining the concepts of world idea and world mind. I think thats been done, so jobs done.

It's a flawed argument. You admit it proves nothing but you keep dragging it out like it does.

Why do you keep doing that? - not dealing with what I actually claim.
one more time...
It does NOT prove that the mind does create the waking world by externalisation.
it DOES prove that the mind can create an external environment from internal data.

All it amounts to is that my brain can imagine and think about things and remember things and oh yeah, it has dreams that I vaguely remember if I wake up in the middle of one.

So what? we all knew that didn't we? That we can imagine a pink elephant or a spoon bending? But imagine a pink elephant, who happens to be gay, wearing a blue cardigan sweater with pink polka dots, smoking a corn-cob pipe while standing on one leg, batting his one eye, spectacle on the other, and with a gray hat that has blue horizontal stripes, except for the visor which has red vertical stripes.

That is not possible. Just like it is not possible for your mind to externalize even 5 seconds of actual reality as you find it in the moment. The best you can do with the elephant is to come up with some marker concept and vaguely have it in mind. Dreams are the same as this. You think you can imagine great things because you have ACCESS to all the parts. You can intentionally move deeper in any direction and find detail.

Waking reality is the same way. You think you are experiencing the whole scene but it is actually only a feeling you have and this has been proven over and over. You do not see but a small part of it at once.

Agree on that.

So you dragging this shit up over and over as a bit of philosophical sleight of hand. To plant the idea that minds can make realities even though minds have enough trouble keeping track of more than a smidgeon of actual reality.

Dont agree on that. I say that what ever smidgeon we do experience is mind made. As I am no solipsist, I dont say the human mind can/does generate the whole cosmos.

I have spent hundreds of posts on this with you and you just pause six months and come back with the same old shit.

Until you actually show a sign of understand what I claim to show and what I dont cliam to show with the dream argument, how will your argument that I dont show it ever convince me that I dont actually show it?

Try and prove that the dreaming mind creates an actual reality for itself with all the glory. Oh wait! You did say that it proves nothing right? Then why bring it up?

Because - watch my lips (well, OK, read slowly then) - it shows that the mind has the ability to experience its internal mental content as-if that content is external to the mind.

SpeedOfSound wrote:The main objection I have to your thesis is that you take little ideas about the mind and give them super-powers. The only thing we know about mental is from what we have learned from the inside and out. With all your talk of the mental I think is time you write a 2000 word essay on how you justify your concept of the mind and it's world-making abilities.

What is this? Request time?

Seriously though, I can do so, if you want me to.
Give me a bit more of a guide on what exactly you want me to try explain or justify, if you dont mind. Maybe a couple of central questions I should try answer/explain?

Little Idiot wrote:Why do you keep doing that? - not dealing with what I actually claim.
one more time...
It does NOT prove that the mind does create the waking world by externalisation.
it DOES prove that the mind can create an external environment from internal data.

It proves nothing of the sort. There is no external environment created. Some thoughts happen and that's all there is to it. They have fuck-all to do with an external environment.

My elephant description had in it a cardigan sweater. I had to look that up. I thought it was something else. So the reality that I created there had some serious issues. I was imagining a cartoon elephant wearing some kind of corrugated looking sweater and he had a pipe. That's all I could handle at once. I could turn him pink but he didn't want to stay that way.

But in any case no 'external' realities were created or harmed during the production.

Show me how you do this thing with your mind.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:The main objection I have to your thesis is that you take little ideas about the mind and give them super-powers. The only thing we know about mental is from what we have learned from the inside and out. With all your talk of the mental I think is time you write a 2000 word essay on how you justify your concept of the mind and it's world-making abilities.

What is this? Request time?

Seriously though, I can do so, if you want me to.
Give me a bit more of a guide on what exactly you want me to try explain or justify, if you dont mind. Maybe a couple of central questions I should try answer/explain?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... ml#p959433
Around that area and a few pages back I spent some time trying to figure out why I thought as I did about mind. It's a good exercise for everyone.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:Why do you keep doing that? - not dealing with what I actually claim.
one more time...
It does NOT prove that the mind does create the waking world by externalisation.
it DOES prove that the mind can create an external environment from internal data.

It proves nothing of the sort. There is no external environment created. Some thoughts happen and that's all there is to it. They have fuck-all to do with an external environment.

My elephant description had in it a cardigan sweater. I had to look that up. I thought it was something else. So the reality that I created there had some serious issues. I was imagining a cartoon elephant wearing some kind of corrugated looking sweater and he had a pipe. That's all I could handle at once. I could turn him pink but he didn't want to stay that way.

But in any case no 'external' realities were created or harmed during the production.

Show me how you do this thing with your mind.

Agreed conceded, no actual external realities were created.

But the environment was experienced, at the time, as-if it was an actual external environment - that is what I am claiming externalisation is; internal idea experienced by the mind which creates/has the idea as-if its external to that mind!

I am showing you that, not how, the mind does this.

But that is just thinking. imagining etc. Nothing startling here. What I can't do with my mind is create a waking reality over a period of time, right now. Life is full of surprises and reality is something I interact with. I only imagine it after the fact as a memory or some mental construct.

I used to think my dreams were quite vivid until I engaged in a little careful fact checking on what was actually going on. I have trained myself to pay attention on waking and falling asleep and dreams are not the vividly furnished places that I remember them to be. I construct that and that ACCESS ability fools us into thinking we are better at this mind-shit than we really are.

Fortunately reality is there for us providing actual rich experiential living.

SpeedOfSound wrote:But that is just thinking. imagining etc. Nothing startling here. What I can't do with my mind is create a waking reality over a period of time, right now. Life is full of surprises and reality is something I interact with. I only imagine it after the fact as a memory or some mental construct.

Agreed, we are not disagreeing that waking life makes the seeming world of dream pale and insignificant.

In mentalism, the dream is a product of the individual mind alone, and hence it has but a fragment of the detail and is but a shadow of the waking world. The waking world is not a product of the individual mind alone, and this demonstrattes the degree of differnce between the imaginative creative power of the individual mind alone (dream experience) and the imaginative creative power behind the depth scope and magnitudde of world idea (waking world experience).

This does nothing to diminish my central point of the 'dream argument' I presented, and infact illustrates more of the points to be seen from dream.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I used to think my dreams were quite vivid until I engaged in a little careful fact checking on what was actually going on. I have trained myself to pay attention on waking and falling asleep and dreams are not the vividly furnished places that I remember them to be. I construct that and that ACCESS ability fools us into thinking we are better at this mind-shit than we really are.

Fortunately reality is there for us providing actual rich experiential living.

If you have trained the capacity for holding onto awareness as sleep approaches, or on waking before thoughts start to pop up, you are very close to a personal experience of awareness without a second object.
When we sleep, we naturally let thoughts drop from attention, but this drifting attention normally causes sleep, unconsciousness. With effort and patience it is possible to retain awareness but still drop the thoughts, and short-cut to the meditative state of awareness where the only object is the fact of ones awareness, 'awareness of being aware'. You are not thinking linguistically 'I am aware' you are being aware. Should you attain this state, you will no longer need to be convinced that awareness is different to phenomena, and can be separated in experience from the object of awareness.