Is it true?

[McHanhan]

While you're at it, you will also have to prove to me how and why the mental realm is separate from the realm of reality before I stop exhibiting common human behavior. Way I see it, the body cannot live without the mind and a great man told me that once.

Very well: Here you go. [http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-memory.htm]

In fact both mind and body are two separate realities but realities nonetheless. In each realm they are as real as the screen before you, they may not co-exist in the same plane save for the vessel that joins them (maybe the soul) but the mind cannot be dismissed from the physical reality because they share a symbiotic relationship.

And that's science. And science is a reality in more planes than you can imagine.

Erm, sorry, I seem to have just used science to disprove you.

(Well, not really, of course -- but what we do know about the mind fairly well establishes that it's beginning to look like it's hardly a magical realm where that we imagine becomes real. It is, at best, an abstraction.)

I know that wasn't addressed to me but can you explain that entire post to me?.

The question that was originally asked was how the mental realm was separate from reality. Your link was about human memory. While I do see the connection between mind and memory I don't see how proving memories are not a physical concept to be related to how the notion of thoughts and body not existing in a single realm.

 

[McHanhan]

Good lord you edited:

Yes, I do that a lot, sorry. I advise allowing a few minutes for the dust to settle whenever I make a post. I almost always feel the need to clarify.

You believe that maths is a pure unit of measurement, divorced from reality, having little or no impact to life as we know it. I say that maths is a part of reality because it shapes the reality we are in. If something does not exist in this world then it cannot exert an influence on this world. Even weak Van der Waals forces exerts an influence on a mote of dust. Maths does nothing but exert influence in this world so it cannot logically be removed from reality.

I really can't grok that if I put on glasses, it becomes a part of what I'm seeing through it. This doesn't mean it's not useful to wear glasses, but I don't think they work the way you're saying.

Everything we perceive is a shadow on the wall in Plato's Cave [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave], yes? Where, then, would math exist?

Of course, if you're just going to chalk up everything I'm writing as a conjecture, tautologies, syllogisms, and discard it, I'm wasting my poor fingers down to a nub for no reason. This is a thread of conjecture, our very words are syllogisms, and tautology may very well be necessary when what we're trying to do is examine a concept very, very closely.

So, going way back to where this whole mess started, I wouldn't use a mathematical proof as a definitive proof of anything within reality on the grounds that is exists on an entirely mental realm, separate from reality, a realm where proving things is much, much easier than it should be.

I will never try to argue against the validity of this reasoning. I do, however, argue against the NEED for this sort of reasoning. Understandably, keeping an open mind about the validity of what we assume to be "absolute truth" holds its merit, but I draw the lines of constructive scepticism slightly before that extreme. We need a reference frame, a grasp on the meaning of the word "real", no matter how abstract or skewed it may be. Going beyond that just makes everything stop working, so I keep my distance.

Well, you're certainly free to draw your lines of constructive skepticism wherever you deem fit, and there's nothing wrong with that. I hope you'll forgive me if I want to see a little further and harbor the apparent insanity that may bring.

I am sorry but I am with Skarin on this. The reason is that I have spent a good deal of time with my philosophy tutor studying the various sides to common philosophical concepts and the one that stands out the most is what we define as sentient or alive. Not the meaning of life itself but what it means to be alive.

Among all the criteria, introspection or meta-cognition is the sign of advanced life. This introspection would not be possible without a certain degree of physical and mental input. To be alive, to be human is to think and react. To have free will. Now all of this is fine and dandy but they are interconnected. The reality of our physical world and the thoughts that drive the actions which shape our physical world.

To bring this to maths, the basis of mathematics has brought us from the stone age to the space age, or whatever this age is. If maths was not based on reality then our existance is also not based on reality. It would be random happenstance that the paths of everyone on this earth followed more or less the same course. This is however not the case. We are alive and real because we thought our way here. If thoughts as you say exist only in an entirely mental realm then we by association to our own mentality exist in our heads.

If this was the matrix then you'd be right. But this isn't the matrix. So Skarin has a valid point.

Humans are the sum of physical + mental. Take one, you rip the other.

Also if you look through glasses, it does become a part of what you see through. Only we get used to seeing the glass that we automatically ignore it. Like the sound of a ticking clock. If we focus really hard, we can hear the seconds hand. Similarly, the grok that if you put on glasses, it becomes a part of what you see is correct. You just are not looking hard enough.

Interesting you Plato's cave up. It actually supports Skarin's point more than yours. It states that the material world (physical world) is not the form of ultimate realty. Instead it is knowledge (mental realm) and knowledge of the ideas that constitutes reality. Hence how people struggle to see the reality beyond illusion.

Ah, I love internet forums, when a new contributor to a discussion appears and supports the other guy by actually supporting your side. Who has really read and understood the thread? You? The opposition? The third party supporter? Probably none of the above, and any apparent argument that was occurring was, in fact, merely a misunderstanding, discussion of the other side of the same coin. After all, if we're all perceiving the same reality, and sincerely expressing our perception of it, how could it be anything else?

It would help a lot if you were clear with what you were saying. Also considering this is my thread and I am the OP I would be entitled to know your opinions. If you can answer them without third party narration that is.

 

[geldonyetich]

While you're at it, you will also have to prove to me how and why the mental realm is separate from the realm of reality before I stop exhibiting common human behavior. Way I see it, the body cannot live without the mind and a great man told me that once.

Very well: Here you go. [http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-memory.htm]

In fact both mind and body are two separate realities but realities nonetheless. In each realm they are as real as the screen before you, they may not co-exist in the same plane save for the vessel that joins them (maybe the soul) but the mind cannot be dismissed from the physical reality because they share a symbiotic relationship.

And that's science. And science is a reality in more planes than you can imagine.

Erm, sorry, I seem to have just used science to disprove you.

(Well, not really, of course -- but what we do know about the mind fairly well establishes that it's beginning to look like it's hardly a magical realm where that we imagine becomes real. It is, at best, an abstraction.)

I know that wasn't addressed to me but can you explain that entire post to me?.

The question that was originally asked was how the mental realm was separate from reality. Your link was about human memory. While I do see the connection between mind and memory I don't see how proving memories are not a physical concept to be related to how the notion of thoughts and body not existing in a single realm.

Actually, the question that was originally brought about was a matter of how real are mental concepts. The separation of the mental realm from the realm of reality was just a necessary stepping stone to get there. The link provided here establishes that, insofar as general consensus amongst biological examination can determine, what we have in our heads appears to be but an encoded interpretation of the real, not the real artifacts in and of themselves. He asked for proof that what's imagined isn't real: that's as close as we can get.

So, with this in mind, maybe you can get an inkling for the trouble the original question.

I mentioned East meets West. Blame Zen [http://books.google.com/books?id=RrFXl-oe3WAC] for my leanings.

It would help a lot if you were clear with what you were saying. Also considering this is my thread and I am the OP I would be entitled to know your opinions. If you can answer them without third party narration that is.

It would help if it were an easy concept to explain. It's really not. [http://dsob.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/illiterate-literacy-what-i-learnt-about-message-boards/] As for what you or I are entitled to on this forum, the answer is absolutely nothing other than what we are willing to volunteer.

 

[Dragonearl]

I am really interested in philosophy and have been reading about it for a while now. Recently the question cropped about proving universal negatives and if it can be done?. So I was wondering, is it true that you can't prove a negative?. How much truth does this claim carry?
Can one prove a universal negative?

Along with that what is considered proof?. Is inductive reasoning consider sufficient proof? why?.

Is proof by contradiction considered sufficient proof?. why?

If you have another method please provide it.

Discuss and provide examples.

As a mathematician, I'll give my say in the matter. First, what exactly are we getting at when we say "prove a universal negative"? Are we saying "can we prove that the impossible really is impossible?" If that's the case, then yes, we certainly can. As mentioned in a very easy example, we can prove that the square root of two is not a rational number. On the other hand, if we're asking "Is it ever possible to prove the impossible can happen?", then no. In that case, either there is a mistake in your 'proof', thus you've proven nothing, or you've obtained a contradiction, which can prove SOMETHING, but it doesn't prove the contradiction itself (more on that later).

Now, inductive reasoning is not sufficient proof. To explain it as simply as possible, it is an attempt to prove by example, but with a lot of examples. However, it's possible for something to be true an infinite number of times, but not true in general. For another easy example, if we were to live on an island that has only palm trees, we may reason inductively "all trees that I have ever seen are palm trees, thus all trees are palm trees". Note this is very obviously not true, as you can probably prove yourself by going outside and pointing at a tree.

Now, proof by contradiction is generally considered sufficient proof. To explain it simply again, it should seem pretty obvious that if you're trying to prove something and end up with a contradiction, you assumed something that CAUSED that contradiction. That is, if you believe in logic, you also believe things are not naturally contradictory and also that logical statements must be either true or false (otherwise they aren't logical statements). Thus, let's say we start with only things we KNOW to be true (say, A, B, and C are true) and a single assumption of unknown proof value (we assume that, say, P is true). If we get a contradiction (say, A is true and A is false), we know we assumed SOMETHING that wasn't valid. Since there's only one thing we were uncertain on, we know the assumption was wrong. Since all logical statements are either true or false, there's only one way left to go on this (thus, we know P is false).


Oh, and to anyone who wants to complain about how the rational/irrational number argument doesn't matter, you'd be surprised how quickly such things do matter in the physical world. That is, provided you enjoy how all your fancy electronics and bridges seem to work as intended.

Also, a word of warning: it has been proven (surprisingly) that not all things can be proven in any consistent framework. So don't get too excited about the possibility of absolute truth. While you can get "the truth, and nothing but the truth", the drawback is that you can never obtain "the whole truth".

Now that is impressive!.

The link provided here establish that, insofar as general consensus amongst biological examination can determine, what we have in our heads appears to be but an encoded interpretation of the real, not the real artifacts in and of themselves.

What?. So the question was how real are mental concepts right?. Then you provided a link to say that mental concepts are a brain-wide process (that's what I gathered from the link and not "an encoded interpretation of the real, not the real artifacts in and of themselves") which is supportive of the fact that the mental capacity to remember is an intricate bio-chemical process. Which makes it real.

Now forgive me but doesn't that mean the link is not supporting your statement?.

 

[geldonyetich]

What?. So the question was how real are mental concepts right?. Then you provided a link to say that mental concepts are a brain-wide process (that's what I gathered from the link and not "an encoded interpretation of the real, not the real artifacts in and of themselves") which is supportive of the fact that the mental capacity to remember is an intricate bio-chemical process. Which makes it real.

No more than watching a man on television means that there's a little man in your TV set.

Was that little man we see on television generated by a real man that was taken with a camera? Probably, unless we're talking cartoon or CGI or something. Was all the technology that went into delivering that signal to your television set real? Yes. Are the electrons on the surface of your TV tube that are projecting the light which is received by your eye real? Yes. However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

 

[McHanhan]

While you're at it, you will also have to prove to me how and why the mental realm is separate from the realm of reality before I stop exhibiting common human behavior. Way I see it, the body cannot live without the mind and a great man told me that once.

Very well: Here you go. [http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-memory.htm]

In fact both mind and body are two separate realities but realities nonetheless. In each realm they are as real as the screen before you, they may not co-exist in the same plane save for the vessel that joins them (maybe the soul) but the mind cannot be dismissed from the physical reality because they share a symbiotic relationship.

And that's science. And science is a reality in more planes than you can imagine.

Erm, sorry, I seem to have just used science to disprove you.

(Well, not really, of course -- but what we do know about the mind fairly well establishes that it's beginning to look like it's hardly a magical realm where that we imagine becomes real. It is, at best, an abstraction.)

I know that wasn't addressed to me but can you explain that entire post to me?.

The question that was originally asked was how the mental realm was separate from reality. Your link was about human memory. While I do see the connection between mind and memory I don't see how proving memories are not a physical concept to be related to how the notion of thoughts and body not existing in a single realm.

Actually, the question that was originally brought about was a matter of how real are mental concepts. The separation of the mental realm from the realm of reality was just a necessary stepping stone to get there. The link provided here establishes that, insofar as general consensus amongst biological examination can determine, what we have in our heads appears to be but an encoded interpretation of the real, not the real artifacts in and of themselves. He asked for proof that what's imagined isn't real: that's as close as we can get.

So, with this in mind, maybe you can get an inkling for the trouble the original question.

I mentioned East meets West. Blame Zen [http://books.google.com/books?id=RrFXl-oe3WAC] for my leanings.

It would help a lot if you were clear with what you were saying. Also considering this is my thread and I am the OP I would be entitled to know your opinions. If you can answer them without third party narration that is.

It would help if it were an easy concept to explain. It's really not. [http://dsob.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/illiterate-literacy-what-i-learnt-about-message-boards/] As for what you or I are entitled to on this forum, the answer is absolutely nothing other than what we are willing to volunteer.

Just for future reference if you are linking me to something make it relevant to what you are saying. A discussion about forum arguments was not what I was asking from you.

"He asked for proof that what's imagined isn't real: that's as close as we can get."

All this while I assumed that the argument was on a philosophical level. That when you were saying mind and real you meant that in a philosophical sense and not literal. Because from a philosophical view the imagination and "dreams", while not real in the physical world, is real in the mental world.

Psychologists say that, the emotions we experience from a dream, nightmare or an active imagination. the implications of what we see in our heads is just as real as if it unfolded in reality. A doctor will tell you "its all in your head" and sometimes, it is.

Does that mean our imagination isnt real?.

 

[geldonyetich]

It would help if it were an easy concept to explain. It's really not. [http://dsob.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/illiterate-literacy-what-i-learnt-about-message-boards/] As for what you or I are entitled to on this forum, the answer is absolutely nothing other than what we are willing to volunteer.

Just for future reference if you are linking me to something make it relevant to what you are saying. A discussion about forum arguments was not what I was asking from you.

For future reference, if I linked it, it has some bearing on what was being discussed, whether or not you can understand that bearing.

In this case, you were asking why I wasn't clearer. I was explaining that, due to the nature of Internet forum discussions, absolute clarity is an impossibility. The link to the book Understanding Zen had meaning too in that the preview text explains to some extent where the problem in this thread is.

"He asked for proof that what's imagined isn't real: that's as close as we can get."

All this while I assumed that the argument was on a philosophical level. That when you were saying mind and real you meant that in a philosophical sense and not literal. Because from a philosophical view the imagination and "dreams", while not real in the physical world, is real in the mental world.

Well, then, good news: anything you can imagine is real in the mental world. So, if that's the level you want to keep things, you need not trouble yourself with petty matters of "is this true?" It is if you want it to be.

Assumptions are easy. I assumed you wanted something a bit more concrete than that.

Psychologists say that, the emotions we experience from a dream, nightmare or an active imagination. the implications of what we see in our heads is just as real as if it unfolded in reality. A doctor will tell you "its all in your head" and sometimes, it is.

Does that mean our imagination isnt real?.

In both cases, it's referring to biofeedback in the closed system of the body from the brain that is a part of it. There are mechanisms in place to allow stress to exhibit itself, flight or fight [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_or_fight], all that good stuff. However, just because we have mechanisms of powerful emotional responses that can physically affect us doesn't mean what you imagine is real. When you can exhibit reality by thinking it, perhaps exhibiting telekinesis, then is when the imagined is real. Thus far, no dice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis#Scientific_controversy]... but, much like a mathematician who does not hold mathematical laws as sacred and completely universal, a good scientist is always willing to revise the rules should new details come to light.

 

[Dragonearl]

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Look at it this way:

The sound is real, the picture is real, the technology is real. The man you see before is not, he is a projection of a real man but not real in itself.

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

No. Why?. Our brains told us it was a picture. a.k.a- our cognitive processors made a physical intervention. a.k.a- What we imaging in our head is real.

Take eye sight as another example. Streams of photons hits our rods and cone cells, these stimulate the optic nerve fibers and project an upside down image to our brain. Now our mental faculty "sees" this upside down picture and turns it right side up. That is why we see what we see here and now. If it wasnt for the brain and its programming, all this words would be upside down.

Are you then going to say because the brain imagined an image in the correct position, it isn't real. That the orginal 'upside down' image was correct?.

 

[photog212]

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

By saying there is no cat you are also saying that the circle must be filled with something else, ie "space". Therefore you are stating that there can be no cat where there is space. It would be like walking into an office building and proclaiming that there is no such thing as tigers because you don't see any tigers around.

 

[photog212]

The nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence.

 

[geldonyetich]

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

Tee hee - the irony.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Well, you almost got it, anyway. It sort of fell apart around here:

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

Goodness me. If what our brains tell us is true is true, and that should be good enough, then there's a great injustice going on in mental asylums right now.

A brain is what it is. It does a pretty good job, it's an analog computer worth trillions of transistors while your desktop computer is a binary computer with billions. Yet, like any thinking machine, your brain limited by its own hardware and it'll run like crap if you install bad software in it. It's not inherently particular about the truths or falsehoods you choose to believe.

The path I'm following here is one of severe critical thinking. Whatever's in the brain is an abstraction, we can physically back this up with observation. Therefore, any idea we hold, no matter how certain you are of it, is only an abstraction as well. Ergo, our limited perception of reality does make the mental realm a very unreliable one for proving anything.

I believe I've invented nuclear fusion. You need proof it? No need! I'm imagining it right now, it works perfectly in the mental realm, so I'll take that Nobel Prize for Physics now. What? It doesn't work that way? Damn!

 

[Shynobee]

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Unless of course you redefine what 1 and 2 mean. What if 1 suddenly = crow? Hmmm? I'm fairly certain crow + crow does NOT equal 2.

Obviously I'm being facetious, and you probably implied that 1 will always equal 1. But my point being that since we determine what all of our little made up symbols (which we term "letters" and "numbers) actually mean.

So, if we change things, 1+1 may not ALWAYS make 2.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

While you're at it, you will also have to prove to me how and why the mental realm is separate from the realm of reality before I stop exhibiting common human behavior. Way I see it, the body cannot live without the mind and a great man told me that once.

Very well: Here you go. [http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-memory.htm]

In fact both mind and body are two separate realities but realities nonetheless. In each realm they are as real as the screen before you, they may not co-exist in the same plane save for the vessel that joins them (maybe the soul) but the mind cannot be dismissed from the physical reality because they share a symbiotic relationship.

And that's science. And science is a reality in more planes than you can imagine.

Erm, sorry, I seem to have just used science to disprove you.

(Well, not really, of course -- but what we do know about the mind fairly well establishes that it's beginning to look like it's hardly a magical realm where that we imagine becomes real. It is, at best, an abstraction.)

I am sorry, what was that?. Had I asked for an article on human memory and its mechanics I would thank you. Sadly, I asked for you to prove how and why the mental realm is separated from the realm of reality and not how encoding is involved in memory. And before you tell me that memories aren't real and therefore thoughts aren't real or something contrived along those lines, which we both know is bollocks, let me stop you right there.

If you are going to tell me that the thoughts that are running through your head right now, at this very minute, is not real..then you are either trolling me or you need clinical help. While I agree that a thought in itself isn't real, the act of thinking about ones thinking (metacognition, as was said by another) is real. The fact that I know you're reading this line, interpreting my words and formulating an opinion in response, is proof that the mental realm is not separate from the physical realm.

Now, if you will, I have entertained this notion of yours for quite enough and while you see it fine to keep accusing me of "not willing to see and listen" to your side of this tale and claiming "mental framings" or some shite, I see no part in where you have taken an approach to understand what I have said thus far.

Even if by some miracle you have stopped for five minutes in your haste to hit 'reply' and really ponder on my words, I do not want to proceed with this "argument" any further. This is not because I am willing or mentally unstable, it is because I see no point to it. We are at a cross roads throwing broken records at each other. I have so far read what you have had to say, clicked on your links and I can safely say that I agree with only a fraction of what you have said.

You are persistent in beveling that the mind is an independent entity of the body (or the physical world), and that is perplexing. Namely because right now as you read this, breath that gulp of oxygen or blink that eye for the millionth time you refuse to acknowledge that the brain, the mind, your thoughts are constantly acting in the physical world. How one can undergo the synchronization of thoughts and actions and yet post that neither are connected is beyond me. Worst of all, you claimed that I was unwilling to entertain your notion when all this while I was. Well now I don't want to hear diddly about this. Simply because this argument can only be solved by a resolution of a definition; "what is real?". One which I have mentioned many times but you still persist in dragging new angles into this soup.

So in the interests of my sanity and the fact that I no longer care about this topic, I am ending this argument between us. I have no further interest in this thread and I hope that you find solace in the train of thought which you are currently employing. If you feel like sharing something with me please don't.

Oh and for the record, if I happen to mention that you are writing with conjecture, tautologies and syllogisms, it is because you are using those in your posts. Why I don't know. I don't want to know either.

 

[Dragonearl]

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

Tee hee - the irony.

If only you knew where the joke was.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Well, you almost got it, anyway. It sort of fell apart around here:

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

Goodness me. If what our brains tell us is true is true, and that should be good enough, then there's a great injustice going on in mental asylums right now.

How so?. It takes more than ones belief to get oneself into an assylum. I don't see how thinking you are unjustly punished should make it so, when evidence is stacked against you.

A brain is what it is. It does a pretty good job, it's an analog computer worth trillions of transistors while your desktop computer is a binary computer with billions. Yet, like any thinking machine, your brain limited by its own hardware and it'll run like crap if you install bad software in it. It's not inherently particular about the truths or falsehoods you choose to believe.

yes and?. Get to the point man. What is with your beating around the bush?!.

The human brain has its limitations but the truths and lies of life we weed out from experience and evidence. Thats how kids lie to their parents and thats how the parents are fooled for a while before catching the lie.

The path I'm following here is one of severe critical thinking. Whatever's in the brain is an abstraction, we can physically back this up with observation. Therefore, any idea we hold, no matter how certain you are of it, is only an abstraction as well. Ergo, our limited perception of reality does make the mental realm a very unreliable one for proving anything.

Critical thinking?. What a riot!. An idea is an abstraction until you act on it. then the idea becomes a physical event or a construct. Since this argument is about mathematical principles then it stands to reason, the theories which are penned down, are real.

It is with initially limited perceptions that many of the laws physics, evolution and maths were written. Are you saying, ergo, that it is all unreliable?.

I believe I've invented nuclear fusion. You need proof it? No need! I'm imagining it right now, it works perfectly in the mental realm, so I'll take that Nobel Prize for Physics now. What? It doesn't work that way? Damn!

If you invented nuclear fusion in your head then you are entitled to a Nobel prize in your head.

You want one in reality, you will have to pen it down. Thoughts and actions are the same thing with different sides to it, like two sides to a coin. Identical but with different characteristics. It is only our social acceptances and "protocol" that prevents someone from claiming a Nobel prize by just saying "I've discovered fusion". If our society allowed for such a thing without evidence then yes, hooray for you. But damn, society wants your intellect on paper. So thinking isnt enough, you need to act it.

 

[geldonyetich]

If you are going to tell me that the thoughts that are running through your head right now, at this very minute, is not real..then you are either trolling me or you need clinical help.

Personally, I'd say that your getting all worked up over a label makes you a better candidate.

From the whole, it seems the trouble is really a matter of what is "real" to you. Well, lets ask Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1re·al
Pronunciation: \ˈrē(-&#601l\
Function: adjective
[...]
1 : of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)

Hmm, not exactly, though it does support that it can't be an idea because these are not fixed, permanent, or immovable things.

2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine ; also : being precisely what the name implies

Hmm, nope, this one seems to directly disagree with the idea of an idea being real too, on the grounds than an illusion supports an idea and is not real.

b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality

This is what I'm talking about: it has to exist in actuality. What's in the mind is not actuality. This is a specific definition of real that conflicts with yours.

(2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities

Another definition supporting mine. What we're imagining is not something in the real world.

(3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard ? compare ideal

Lol! OMG, are you trying to win this argument for me, Webster's dictionary? I think you just did.

This is assuming it's not referring specifically to a scientific term of a specific kind of property, e.g. "a real gas" as in the example.

3b c : having objective independent existence

Once again, having an objective, independent existence. Not a subjective existence as is in the mind.

d : fundamental, essential

Okay, this one doesn't apply to either of our points - though I suppose there's more fundamental things that exist outside of our life that we need to live than there are fundamental ideas.

e (1) : belonging to or having elements or components that belong to the set of real numbers (2) : concerned with or containing real numbers (3) : real-valued

Hey, math. Again, does not apply to either of our points because this is just a label to describe a specific kind of number.

f : measured by purchasing power g : complete, utter

Monetary term.

3 of a particle : capable of being detected ? compare virtual

Well, actually, I suppose this one could be looked at either way. You can detect a synapse in the brain. You can detect a real thing that that synapse is representing.

Anywho, it seems that, by classical definition of the word, you don't seem to know what "real" is, so maybe you should stop being so damn insistent, hmm? As long as we're throwing around accusations of insanity, holding to your interpretations of reality as being as being more important than reality itself is precisely that. So, congratulations, you were siding with insanity from the very start.

Oh and for the record, if I happen to mention that you are writing with conjecture, tautologies and syllogisms, it is because you are using those in your posts. Why I don't know. I don't want to know either.

That much is clear, and that is why we fail to come to an understanding.

And just to be clear I'm not trolling: don't bother replying. As long as this is your attitude, you're not worth my time.

Spoiler

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

Tee hee - the irony.

If only you knew where the joke was.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Well, you almost got it, anyway. It sort of fell apart around here:

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

Goodness me. If what our brains tell us is true is true, and that should be good enough, then there's a great injustice going on in mental asylums right now.

How so?. It takes more than ones belief to get oneself into an assylum. I don't see how thinking you are unjustly punished should make it so, when evidence is stacked against you.

A brain is what it is. It does a pretty good job, it's an analog computer worth trillions of transistors while your desktop computer is a binary computer with billions. Yet, like any thinking machine, your brain limited by its own hardware and it'll run like crap if you install bad software in it. It's not inherently particular about the truths or falsehoods you choose to believe.

yes and?. Get to the point man. What is with your beating around the bush?!.

The human brain has its limitations but the truths and lies of life we weed out from experience and evidence. Thats how kids lie to their parents and thats how the parents are fooled for a while before catching the lie.

The path I'm following here is one of severe critical thinking. Whatever's in the brain is an abstraction, we can physically back this up with observation. Therefore, any idea we hold, no matter how certain you are of it, is only an abstraction as well. Ergo, our limited perception of reality does make the mental realm a very unreliable one for proving anything.

Critical thinking?. What a riot!. An idea is an abstraction until you act on it. then the idea becomes a physical event or a construct. Since this argument is about mathematical principles then it stands to reason, the theories which are penned down, are real.

It is with initially limited perceptions that many of the laws physics, evolution and maths were written. Are you saying, ergo, that it is all unreliable?.

I believe I've invented nuclear fusion. You need proof it? No need! I'm imagining it right now, it works perfectly in the mental realm, so I'll take that Nobel Prize for Physics now. What? It doesn't work that way? Damn!

If you invented nuclear fusion in your head then you are entitled to a Nobel prize in your head.

You want one in reality, you will have to pen it down. Thoughts and actions are the same thing with different sides to it, like two sides to a coin. Identical but with different characteristics. It is only our social acceptances and "protocol" that prevents someone from claiming a Nobel prize by just saying "I've discovered fusion". If our society allowed for such a thing without evidence then yes, hooray for you. But damn, society wants your intellect on paper. So thinking isnt enough, you need to act it.

This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments. Entire posts where I encounter an individual who is going out of his way not to understand me.

Rest assured, it's no coincidence that you managed to miss every single one of my points: you're disagreeing because that's your agenda. That does not impress me - any two people with half a brain could invent reasons to disagree with each other until the end of time. Change your agenda or go find somebody else to play with, because I don't play that game.

 

[McHanhan]

For future reference, if I linked it, it has some bearing on what was being discussed, whether or not you can understand that bearing.

In this case, you were asking why I wasn't clearer. I was explaining that, due to the nature of Internet forum discussions, absolute clarity is an impossibility. The link to the book Understanding Zen had meaning too in that the preview text explains to some extent where the problem in this thread is.

"He asked for proof that what's imagined isn't real: that's as close as we can get."

All this while I assumed that the argument was on a philosophical level. That when you were saying mind and real you meant that in a philosophical sense and not literal. Because from a philosophical view the imagination and "dreams", while not real in the physical world, is real in the mental world.

Well, then, good news: anything you can imagine is real in the mental world. So, if that's the level you want to keep things, you need not trouble yourself with petty matters of "is this true?" It is if you want it to be.

Assumptions are easy. I assumed you wanted something a bit more concrete than that.

Psychologists say that, the emotions we experience from a dream, nightmare or an active imagination. the implications of what we see in our heads is just as real as if it unfolded in reality. A doctor will tell you "its all in your head" and sometimes, it is.

Does that mean our imagination isnt real?.

In both cases, it's referring to biofeedback in the closed system of the body from the brain that is a part of it. There are mechanisms in place to allow stress to exhibit itself, flight or fight [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_or_fight], all that good stuff. However, just because we have mechanisms of powerful emotional responses that can physically affect us doesn't mean what you imagine is real. When you can exhibit reality by thinking it, perhaps exhibiting telekinesis, then is when the imagined is real. Thus far, no dice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis#Scientific_controversy]... but, much like a mathematician who does not hold mathematical laws as sacred and completely universal, a good scientist is always willing to revise the rules should new details come to light.

Ok, here is a tip when discussing things on a forum.
Make your ideas clear, otherwise it looks like you are just pushing people's buttons or trying to act smart. Know that saying about empty vessels and sound?.

Make sure your opinions can be understood by a wider audience. Don't handout links expecting everyone to know what the heck it is you're talking about (that's for future reference by the way). Give a link and say what it is that you mean from that link. It isn't hard advice to follow.

Well, then, good news: anything you can imagine is real in the mental world. So, if that's the level you want to keep things, you need not trouble yourself with petty matters of "is this true?" It is if you want it to be.

You want to have a philosophical debate and yet you shrug off a philosophical statement. Dreams do not exist in the awakened world. When you do eventually dream you are no longer in a physical state of activity, your mind takes over. It becomes real in the mind. Then you wake up and you reenter the physical world. If you have so much trouble in accepting that dreams are a mental experience then fine. Follow your own advice and keep things that way. You need not trouble yourself with issues such as MPD, stress and depression. It after all doesn't exist right?.

However, just because we have mechanisms of powerful emotional responses that can physically affect us doesn't mean what you imagine is real

I can tell by that statement that you clearly have no idea about developmental psychology. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading since you so like to fling Wikipedia links about. Go and look up behavioral psychology and conditioning via cognitive stimulation. Granted there is no such thing as "bad" dreams or "good" dreams (because dreams are not real interpretations of anything) there is however the real concept of dreaming. Dreaming is a physical state event. Dreams are a mental state event. Both these events exist at the same time but in different modes of operation and in different planes.

The problem you have is that you fail to accept the duality of both states of living. The physical with the mental. You keep accounting the mental realm to be the as the same as the physical ream. It just isnt.

 

[Dragonearl]

If you are going to tell me that the thoughts that are running through your head right now, at this very minute, is not real..then you are either trolling me or you need clinical help.

Personally, I'd say that your getting all worked up over a label makes you a better candidate.

From the whole, it seems the trouble is really a matter of what is "real" to you. Well, lets ask Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1re·al
Pronunciation: \ˈrē(-&#601l\
Function: adjective
[...]
1 : of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)

Hmm, not exactly, though it does support that it can't be an idea because these are not fixed, permanent, or immovable things.

2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine ; also : being precisely what the name implies

Hmm, nope, this one seems to directly disagree with the idea of an idea being real too, on the grounds than an illusion supports an idea and is not real.

b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality

This is what I'm talking about: it has to exist in actuality. What's in the mind is not actuality. This is a specific definition of real that conflicts with yours.

(2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities

Another definition supporting mine. What we're imagining is not something in the real world.

(3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard ? compare ideal

Lol! OMG, are you trying to win this argument for me, Webster's dictionary? I think you just did.

This is assuming it's not referring specifically to a scientific term of a specific kind of property, e.g. "a real gas" as in the example.

3b c : having objective independent existence

Once again, having an objective, independent existence. Not a subjective existence as is in the mind.

d : fundamental, essential

Okay, this one doesn't apply to either of our points - though I suppose there's more fundamental things that exist outside of our life that we need to live than there are fundamental ideas.

e (1) : belonging to or having elements or components that belong to the set of real numbers (2) : concerned with or containing real numbers (3) : real-valued

Hey, math. Again, does not apply to either of our points because this is just a label to describe a specific kind of number.

f : measured by purchasing power g : complete, utter

Monetary term.

3 of a particle : capable of being detected ? compare virtual

Well, actually, I suppose this one could be looked at either way. You can detect a synapse in the brain. You can detect a real thing that that synapse is representing.

Anywho, it seems that, by classical definition of the word, you don't seem to know what "real" is, so maybe you should stop being so damn insistent, hmm? As long as we're throwing around accusations of insanity, holding to your interpretations of reality as being as being more important than reality itself is precisely that. So, congratulations, you were siding with insanity from the very start.

Oh and for the record, if I happen to mention that you are writing with conjecture, tautologies and syllogisms, it is because you are using those in your posts. Why I don't know. I don't want to know either.

That much is clear, and that is why we fail to come to an understanding.

And just to be clear I'm not trolling: don't bother replying. As long as this is your attitude, you're not worth my time.

Spoiler

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

Tee hee - the irony.

If only you knew where the joke was.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Well, you almost got it, anyway. It sort of fell apart around here:

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

Goodness me. If what our brains tell us is true is true, and that should be good enough, then there's a great injustice going on in mental asylums right now.

How so?. It takes more than ones belief to get oneself into an assylum. I don't see how thinking you are unjustly punished should make it so, when evidence is stacked against you.

A brain is what it is. It does a pretty good job, it's an analog computer worth trillions of transistors while your desktop computer is a binary computer with billions. Yet, like any thinking machine, your brain limited by its own hardware and it'll run like crap if you install bad software in it. It's not inherently particular about the truths or falsehoods you choose to believe.

yes and?. Get to the point man. What is with your beating around the bush?!.

The human brain has its limitations but the truths and lies of life we weed out from experience and evidence. Thats how kids lie to their parents and thats how the parents are fooled for a while before catching the lie.

The path I'm following here is one of severe critical thinking. Whatever's in the brain is an abstraction, we can physically back this up with observation. Therefore, any idea we hold, no matter how certain you are of it, is only an abstraction as well. Ergo, our limited perception of reality does make the mental realm a very unreliable one for proving anything.

Critical thinking?. What a riot!. An idea is an abstraction until you act on it. then the idea becomes a physical event or a construct. Since this argument is about mathematical principles then it stands to reason, the theories which are penned down, are real.

It is with initially limited perceptions that many of the laws physics, evolution and maths were written. Are you saying, ergo, that it is all unreliable?.

I believe I've invented nuclear fusion. You need proof it? No need! I'm imagining it right now, it works perfectly in the mental realm, so I'll take that Nobel Prize for Physics now. What? It doesn't work that way? Damn!

If you invented nuclear fusion in your head then you are entitled to a Nobel prize in your head.

You want one in reality, you will have to pen it down. Thoughts and actions are the same thing with different sides to it, like two sides to a coin. Identical but with different characteristics. It is only our social acceptances and "protocol" that prevents someone from claiming a Nobel prize by just saying "I've discovered fusion". If our society allowed for such a thing without evidence then yes, hooray for you. But damn, society wants your intellect on paper. So thinking isnt enough, you need to act it.

This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments. Entire posts where I encounter an individual who is going out of his way not to understand me.

Rest assured, it's no coincidence that you managed to miss every single one of my points: you're disagreeing because that's your agenda. That does not impress me - any two people with half a brain could invent reasons to disagree with each other until the end of time. Change your agenda or go find somebody else to play with, because I don't play that game.

Yet you seem to be playing that game with me. "This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments." you said despite where you are now.

Rest assured I am not playing with you. I am only questioning the motives of a man who demands compromise but gives none.

 

[geldonyetich]

Spoiler: Geeze this is spammy

For future reference, if I linked it, it has some bearing on what was being discussed, whether or not you can understand that bearing.

In this case, you were asking why I wasn't clearer. I was explaining that, due to the nature of Internet forum discussions, absolute clarity is an impossibility. The link to the book Understanding Zen had meaning too in that the preview text explains to some extent where the problem in this thread is.

"He asked for proof that what's imagined isn't real: that's as close as we can get."

All this while I assumed that the argument was on a philosophical level. That when you were saying mind and real you meant that in a philosophical sense and not literal. Because from a philosophical view the imagination and "dreams", while not real in the physical world, is real in the mental world.

Well, then, good news: anything you can imagine is real in the mental world. So, if that's the level you want to keep things, you need not trouble yourself with petty matters of "is this true?" It is if you want it to be.

Assumptions are easy. I assumed you wanted something a bit more concrete than that.

Psychologists say that, the emotions we experience from a dream, nightmare or an active imagination. the implications of what we see in our heads is just as real as if it unfolded in reality. A doctor will tell you "its all in your head" and sometimes, it is.

Does that mean our imagination isnt real?.

In both cases, it's referring to biofeedback in the closed system of the body from the brain that is a part of it. There are mechanisms in place to allow stress to exhibit itself, flight or fight [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_or_fight], all that good stuff. However, just because we have mechanisms of powerful emotional responses that can physically affect us doesn't mean what you imagine is real. When you can exhibit reality by thinking it, perhaps exhibiting telekinesis, then is when the imagined is real. Thus far, no dice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis#Scientific_controversy]... but, much like a mathematician who does not hold mathematical laws as sacred and completely universal, a good scientist is always willing to revise the rules should new details come to light.

Ok, here is a tip when discussing things on a forum.
Make your ideas clear, otherwise it looks like you are just pushing people's buttons or trying to act smart. Know that saying about empty vessels and sound?.

Make sure your opinions can be understood by a wider audience. Don't handout links expecting everyone to know what the heck it is you're talking about (that's for future reference by the way). Give a link and say what it is that you mean from that link. It isn't hard advice to follow.

Well, I appreciate you're trying to be helpful, but I already explained why absolute clarity is a matter of impossibility as how other people's choice to interpret me (including "trying to sound smart") is something I have no control over.

So, basically, you're just trying to force your standards on me. Did you know that?

Well, then, good news: anything you can imagine is real in the mental world. So, if that's the level you want to keep things, you need not trouble yourself with petty matters of "is this true?" It is if you want it to be.

You want to have a philosophical debate and yet you shrug off a philosophical statement. Dreams do not exist in the awakened world. When you do eventually dream you are no longer in a physical state of activity, your mind takes over. It becomes real in the mind. Then you wake up and you reenter the physical world. If you have so much trouble in accepting that dreams are a mental experience then fine. Follow your own advice and keep things that way. You need not trouble yourself with issues such as MPD, stress and depression. It after all doesn't exist right?.

Well, assuming you still want to talk to me at this point (and, my God, why would you) perhaps you should lay down:

• [li]A: What you think a "philosophical debate" is.[/li]
  
  [li]B: At what point was it clearly stated in this thread, prior to your decision to manipulate me, that this was a purely philosophical debate?[/li]

However, just because we have mechanisms of powerful emotional responses that can physically affect us doesn't mean what you imagine is real

I can tell by that statement that you clearly have no idea about developmental psychology. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading since you so like to fling Wikipedia links about. Go and look up behavioral psychology and conditioning via cognitive stimulation. Granted there is no such thing as "bad" dreams or "good" dreams (because dreams are not real interpretations of anything) there is however the real concept of dreaming. Dreaming is a physical state event. Dreams are a mental state event. Both these events exist at the same time but in different modes of operation and in different planes.

I'm somewhat familiar with Skinner's work (behaviorial/conditioning). However, I feel that you are misappropriating it talking about dreams, which were really more Freud's shtick. Like me, Skinner preferred to keep his theories within things he could observe.

I'm not sure where dreams enter the picture. If I'm balking at the concept that ideas are sufficiently real, why would I go with something even wilder than an idea - a dream?

The problem you have is that you fail to accept the duality of both states of living. The physical with the mental. You keep accounting the mental realm to be the as the same as the physical ream. It just isnt.

Gee, I sure am sorry that I failed to accept a theoretical principle you have decided we all must believe in order to be right.

Why is it that you think I'm finding the mental realm to be the same to the physical realm? That was that was really the other guy's shtick. I was the one pushing for the opposite, that these are wholly separate things, and consequently you can't use the mental to prove the physical.

 

[ethaninja]

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

You've got to wonder why an alien being would bother disguising himself as a big fat man in red and white clothes, flying a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer delivering toys to good little kids and coal to all the bad ones.

Whatever kind of cosmic cocaine was used to induce such concepts needs to be delivered to me now.

Lol seconded. Maybe that's what we should get for Christmas =D

 

[Shycte]

I'm not sure that I've understood the question, but if I have, Yes?

I'm mean, if a stand on the ground and say "I am not jumping" I prove that negative by not jumping.