How is any of this relevant in controlling that which is independent of the mind?
No it doesn't, it is a Greek word.
It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind".
It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind"
This in essence is Kant's philosophy as indicated by 3ru7al's association with noumenon(which literally means manifestation of the mind in Greek) with ultimate reality.I don't think it was the case Kant used this term on accident or incorrectly, I think he used the term because it expressed what he was really trying to say.
It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind".Or in other words, any supposition or analysis of that which exists fundamentally independent of the mind would be "logically incoherent"?
If I were to submit a converse construction, would it suffice to say, it is logically necessary for anything logically coherent to be fundamentally dependent on the mind?
It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind".Or in other words, any supposition or analysis of that which exists fundamentally independent of the mind would be "logically incoherent"?100%If I were to submit a converse construction, would it suffice to say, it is logically necessary for anything logically coherent to be fundamentally dependent on the mind?100%
But just to be clear, mind =/= brain.
So then "existence" is fundamentally dependent on the mind.But just to be clear, mind =/= brain.Why have you added this proviso?
"EXISTENCE" is INSEPARABLE from THE MIND."EXISTENCE" = NOUMENONNOUMENON = "EXISTENCE"THE MIND = NOUMENONNOUMENON = THE MINDTHE MIND =/= THE BRAIN
You've only restated the proviso. I am asking you the reason you submitted it in the first place. What is the significance in your distinction?
This mind thing Is up there with ,My heart says yes. And me brain says no.Once a being can feel their heart weighing in on shlt they've reached another level.Ya Heart mind is probably stronger then ya head mind.( What do you think?)
What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all?
If I were to coach one on presenting an argument for the existence of God, I would inform them to highlight the significance abstracts have in rationalizing existence, and that it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist," while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not.
I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?That's the reason I asked you this question, which you've yet to answer: "what is your understanding of physicality without the imaginary concepts which help you rationalize it, i.e. mathematics, science, and logic?"
This question has already been answered.It doesn't matter. The point is, if you had solid evidence at hand for the existence of a particular god (regardless of whether it is concrete or abstract), would you use it?
How would you differentiate the abstracts that are valid and the ones that aren't?
What do you mean by "imaginary" in this context?
It doesn't matter. The point is, if you had solid evidence at hand for the existence of a particular god (regardless of whether it is concrete or abstract), would you use it?This question has already been answered.
Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?Depends on the context. If the context demands evidence, then of course.
Would this context demand evidence?What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all?
How would you differentiate the abstracts that are valid and the ones that aren't?What is "valid"? (It might be interesting to note that the terms valid and value stem from the same origin.) My point is, these arguments are essentially reduced to disputes over values. I make distinctions based on logical consistency; that does not mean however others accept that standard when parsing their abstracts.
Something imagined--i.e. conceived by the mind.
"EXISTENCE" is INSEPARABLE from THE MIND."EXISTENCE" = NOUMENONNOUMENON = "EXISTENCE"THE MIND = NOUMENONNOUMENON = THE MINDTHE MIND =/= THE BRAIN
It doesn't matter. The point is, if you had solid evidence at hand for the existence of a particular god (regardless of whether it is concrete or abstract), would you use it?This question has already been answered.Your answer:Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?Depends on the context. If the context demands evidence, then of course.Would this context demand evidence?What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all?I will explain this to you again. You (as a theist) are trying to prove the existence of your particular god. You find strong, solid evidence (physical artifact, logical proof, etc.) for the existence of your particular god. Would you use said evidence?
If I were to coach one on presenting an argument for the existence of God, I would inform them to highlight the significance abstracts have in rationalizing existence, and that it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist," while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?
If you cannot answer that question in a straightforward way, then let me ask you this:
Is it true that the more evidence/proof one has to support their premise, the better (more convincing) their premise will be?
If an argument contains a logical fallacy (say, circular reasoning), then is it still valid (from a general POV)?
Since you stated that not everyone bases validity on logical consistency, then it follows that not everyone would believe that logical fallacies would invalidate an argument. Is this what you are saying?
So you are saying that mathematics, science, and logic are completely made up. Correct?
Let me try to interpret.The mind is not the brain, but manifestations of the mind. Basically, a mind is composed of say, thoughts rather than organic matter and such. You are also claiming that nothing exists apart from this mind, that something only exists so far as it exists in this mind.Would you say this is a correct interpretation?
