• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does anything exist outside of my mind?

Don Penguinoini

Don Penguinoini

Modi.
Well you can't, can you? Whatever you think is there will be. Whatever you think doesen't exist won't be, only to you though. Although it always there, it's just that your judgment isn't nessecerily the truth, whats really out there.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Guitar's Cry said:
This is in response to a most lively discussion found here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...1-do-laws-nature-exist-independent-human.html

I say I cannot prove that anything exists outside of my mind.

Can you prove me wrong? Essentially, can you prove the ultimate positive? :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a serious problem for idiots because we can only experience the world through our senses which are in turn interpreted by our brain. Therefore, it is possible that we are not actually interpreting anything external but only ourselves. To a certain extent, this is probably true.

I don't think, however, that this insanity is defeatable. I can't prove to you that anything exists outside of your mind because you've already lost it to the subjectivity of your own existentialism. All that's left is for you to stand in front of an oncoming train and demonstrate your ability to self-actualize a marshmellow.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, I believe that this "nothing exists outside of my mind" BS is the most radical incarnation of Western individualism.
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
angellous_evangellous said:
Yeah, this is a serious problem for idiots because we can only experience the world through our senses which are in turn interpreted by our brain. Therefore, it is possible that we are not actually interpreting anything external but only ourselves. To a certain extent, this is probably true.
Click to expand...

It's a serious (but fun!) problem for epistemology. To what extent do you think it isn't true?

angellous_evangellous said:
I don't think, however, that this insanity is defeatable. I can't prove to you that anything exists outside of your mind because you've already lost it to the subjectivity of your own existentialism. All that's left is for you to stand in front of an oncoming train and demonstrate your ability to self-actualize a marshmellow.
Click to expand...

Aw...c'mon! I'm exploring the boundaries of my existence! I am not--as it may appear--"lost to the subjectivity of my own existentialism," I am simply looking around a bit. Believe me, I'm open to discussion.

And Hume's train says nothing about my claim. I never said I could control everything that is inside my mind.
 
Fluffy

Fluffy

A fool
A difficult question. Descartes attempted to use God as a bridge from his mind to the world. If we accept that this is at least valid assuming God exists but reject Descartes' proofs for God then we can replace them with Plantinga's ontological argument and reach the conclusion that it is at least reasonable to believe in the outside world. I think that this is the furthest that this line of reasoning can take us, however.

Sunstone said:
The question is a rung on Wittgenstein's ladder.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a link to further information, Sunstone?
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Fluffy said:
Why are questions of ontology unanswerable?
Click to expand...
Well, okay, not technically unanswerable --an answer can be supplied, but it's rarely the answer the asker of such questions wants to hear as it involves re-writing his paradigm of reality. I've found that tends to annoy more than explain.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Fluffy said:
Can you provide a link to further information, Sunstone?
Click to expand...

I lost my personal library a while back and no longer have a copy of the Tractatus (It's taking forever to replace my books). But perhaps you can find it online. At any rate, towards the very end of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein uses the metaphor of a ladder to describe the philosophical journey. He speculates that the questions we ask are like rungs on that ladder. And he seems to imply their usefulness to us is that they lead to other questions, other rungs, higher up the ladder.

If so, I think GC's question in the OP might be one of those "rungs". It might not be a particularly interesting question to some of us -- especially if we have dealt with it before -- but perhaps it is a necessary step one must take to other questions.

For instance: It seems possible to me that if you haven't at one time or another firmly planted your feet where the OP is, and gotten a solid feel for the issues involved, then you could experience some difficulty later on understanding the limits and scopes of the various methodologies for establishing truths. At least, I feel that could be the case.
 
Panda

Panda

42?
Premium Member
Something exists outside of my body. The way I interpret this something exists only inside my head and no in the outside world. Therefore my world exists only in my head but a world outside my head influences the world inside my head and this is what each of us call "reality".
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Panda said:
Something exists outside of my body. The way I interpret this something exists only inside my head and no in the outside world. Therefore my world exists only in my head but a world outside my head influences the world inside my head and this is what each of us call "reality".
Click to expand...
There is only one world, one reality, and you're a part of it. What's inside is outside, and what's outside is inside. (John Lennon said that.) There aren't two worlds, inside and out, there's only one --and from your perspective, you're it. And so am I from my perspective.

When you see a cloud in the sky, that cloud that you see is knowledge in your mind. It got there through senses, but by the time you "see" it it's already "inside," drawn from immediate memory. All the world that you know --all the outside --is knowledge. That cloud that is "outside" is inside you.

You turn to me and say, "Do you see that cloud?" I'm busy, so I don't look up. "No, tell me about it." You describe the cloud to me, and I can picture it in my mind. Then I look up and see the cloud, and can even point to it and say, "That's the one you meant, eh?" and get a nod. But it's my inside that I'm pointing to.

How can it be that we both see the same inside while being two separate insides? Some people say that it proves the outside, beyond a shadow of a doubt... but that doesn't really explain anything, since it's still inside. Some say that, rather, it indicates a flaw in the whole "inside-outside" way of thinking. It proves no inside different from an outside. All the world is inside-outside, or to word it better, there is no difference between inside and outside --none at all. The split we give them is arbitrary, given to maintain the sense of "self" that distinguishes "me" from the world.

Reality is "me, in the world."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top