To say that our mind creates something means we’ve forgotten that the mind is influenced by signals from the outside world. A person builds a house because they’re cold. And they don’t build that house by the power of thought. Even if we base our decisions on choice, there’s always an objective reason for that choice.
Maybe not just our~ minds, but consciousness in general remains the question.
For this we’d either had to research the forum on consciousness discussions or other libraries.
I don’t think we want to reinvent the wheel for the sake of a mere statement.
Other people, myself included have experienced that the mind can influence our surroundings to a certain degree.
Scientists haven’t encountered this yet (if you mean the absence of any physical impact). I only trust reputable scientific journals. As soon as I see confirmation of your words there, I’ll try to include it in the thread.
I guess personal testimony doesn’t matter then.
Science certainly makes provisions for such things. Some of them are admittedly theories, then Einstein’s general relitivity theory is also said to be incomplete and sometimes even wrong. Not that I don’t like his work or scientists in general.
From what I remember, it has been said that when the Voyager probe moved out of our solar system it discovered that the lamda constant isn’t constant and varies.
If science changes constantly and we adjust and discover new things, why must it be separate from such experiences ?
What you do not realize is that in some way you’re preaching to the choir, I’m far more science based than I am anything else.
Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I just don’t wish to repeat other’s words and theories.
I agree with what you say about cold, obviously the mind is not defiant of reality.
The fact that science constantly changes its claims is a virtue, not a vice. This means that as soon as your opinion is validated in controlled experiments, the scientific consensus will confirm the same thing you’re claiming. Let’s just wait for that to happen. Right now, I can only draw conclusions based on already-validated evidence—this approach reduces the likelihood of hasty conclusions.
1 Like
I’m in complete agreement with all of that.
All subjectivity is spiritual, by definition. That is just doing philosophy to make an efficiently functional conceptual scheme. If you don’t have a single word for it, then that would be in-efficient. It doesn’t really matter what the word is, as long as there is a single word for it. But of tradition that word is spiritual.
Your kind of generalizing argument to compete objectivity against subjectivity, I find highly irrational. You obviously just have got to accept both fact and opinion each in their own right, and then get on with it. There are matters of opinion and matters of fact.
You are underestimating the catastrophic cost of people in general marginalizing subjectivity. Because it is very obvious that this will inevitably result in mental illness, weird politics, and weird religion.
As I already explained, what happens is, under psychological pressure to do their best, people prefer to conceive of choosing in terms of selection of options, instead of in terms of spontaneity. The concept of subjectivity requires choosing to be defined in terms of spontaneity, in order for the concept to function. That is the reason we don’t learn the basic logic of fact and opinion in school, because people hate the fact that decisions are spontaneous.
So this is why about 100 percent of people don’t have a functioning concept of subjectivity at the intellectual level. And what may happen then is that emotions become morbid, because in the mind of these people who conceive of choosing in terms of selection of options, their decisions don’t refer back to their emotions, but to the values they used to evaluate the options with.
So that is a big problem to have morbid emotions, so what these “selectionists” then do is to generate more feelings of doing their best, which feelings are associated to their idea of making decisions as meaning selection of options. They compensate their morbid emotions, with the feelings of doing their best.
So then you will have these people doing their best for some arbitrary cause, not really because they care about that cause, but for their own emotional survival. Which is basically socialism, social justice warriors, woke and so on. Which will always exaggerate policy, because the exaggeration serves to get more feelings of doing their best. And the policy will also just be ineffective, because they don’t really care about it at all.
So that is the main way in which personal opinions become corrupted, on account of having no functioning concept of subjectivity. But it should be totally obvious that if everyone marginalizes subjectivity, that then personal opinions in general would be wonky.
It is not irrational, if you think about it. Your idea seems to be ignoring objectivity side of the knowledge. Also seems to be misunderstanding what subjectivity and objectivity are.
They are not something spiritual. Both are ways of looking at the world.
You can see the world and yourself from subjectivity, it would be always limited view you will have. Never the whole lot.
Think about it. You cannot even see your own self from your sight. You will see your hand, your feet and some other parts of your body. But not your face.
You can see some parts of your town, your windows and walls of a room you are in, but not the whole country you live in. You can see some folks in your house, or streets, but not the whole population in your country or the world. You are limited in your sights and senses, therefore your knowledge is limited too.
For seeing more than subjectivity, you need to use objectivity. You need to go and look at your mirror to see your face, and the other parts of your body you were not able to see by your subjectivity.
You need to read books, talk to folks, watch Youtube or TV, to see the other parts of the world you weren’t able to see with your subjective perception. I can go on hours explaining on this. But you get the point.
You have no functioning concept of either subjectivity / opinion, nor objectivity / fact. So there is nothing for me to respond to.
My concepts work for me fine, and are clear in their meanings as I have given. Not sure which part is unclear to you. If you have any problems or difficulties in understanding, get back to me, and I will try to explain in more detail.
I already provided the basic efficient logic of fact and opinion. It’s of course impossible for you to have efficient logic when you don’t even have a single word for all what is subjective. And then you might write a whole book on the issue, and in the end it turns out that you conceive of choosing in terms of selection of options, and not in terms of spontaneity. Because that is always the issue for people who reject creationism.
You pretend to be all sophisticated and reasoning, but in the end it would turn out that under the psychological pressure you do your best, you conceive of choosing in terms of selection of options, selecting the best option. And then your concept of subjectivity doesn’t work at all anymore, and then you get a very complicated mess. Which complicated mess may seem that you are all very sophisticated, however it just doesn’t work.
They are such simple and clear concepts in epistemology and perception. But you seem to be trying to make them sounding obscure and complicated needlessly.
Philosophy is a subject and process untangling obscurity and make them clear to understand for everyone. Calling the process as complicated mess sounds a misleading statement from an inane frame of mind.
…very obviously, why don’t you post the basic logic of fact and opinion then? Then I have something to evaluate. And the result of my evaluation is going to be, you defined choosing in terms of selection of options, and it caused your concept of subjectivity to dysfunction.
Subjectivity or objectivity are not function. They are mode of perception. Whether your perception functions or dysfunctions will depend on your sense organs and your mental state - how stable and clear it is.
Functioning or malfunctioning has nothing to do with the mode of perception (subjective or objective).
I have no idea what that means, it seems contradictory. But you provide no logic of fact and opinion.
How this issue MUST be approached, is to first look at the rules that are used in statements of fact and statements of opinion, in conversation. There is a glass on the table (statement of fact). I find the painting beautiful (statement of opinion). And so analyzing how these words are used, the rules for fact and opinion can be derived.
And then you can evaluate this logic for errors. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the rules are creationism, and that the logic works fine.
You seem to be confusing logic with perception. They are different category of mental functions.
You don’t need logic for your direct perception. Logic only gets involved, when you make statements, and if need arises to investigate the statements for validity.
You are mixing them all up, and making them very obscure and complicated, and I was separating them out for you making simple, easy and clear to understand.
Opinion and facts are not really subjects for philosophy. If you have false opinion or facts, then that’s your psychological state or misunderstanding on the truths due to your personal backgrounds and circumstances.
Philosophy wouldn’t be interested in your psychological states.
What you are talking about is certainly not simple, it’s already a mess. Creationism on the other hand is very simple, and works.
Buddhists say, to the messy mind, everything appears mess. Sorry, I cannot be much more help.
In a literal sense, if nothing else, the mind of an individual can lead to actions by that individual, thus affecting “our surroundings”…?
1 Like