Isn't it foolish to think that outside world doesnt exist? and object doesnt exist?

[4201]

2 minutes ago, Moksha said:

@mandyjw An unobserved tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound because sound is a sense perception. It only becomes a sound when there is a sensor to interpret the air waves. That doesn't mean the tree isn't real.

Atoms are real. Space is real. Time is real. Just because they are relative to the perceiver doesn't mean they are unreal.

Einstein said that, "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility...The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”

From an ultimate perspective though, everything we try to comprehend is a false duality. Real vs. Unreal, Diversity vs. Unity, Time vs. Timeless are all dualistic concepts. That is why ultimate reality is beyond human comprehension.

Sound is a wave going though air, aka movement in the air molecules. it is a real thing as well according to your definitions.

[commie]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

Thoughts affect each other. What is believed will change what is thought, but not "what is". What is can influence what is thought, but what is thought can only influence what is through physical use of muscles.

Is this relationship only believed? If so then I can literally grow wings and fly right now. I am open and I have been open to the idea that this relationship may only be believed, yet I never have grown wings.

 

12 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Because you think there is nothing except what you are aware of, nothing but thoughts. But therefore the idea of the bricks being real is also a thought (since there is nothing but thoughts), so you can walk through walls if you stop believing the bricks in the wall are real.

So despite every moment confirming the "real world hypothesis", all I can say is that I don't know if that hypothesis is true. I don't know if things exist or are just thoughts. But why believe that they don't exist? Just to stop conceptualizing about them? Isn't it better to accept that you don't know?

The trouble with your reasoning (and that is also a very common problem with the reasoning of many others here) is that you are effectively setting up a strawman, even though you probably didn't intend to.

That you haven't grown wings is only an argument against a theory which implies you should grow wings. That you can't walk through walls is only an argument against a theory which implies that you should walk through walls. You may sincerely believe that this is what any theory in which things are mental objects implies, but that is of course not the case.

Likewise the people ranting against materialism here do not as a rule know the first thing about it.

Edited October 23, 2020 by commie

[Thestarguitarist14]

It’s more like the outside world is a projection of your inside world.  So there is no objective outside world.  Only what you perceive.

[Moksha]

1 minute ago, 4201 said:

Sound is a wave going though air, aka movement in the air molecules. it is a real thing as well according to your definitions.

No, sound is the interpretation your brain makes of the air wave. The same is true for our other senses. When you look at a tree, your brain creates a sensory image that interprets the tree, but is not the tree. And for all we know, your sensory image could be completely different from mine.

[Shin]

1 minute ago, Moksha said:

No, sound is the interpretation your brain makes of the air wave. The same is true for our other senses. When you look at a tree, your brain creates a sensory image that interprets the tree, but is not the tree. And for all we know, your sensory image could be completely different from mine.

And how do you know that ?

[The0Self]

6 minutes ago, 4201 said:

I am doing the suffering to survive. It is an activity I do by reacting to what comes within awareness for the sake of keeping the "me" alive. Realizing that I'm the one doing that is sufficient to stop suffering (which is the same as realizing no me).

Tragic

[Javfly33]

1 minute ago, Moksha said:

No, sound is the interpretation your brain makes of the air wave. The same is true for our other senses. When you look at a tree, your brain creates a sensory image that interprets the tree, but is not the tree. And for all we know, your sensory image could be completely different from mine.

Nice story you tell yourself about that there´s an "objective tree somewhere".

Sorry, who/what is supporting the objectivity of that tree?

An imaginary intelligence somewhere outside your current direct experience?

 

[4201]

1 minute ago, commie said:

The trouble with your reasoning (and it is also a very common problem with the reasoning of many others here on the other side of this argument) is that you are effectively setting up a strawman, even though you probably didn't intend to.

That you haven't grown wings is only an argument against a theory which implies you should grow wings. That you can't walk through walls is only an argument against a theory which implies that you should walk through walls. You may sincerely believe that this is what any theory in which things are mental objects implies, but that is of course not the case.

Likewise the people ranting against materialism here do not as a rule know the first thing about it.

When I talk about flying or walking through walls, I'm using the same level of "freedom" the mind gives you when you are dreaming or imagining. 

If there is only thoughts, then the only thing preventing you from walking through walls must be a thought/belief. Otherwise there must be some other form of limitation that prevent such phenomenon from happening. 

If you say there is such a limitation, then we can call this limitation "the physical world" and call ourselves materialists.

Else then you think that letting go of the thought will allow you to overcome the limitation, hence walking through walls or flying.

[commie]

2 minutes ago, 4201 said:

If there is only thoughts, then the only thing preventing you from walking through walls must be a thought/belief. Otherwise there must be some other form of limitation that prevent such phenomenon from happening. 

If you say there is such a limitation, then we can call this limitation "the physical world" and call ourselves materialists.

If there are only thoughts, then there are no phenomena to being with, unless you decide that phenomena are thoughts. What could possibly be the point of such word games?

You are of course free to set up any number of definitions but when they do not match the definitions used by others and you do not explain your definitions first, all you're doing is bringing about confusion. And for what?

[4201]

12 minutes ago, Moksha said:

No, sound is the interpretation your brain makes of the air wave. The same is true for our other senses. When you look at a tree, your brain creates a sensory image that interprets the tree, but is not the tree. And for all we know, your sensory image could be completely different from mine.

Depends on your dictionary. In physics sound is the air wave and not the input signal.

[Claymoree]

You know what , you all are right to degree, it is like one layer is talking to another layer and fighting which of them is more correct. 

Or you all are wrong as me , because as soon as you say something you are already making fool of yourself!  

Edited October 23, 2020 by Claymoree

[Raven1998]

55 minutes ago, Member said:

The outside is the inside and the inside is the outside.

You project reality each moment. This is your true nature.

then why i cant know others thoughts?

2 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

 

2 hours ago, mandyjw said:

i think world exist without a prceiver. but without a preceiver, no one perceives it???

[Moksha]

15 minutes ago, Shin said:

And how do you know that ?

Observation. When a tree falls, it produces measurable sound waves. However, these sound waves don't actually sound like anything.  If you are standing there, they travel through your ear canal, toward the organ of Corti, where they interact with hair cells which release neurotransmitter at synapses with the auditory nerve, which sends the information to the auditory cortex, which interprets the information for the first time as a sound. Sound as it is understood by sensation cannot exist without a perceiver.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Moksha

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

However if you drop the you idea and look at a bird in the sky, there you go. "You're" already flying.

How cute! .. What if I drop the idea without looking at a bird in the sky? ?

[Raven1998]

1 minute ago, Moksha said:

Observation. When a tree falls, it produces measurable sound waves. However, these sound waves don't actually sound like anything.  If you are standing there, they travel through your ear canal, toward the organ of Corti, where they interact with hair cells which release neurotransmitter at synapses with the auditory nerve, which sends the information to the auditory cortex, which interprets the information for the first time as a sound. Sound as it is understood by sensation cannot exist without a perceiver.

sound can. but no one there to preceiv it..

[Moksha]

19 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Nice story you tell yourself about that there´s an "objective tree somewhere".

Sorry, who/what is supporting the objectivity of that tree?

An imaginary intelligence somewhere outside your current direct experience?

 

If there wasn't an objective tree, I wouldn't be able to observe it, sit under it, or pluck an apple from its branches. Nor would you be able to do the same, and come back to talk with me about it.

[Shin]

7 minutes ago, Moksha said:

Observation. When a tree falls, it produces measurable sound waves. However, these sound waves don't actually sound like anything.  If you are standing there, they travel through your ear canal, toward the organ of Corti, where they interact with hair cells which release neurotransmitter at synapses with the auditory nerve, which sends the information to the auditory cortex, which interprets the information for the first time as a sound. Sound as it is understood by sensation cannot exist without a perceiver.

That sounds like beliefs on top of beliefs on top of beliefs

When a sound occur, I just hear the sound, that's all

[Moksha]

1 minute ago, Shin said:

That sounds like beliefs on top of beliefs on top of beliefs

When a sound occur, I just hear the sound, that's all

It's called science

[Shin]

1 minute ago, Moksha said:

It's called science

What I said

 

[commie]

4 minutes ago, Moksha said:

If there wasn't an objective tree, I wouldn't be able to observe it, sit under it, or pluck an apple from its branches. Nor would you be able to do the same, and come back to talk with me about it.

Why not?

What has been your process like when you ruled out other explanations?