Is mind the essential reality?

Is mind the essential reality?

Edit; …and does reality describe itself perfectly?

Well its mine, and it is the most fundamental nature of ‘me’, so going upon my self/body & mind as an example, all other things like qualia, archetypes, information and material elements, are after or secondary to the fundamental plateaux of mind.

If I take reality as the example then it is literally impossible to define as an entity or dimensional space, yet I can define those things as within mind. That is, one could imagine that if mind was the essential reality it could think or imagine things e.g. the universe, and those thoughts would become manifest as themselves and thence would become themselves ‘physically’! this because mind in the universal context is the primary reality, unlike our minds which are within that already created reality, hence our minds can create in a similar way and that is our imaginations, yet its manifestations occur within the context of creation [in and of the world].

don’t get me wrong I am not thinking of some manner of god matrix, as I see it things become increasingly disparate from the individualised to the universal [in terms of mind], such that by the time we get to the base mind nature it is little more than an emptiness. What is that ‘little more’ one may ask, well it is enough that it would think of nothing more that the primary entity e.g. a singularity would be all it was and thought of in the instance of singularity, it would not cognate what that is and how to make it for example, it would simply continue to create ~ where creation [or thinking - if you will] is continuous, we could think of it as the perpetual engine of existence.

Principles and laws are outside of existence, so when mind thinks or creates it is as much that existence is occurring as that mind is thinking it. We could visualise this in a similar way to how our thoughts occur relative to the physical and the qualia etc, operating in the world. Such that the manifestation of a thing be it a universe or a thought is a composite of ‘world’ [or existence material and non material] and ‘mind’ where both are ultimately the same thing.

? What then does it mean if we consider mind as the essential reality?

Can we accept a reality map which is fundamentally non descriptive [perhaps is to simple for description]? Where infinity, the quantum and the qualia in the world are relative terms and meanings?

Point being that thought doesn’t have to make sense in any other context than ‘it is’, it can be infinity as much as it can imagine that, equally it can be the universe or anything, it doesn’t have to have the full description!

Hmm we may also ask; if reality could describe itself then why can we not describe it? I don’t mean in terms of great complexities etc, but in fundamental and basic terms. If reality is indescribable because it only has to imagine what it is ‘roughly’, then it makes sense that when we try to describe it accurately we fail.

No one got anything on this?

yes quetz. how about brain and mind both together.

This gets tricky. What if the brain were just a projection of mind? This gets really meta, though, which might blow some minds.

what do you mean.

The mind projects a brain which thinks itself a mind which . . .

Brain would be ‘mind’ in this scenario, as if we are a mind within a mind where the universe itself is mind ~ hence it doesn’t appear to describe itself fully, just as we can think of things without the need to be exact.

mind = essential reality?

not just as far as we are concerned but in terms of the entirity of reality!

jonquil wrote--------
This gets tricky. What if the brain were just a projection of mind? This gets really meta, though, which might blow some minds.
[/quote]
turtle wrote
what do you mean.
[/quote]
jonquil wrote—
The mind projects a brain which thinks itself a mind which . . .
[/quote]
turtle wrote—
i am still puzzled. what is a thought.

Well if you were the universe it would be a real object, a qualia, an archetype etc, for us we seam to be receivers of the last two and the actuality of the first [the object].

Or something like that

Mostly I am thinking that we cannot describe reality as infinite nor finite but we could potentially describe it as mind ~ because then it doesn’t have to be anything more than a fuzzy inbetween of those dimensions.

reminds me of Berkeley - in a good way.

is mind the essential reality? sure, in some sense, and depending, i suppose, on how we define “mind”. there is nothing outside of thought - and all thought is part of the collective mind. but these are just individual descriptions of a thing that can be described in numerous ways, all accurate.

i don’t think anything in the OP is necessarily wrong, but i do think it’s only one side of the story - everything we understand is indeed a manifestation of our thought. but there is a tactile experience to be considered as well - we are clearly physical creatures functioning in a physical universe. thought is a physical activity.

so, yes, mind is definitely AN essential reality, but that doesn’t necessarily make it THE essential reality

I don’t think thought is physical? I mean information and qualia are not, right, so it appears to me that the physical informs the non physical, thus is a superfluous layer on top of mind ~ to us anyway. The question then becomes; is this also true universally? It appears that the universe derives also of the non-physical, and that energy patterns don’t appear until the singularity cools somewhat [a few microseconds after big bang].

I would probably go with the idea that mind as we experience it is not the prime reality, but then I get confused because the experiencing of mind is not necessarily the same things as mind itself. It could be that something else is both mind and energy forms, but the question remains; does reality describe itself fully? If we think of it as mind or something like that, then it has no need to.

turtle wrote
what do you mean.
[/quote]
jonquil wrote—
The mind projects a brain which thinks itself a mind which . . .
[/quote]
turtle wrote—
i am still puzzled. what is a thought.
[/quote]
Puzzled about what? I thought everybody was familiar with the concept of meta, which is pretty mind blowing and interesting. Try thinking of it this way? Which came first, mind or brain? If it’s mind, then you get meta if you think brain comes first but it’s really mind.

Mind comes fist imho, the utility of that within the context of the physical come second. If not then we have to describe mind as something limited by the physical, yet being non-physical I don’t know how we can do that.

I feel that mind is essentially non-spatial and don’t belong to the limits of the physical nor anything else we ascribe it e.g. infinity etc, thus it is not bound by those things and we can arrive at a reality which is non self describing.

i do - thought is material changing, neurons and electricity, physical energies functioning within the material world

really!

So electrons moving in a wavelength is thought? How is information physical? How is ‘experience’ of those physical? How is knowing physical?

…and does not the material derive of the immaterial? Can we define the reality map by the physical alone? Does reality even describe itself?

in the same sense that heat is the heightened molecular activity of matter

it is active and effective in the physical world

the same way any sensation is physical

sure, and vice versa

as easily (or with as much difficulty) as we can define it by mind alone - they are opposite sides of the same coin

i think it does, through mind!

Yes but imagine those objects moving in a wavelength then consider it to be thought, you can do the exact same thing outside of the brain and it certainly isn’t thought.

Indeed, the non material affects the material, but specifically can anyone say how info literally is physical?

Good point, but we arrive at the material after ‘x’ right?

And mind aside, surely reality defines itself weather or not humans in this little corner of existence are experiencing it. If humanity died out tomorrow reality would either describe itself or not irrespective of us.

i’m not sure i follow - if thought requires neuronal activity (and i, for one, believe it does) then you are right that there could be no thought outside the brain - but that’s all the more reason to think of it as a physical activity, since it requires physical structures

but can anyone say how the non-material literally affects the material? i don’t think so - as i see it, information is physical: ideas corresponding on one end to to brain activity and corresponding on the other end to physical symbols or sounds or whatever. In light of that, why resist the notion that the ideas themselves are at least reducible to the physical?

not necessarily, ‘x’ is material - it is a sign, with meaning, and causal properties - it’s also an observation, a way of referring to parts of the physical world.

without humanity, is there a mind for reality to describe itself to?

Thought does require neuronal activity ~ of course, I am not saying that the material has nothing to do with thought, indeed most our thoughts are entirely reliant on info ‘derived’ from the material [even if here we might consider the material itself as being fundamentally universal mind].
Lets imagine a humble neuron, it is a bit like a battery with an interchangeable positive and negative polarity and its skin is neutral I do believe. Our thoughts are relative to or part of the matrixes made up by billions of them all emitting frequencies composed of electrons. Such frequencies can be replicated exactly but outside of the brain, yet we wouldn’t call that thought or consciousness even if we also built an artificial neuron. We can look at those electrons any way we want and we wont find information [even though it derives from their patterns/frequencies] nor consciousness, our thoughts are at least partly informational and experiental etc, and I cannot see anything in electromagnetism which suggests it can be thought.

The material denotes the energy pattern which the mind and only the mind ‘reads’ as information, the subjective mind can then change that and pass it back into the material in the same fashion as it received it [inverted]. If anyone can show how info, experience and knowing exist in material form I would be happy to accept that, yet as you know even the colours we see in the world are actually not photonic and are of the mind. In the same way thoughts are not electromagnetic frequencies, thought is to electrons as like photons are to colour and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

If we can say mind is not material then perhaps it describes itself to itself on a universal basis. Without physical limitations it is hard to say by what mind is limited.
This is why I have gone to the idea that something maybe mind is the primary reality, because it needs no cause nor basis it just is.