Information.

[Chester]

@statiktech

I think we separate matter from mind by having a preconceived idea of matter.

Preconceptions based almost solely on tangible,physical experience and/or observation. That is to say, it seems like mind and matter form a relationship long before one can even begin to “separate” the two concepts.

I know mind, I do not know matter in the same way

You know more of the mind than of matter? If I may ask, how?!

You know of your thoughts, and perhaps the (non-physical) mechanics of your thinking. But is that necessarily knowledge of the mind?

If anything matter is far more sensible, however thoughts will always be more personal. In such a case knowing “mind”, in general is impossible - far too relative (personally). Even knowing of your mind is a bit of stretch; you may be familiar with how your mind functions but you’d be hard pressed to define “mind” in its totality.

matter has to be subservient to mind in my understanding.

Not sure about “subservient”, but perhaps subject to interpretation by the mind.

I don’t have a preconceived idea of mind insofar as I directly experience it.

You don’t directly experience matter? And how do you manage to hold no preconceptions about the mind?

We learn of the “mind” much the same we do “matter”. Your preconceptions of both are based on what you know up to this point about each.

Also, how do you directly experience your mind? Are you asserting the mind is physical? If so, that would likely fall under the category of “matter” and you would, in fact, have preconceptions. If, on the other hand, you believe the mind is not physical matter – how do you “directly experience it”?

Rather than “physical” experience, I see it as real experience.

I think , therefore I know thought directly.I think everything may be thought, therefore the mind is thought.

I don’t directly experience matter because I have to experience it through ideas, ideas is all I know.

[gib]

@Chester

I believe that what we call “matter” does really exist (but as thought). I believe it is not dependent upon us because it is separate from us insofar as we are not the source of the thought that makes it.We are a source of independent thought (to a degree), our surroundings are made of the same substance but from a different source.

Based on the way you’ve worded this, I can’t disagree.

[statiktech]

ideas is all I know

Wouldn’t that assertion have that the “mind”, and even “ideas” themselves, are ideas at their conception as well?

You could not say “I think” without an idea associated with “thought”. I would contend that we do not know thought directly (yet, at least), we know how we experience thought – thus, we use an idea of thought to consciously think. Unconsciously, or subconsciously, I believe we still have the capacity to think of course, but not necessarily to define “I” or “thought”.

Further, if the mind is to be considered “thought”, why/how is it experienced any different than other thoughts/ideas?

our surroundings are made of the same substance but from a different source.

Interesting take.

So, you believe that we are essentially products of our own thought, whereas our environments are a product of some other source of thought? What do you propose that independent source of thought is?

[Only_Humean]

@Chester

@Only_Humean

@Chester

Not all facts about thoughts are “facts”, because not all thoughts are opinion.

How do we know what is opinion and what is non-opinion thought? .

I guess opinion and non-opinion thoughts do get mixed up, but as our knowledge base expands we learn to separate the two through trial and error (to a degree).

Is that your opinion? If you’re going to be sceptical of the material world, why not also be so about fact/opinion? I don’t mean this as a negative thing, by the way - it’s classical Scepticism you arrive at.

[Chester]

@statiktech

ideas is all I know

Wouldn’t that assertion have that the “mind”, and even “ideas” themselves, are ideas at their conception as well?

You could not say “I think” without an idea associated with “thought”. I would contend that we do not know thought directly (yet, at least), we know how we experience thought – thus, we use an idea of thought to consciously think. Unconsciously, or subconsciously, I believe we still have the capacity to think of course, but not necessarily to define “I” or “thought”.

Further, if the mind is to be considered “thought”, why/how is it experienced any different than other thoughts/ideas?

our surroundings are made of the same substance but from a different source.

Interesting take.

So, you believe that we are essentially products of our own thought, whereas our environments are a product of some other source of thought? What do you propose that independent source of thought is?

“Ideas are all that we know”, does not assume that we know all ideas that we have (eg, sub-conscious ones).So we do know certain thoughts directly. “I” is a source of thought, “thought” is the process of thinking… in this thread we can consider it the process of producing, and the witnessing of production.

We are only products of our own thought to a degree.The independent source of thought is the “cause” of itself and our degree of freedom. Put it this way, if I said to a materialist ,“what causes material reality”, he’d probably say “it just is”.

[Chester]

Only_Humean,

Obviously it’s my opinion… as to whether I’m right or wrong ,I’ll let others decide.

I am sceptical of “material”, not the world. I am not a sceptic of reality, I accept it completely.

[statiktech]

@Chester

“Ideas are all that we know”, does not assume that we know all ideas that we have (eg, sub-conscious ones).

I understand that, however “ideas are all we know” does imply that everything we “know” is, in fact, an idea.

So we do know certain thoughts directly. “I” is a source of thought, “thought” is the process of thinking… in this thread we can consider it the process of producing, and the witnessing of production.

Know them “directly” how?

“I” is resultant of thought. “Thought” is resultant of thinking. That is, thinking is the process of creating/utilizing thought; the two terms are not synonymous. In simple terms, I think you may be mistaking an ‘effect’ for a ‘cause’. Also, I’m not sure I would put the process of thinking solely into terms of “production”…

The independent source of thought is the “cause” of itself and our degree of freedom.

I’m asking what the source is. But now my curiosity my curiosity is three-fold:

• what is this independent source/cause?
• How/why is it the cause of itself? (“Why?”, as in - For what purpose does it cause itself?)
• How does this independent source determine the degree of our freedom?

Put it this way, if I said to a materialist ,“what causes material reality”, he’d probably say “it just is”.

I’d probably say “You’re shit for a materialist”. Many, if not most, scientists are materialists and could give you one hell of an explanation for nearly any facet of “material reality”.

I’m not sure if you are hinting as something esoteric, but it seems like you are describing ideal answers to questions rather than giving actual answers. I’m not asking for the ultimate truth, I’m just trying to figure out what it is you are theorizing.

I am sceptical of “material”, not the world

Solipsism?

How can one be skeptical of “material” without also being skeptical of our basis for “material reality” (ex. the world)?

That’s like saying “I’m skeptical of water, but not the ocean”.

[Chester]

@statiktech

@Chester

“Ideas are all that we know”, does not assume that we know all ideas that we have (eg, sub-conscious ones).

I understand that, however “ideas are all we know” does imply that everything we “know” is, in fact, an idea.

So we do know certain thoughts directly. “I” is a source of thought, “thought” is the process of thinking… in this thread we can consider it the process of producing, and the witnessing of production.

Know them “directly” how?

“I” is resultant of thought. “Thought” is resultant of thinking. That is, thinking is the process of creating/utilizing thought; the two terms are not synonymous. In simple terms, I think you may be mistaking an ‘effect’ for a ‘cause’. Also, I’m not sure I would put the process of thinking solely into terms of “production”…

The independent source of thought is the “cause” of itself and our degree of freedom.

I’m asking what the source is. But now my curiosity my curiosity is three-fold:

• what is this independent source/cause?
• How/why is it the cause of itself? (“Why?”, as in - For what purpose does it cause itself?)
• How does this independent source determine the degree of our freedom?

Put it this way, if I said to a materialist ,“what causes material reality”, he’d probably say “it just is”.

I’d probably say “You’re shit for a materialist”. Many, if not most, scientists are materialists and could give you one hell of an explanation for nearly any facet of “material reality”.

I’m not sure if you are hinting as something esoteric, but it seems like you are describing ideal answers to questions rather than giving actual answers. I’m not asking for the ultimate truth, I’m just trying to figure out what it is you are theorizing.

I am sceptical of “material”, not the world

Solipsism?

How can one be skeptical of “material” without also being skeptical of our basis for “material reality” (ex. the world)?

That’s like saying “I’m skeptical of water, but not the ocean”.

Yes, the point of this thread is to argue that it may be the case that only ideas exist, ie, information.

The only thing I know directly are my thoughts, I know them because they are me.

“I” is an idea, and what I think about are ideas too. In fact I’d say that I can only exist as an idea because if I existed as physical material I become utterly elusive insofar as the material that makes me constantly changes, whereas the idea of me is constant, ie, it is the idea that is the cause of my thoughts.One thought can cause other thoughts, so I have to be aware of myself in order to think (rather than just process information like a computer).

No materialist can explain the existence of material, he can’t explain why it exists (I’m not talking about particular materials here, I’m talking about the existence of all material).

The source of the thought around us (ie, reality) is another mind, another idea that encompasses all , lesser ideas.It may not be the cause of itself , that’s why I put the word cause in inverted commas, it may be eternal. I think that the God idea is kind of predictable…predictable beings, in a predictable universe, requires a predictable being to produce and encompass it.

To be sceptical of the concept “physical material” in no way implies that I am sceptical of a reality beyond me , it just implies that I believe the “material” may be constructed of a different stuff. I believe the ocean is made of water, but that nothing is mind independent (though it can be independent of my mind).