Bishop Berkely said that only two things exist in the world…God and the mind. Matter doesn’t really exist.
Story goes, that one day, Berkely went to visit a friend and arriving knocked on his door.
The friend refused to open the door, informing the good Bishop that he could just walk thru it, since matter didn’t exist…
Berkely finally had to admit, the door did exist…
One point for materialism…
Ah, but you could say that the door was in the Bishop’s mind, and that he only couild not walk through it because he lacked the mental training to conceive himself walking through it.
It’s all in the mind, man.
perception, a representation or “expression” of “the many in the one”
apperception " tendencies from one perception to the other"
thus we see the world in our unconscious perception and these representations are linked to an internal principle of activity and change
(options available…wait for the door to erode or morph into another space)
mind space, could he see what there was to see behind the door, sure he could.
then wasn’t he there then in mind not body.
maybe a considered argument
sure you’ll inform me of any views
The ShortCut: Bravo…well said…lol… 
So shall we call it a 1-1 draw then?
But does it make sense to think like that? It’s certainly possible but so what? Talk of proper mental training and of God can be called super-semantic concepts. They can’t be proved wrong so they can’t be proved right. Why should we think something is true if the only answer anyone can give is maybe?
I have spoken to Number 2…and yes…this time…we shall call it a 1-1 Draw.
I’ll win eventually
By hook or by crook, I will.
It’s a matter of principle
While I agree that object is relative to subject (see my post under Objectivity, Obfuscation and Mysticism in this forum), that is a long way from saying that matter does not exist.
I assume you are quoting Bishop Berkely correctly. If so, he should have done a better job of compromising with reality.
It is hard to disagree with Brad here. Even if semantics can show that matter does not exist (semantics can show anything), what difference does it make to real people in the real world of real events?
Imagine a computer game…Tomb Raider for example. Nothing on the screen actually exists in the real world. We cannot grab Lauras gun and use it to kill the person trying to take away the Playstation controller from us. However to the character in the game the objects are very real their use has physical consequences upon other objects. But all they are are rules, built into the system which could be changed. And some people with the right “training” could change the rules themselves (knowing or discovering the cheat codes).
Can we extrapolate the example to real life? I guess that depends on how you view the world. Is it possible logically? I think so.
Instead of a computer game, how about a computer program…like the Matrix! Sorry couldn’t help myself. 
I admire your creative imagination.
We do not just live on the planet Earth; we live in “the world,” i. e., in our intepretation of the planet Earth. Man lives in the matrix of his own meanings. But our meanings must agree up and down the line and at all points of contact with the planet Earth. Otherwise, we are not living in “the world.” We are living in Never-Never Land.
Again, I refer you to my post in Objectivity, Obfuscation and Mysticism.
The difference between imagination and fantasy is that imagination is rooted in reality.
When I am thirsty, I want a glass of water, not a picture of one.
But fantasy is also rooted in imagination.
Say we accept the matrix thingy. When you are thirsty, Imagistar, it is the sensation of thirst that wants a glass of water. And since thirst does not quite exist…
Au contraire, h2o.
First, imagination intends something. It confronts reality. A creative act is the result of imagination. By contrast, fantasy intends nothing at all. Fantasy is a substitute for action.
Second, it is not “the sensation of thirst that wants a glass of water.” Thirst is a symptom of the dehydration of the whole being, and it is the whole being that wants the water.
A thirsty man will gladly pay a handsome sum for a drink of water – provided, of course, that he is not a Republican.
Finally, you say, “thirst does not quite exist.” What does that mean?
(I should know better than to argue this subject with someone named h2o, what what the hell.)
Thirst does not quite exist. I mean it is only a projection of reality, a sensorial projection. It’s not the real thing.
Think at those tibetan monks. How they can control their perception of reality.
Think at Uri Geller. How he can control reality. And there are so many other examples.
The truth is it’s all in the mind.
(1) You say that “a sensorial projection” is “not the real thing.” Of course not. Coke is.
(2) You are right. Tibetan monks have not been buffaloed by life. They are not addicted to their own adrenalin. They can rise above their fears to experience the essential nature of life.
In a word, they are not spiritual midgets.
(3) I don’t know about Uri Geller, but according to an article in Reader’s Digest, studies show that certain individuals can control the speed of a Geiger counter by willing the rate at which a piece of uranium discharges particles. It is precisely here, at the acausal level of atomic magnitudes, that Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, in their joint paper on “synchronicity,” predicted that science would find the link between mind and matter. (Jung’s work as a psychiatrist had convinced him that such a link existed.)
Just two wild and crazy guys!
None of which pays my rent. Bye.
saying that god and the mind are the only things that exist isn’t exactly the most intelligent thing to say in the first place. but it does show the futility of defining existence.
Haven’t you all given up yet on this “mind over matter” stuff? You all know you’ve probably MADE it up in your minds.
What is there is there, but some things are harder to see than others
Think about it…
If you are gona post do not flame.
Please skip this and mr lee’s post(and or any other response)
Mr. Lee,
Instead of asking us if we have made up our minds, why don’t you tell us if you have? If you have made up your mind on the whole mind and matter subject, why don’t you let us know what your take is on it? Then you will see what happens, furthermore, you may learn something - like the fact that there is much more to the ancient topic of dualism (mind and matter). Some of the greatest thinkers to date have attempted to tackle this problem and failed, where they succeeded with ease in others. So it’s no small or simple matter. Despite the topic, you should have a little more respect for people you don’t know. You are committing the Ad Hominum Fallacy, which is when two or more people are talking and one person focuses on the other person talking and berates them, instead of their opinion. So stick to the subject matter, and don’t get personal.
What’s your take?