hate to be this guy, but for the topic at hand, i have to suggest we not use the term 'universe,' as it is too vague and imprecise. some understand 'universe' to mean things material and 3-dimensional, when what i hope to discuss is the nature of all things - physical, conceptual, spiritual, emotional, existential, impossible, potential, ethereal, etc...

instead, i will refer to the realm of all experience as 'existence' or 'reality'.

in the great tradition of western thought since time immemorial, the most daunting philosophical/spiritual dilemma facing mankind has been the seemingly irreconcilable gap between things internal and external. that is to say, the central question of 'what is real?'

the objective or the subjective? the perceived or the perceiver? edit: the world or the spirit?

in this particular era of history, we see religion and science increasingly mired in this contentious debate. to which paradigm do we hitch our proverbial wagon? empiricism, or spirituality?

what is often forgotten in this war of mind-states is the subsequent, but immediately important, peripheral question - are the two truly mutually exclusive? this is what i want to discuss.

ok. so, my first question to you is this:

1. can a perceiver exist exist without a thing to perceive?

2. vice versa, can a thing exist without the possibility of ever being percieved?

3. do these scenarios nullify the definition of existence? and if so, what does that tell us of the nature of existence?

make any sense at all?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 10-07-2004).]

The world isn't as complex as you make it out to be. Have you ever heard the term "We murder to dissect."? (Voltaire) Human beings are trapped in their bubbles of perception, which fortunately overlap and can be shared to form a collective bubble that is always growing in depth and bredth. The difference between our collective vision and the reality becomes less significant as we learn more. But there will always be an outer ring of ignorance, which is where religion comes in.

quote:1. can a perceiver exist exist without a thing to perceive?

If by "perceiver" you mean, "someone who perceives" then the answer is obvious. He cannot. If there is nothing to perceive, then how could he be "someone who perceives"?

quote:2. vice versa, can a thing exist without the possibility of ever being percieved?

Yes. But I don't agree with your definition. See below.

quote:3. do these scenarios nullify the definition of existence? and if so, what does that tell us of the nature of existence?

If you define "existence" as "the realm of all experience" then it would. But that would mean you're all ready making the decision in the first place. You're already defining "what is real"?.

I don't agree with that definition, so my answer would be 'No'. Existing is being part, either physically or mentally, of something.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Jackinmyhat:

The world isn't as complex as you make it out to be. Have you ever heard the term "We murder to dissect."? (Voltaire) Human beings are trapped in their bubbles of perception, which fortunately overlap and can be shared to form a collective bubble that is always growing in depth and bredth. The difference between our collective vision and the reality becomes less significant as we learn more. But there will always be an outer ring of ignorance, which is where religion comes in.

great quote, and thanks for the thoughtful response... much to ponder there.

clearly you believe that the empirical world trumps that of the mind... but why?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 10-08-2004).]

IMO, reality is the material. Granted, my life in philosophy is short, but I am yet to hear something to make me think differently. Plato's idea of forms being true reality or the realest thing possible was intriguing, but not that sturdy imo. Why do you all, if you do, deny materialism as reality? dualism?idealism?mentalism?

Nature has created us to experience itself in different ways, thats why we're here, we're part of the bigger picture.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:



clearly you believe that the empirical world trumps that of the mind... but why?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 10-08-2004).]

Simple- the empirical world IS the mind. The world outside the empirical world (reality as it is) is all that we cannot see or understand, due to the limits of our nature. The world as we know it is just a reflection of our nature as humans (just as an ant's world is much simpler and smaller). The "world of the mind" is no more than the organization, interpretation, and rationalization of sensory perceptions.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you define "existence" as "the realm of all experience" then it would. But that would mean you're all ready making the decision in the first place. You're already defining "what is real"?.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-07-2004).]

wow, i'm impressed, rust. i was wondering how long it would take to notice that as i typed it!

quote:Originally posted by Jackinmyhat:

Simple- the empirical world IS the mind. The world outside the empirical world (reality as it is) is all that we cannot see or understand, due to the limits of our nature. The world as we know it is just a reflection of our nature as humans (just as an ant's world is much simpler and smaller). The "world of the mind" is no more than the organization, interpretation, and rationalization of sensory perceptions.



poor choice of wording on my part... by 'empirical', i meant all that which is empirically observable, (i.e. - the objective world outside the mind) not 'empiricism' per se.

which is exactly what you smartly answered in your thoroughness... so again, thanks.

but in response to your response, what is a sensory perception?

Science is not really objective; it is a record of modern human thought, not of the universe as it exists independently of man. The world outside the mind is unknowable. Sensory perception, sense impressions, empirical evidence- these are all the same thing. This is the foundation for all human thought. Can you imagine anything that isn't based on what you've seen, felt, or heard? You cannot. Hence, the it is useless to talk about the mind as being seperate from the world or something existing outside the mind.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



If there is nothing to perceive, then how could he be "someone who perceives"?





Interesting sidenote- When the human mind is deprived of the sensory information comeing in from the eyes, ears, nose, etc., it will create it's own sensory input. See "sensory deprivation".