This is quickly devolving.

Space, time, movement, causality, and many other things are considered concepts. To claim that because we call those things "concepts" that they are dependent upon the mind is to say that without the mind they would cease to exist.

And yet without the mind, there are no concepts.

It has been stated by physicists that time does not actually exist. That means that space does not exist either as they are closely linked as space-time. Yes, they are concepts....of the mind.

So what state would reality be in if it were not for these mental concepts? How would these things exist without the mind to conceptualize them? (I know you have a problem with this concept.)

From my perspective the conversation is evolving towards a much more profound truth, not "devolving." It devolves from your perspective because you shrink from the truth.

You didn't answer my other questions. Do you feel they are beneath you?

Questions:

Do you separate the "human mind" from "mind" in general?

Do you separate the "human mind" from the "human brain?"

If so, are there other minds such as the "dog mind" or the "insect mind"?

Creativesoul,

You are asking the right questions, but you are trying to solve a profound mystery with pure logic. You believe that universal morality exists, but you have insufficient data about why. You can't even give a clear definition of what exactly it is and you don't seem interested in knowing where it came from or how it came to exist.

If it is a 'concept' then it is a product of mind. It cannot exist independently from mind. Neither can space-time as we know it.

I'm sorry if this seems insulting to you, but it really does sounds like faith to me. You seem to be trying to find "god" with logical deduction.

Yes... to all.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to access 'mind in general' and touch each of the seperate pieces that make it work.

(they earth may have 'mind' also, as may any 'energy system' within the universe)

1. I have no idea what "mystery" it is that you think I'm trying to solve. I am identifying morality.
2. Logic is one tool being put to use. "Pure" logic is inductive, my argument for universal morality is deductive.



I need not know why it exists to be justified in holding the possibility that it does. I need not know why to know that it does nor how it works.



You're confusing what you think with reality. I already gave you one - go look. I stand beside it.



There is no way to know where it came from. That is not a matter of contention, nor does it serve to negate or disprove the claim that it does. There is no way to know where lots of things came from.



You're mistaken.

It seems that you've confused two distinct but related notions. Our awareness of things and the thing which we are aware of are not the same thing. Just because we invent a name to represent something in reality, it does not follow that that which is being named is a product of the mind. It follows that the name is. That is trivially true.

Space-time was identified and named by Einstein, not created by him. That which he called "spacetime" existed long before he had ever lived.



This is prima facie evidence that suggests you've not apprehended what has been put forth.

Really? It looks more like you are attempting to comprehend what it is, but not having much luck. You sure haven't identified it or defined it to my satisfaction, and its not as if I haven't tried to understand what you are saying.

Of course I hold that everything that exists in this reality is a product of a universal mind(of everything). Morality is specific to humanity and even if it is independent from the "human mind," it is still a product of the universal mind.




This is the mystery:

Creativesoul:



Anyway good luck.

The way things look to you are not the way things are.

Now that is a universal statement.

Creativesoul:


Duh...? No kidding.



Some people believe it is. Hermetic Law states that ALL IS MIND.

Wallace D. Wattles STATES:

"THERE is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe. A thought in this substance produces the thing that is imaged by the thought. Man can form things in his thought, and by impressing his thought upon formless substance can cause the thing he thinks about to be created." ~

Napolian Hill says:
THINK AND GROW RICH


Peter Russel:
All our experiences—all our perceptions, sensations, dreams, thoughts and feelings—are forms appearing in consciousness. It doesn't always seem that way. When I see a tree it seems as if I am seeing the tree directly. But science tells us something completely different is happening. Light entering the eye triggers chemical reactions in the retina, these produce electro-chemical impulses which travel along nerve fibers to the brain. The brain analyses the data it receives, and then creates its own picture of what is out there. I then have the experience of seeing a tree. But what I am actually experiencing is not the tree itself, only the image that appears in the mind. This is true of everything I experience. Everything we know, perceive, and imagine, every color, sound, sensation, every thought and every feeling, is a form appearing in the mind. It is all an in-forming of consciousness.

*********************************************************

The argument seems to be one about the kind of reality we are in.

Is it subjective or Objective.

Would it be the same or exist without HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS observing it?

I think there is one thing we can agree on.

There is SOMETHING here.

What it really is .... depends on who is looking and how they are seeing it.

Is what we see REALLY the true state of affairs in reality? We can't be 100% sure. For our purposes, and from the human point of view we can agree on most of it and that is what we call "reality."

But if we did not have MINDS, it is all a moot point. From the viewpoint of an ant or a virus, reality would be quite different.

You sound like you are sure of yourself, but your point of view is NOT the final or only authority of the state of affairs or of what is or is not real.

Do you not realize that it was just clearly shown that a concept is not necessarily contingent upon the mind and you agreed with "Duh...? No kidding." Do you further not realize that that refutation denies everything posted afterwards?

What possible reason is there to continue with this conversation, which is supposed to be about morality. Can you somehow reconcile your apparent self-contradictions and tie it into a discussion about morality?

It does not follow from the fact that some people believe X that X is true - that X corresponds to an objective state of affairs in reality(that X is the case at hand). It also does not follow from the fact that we invent a name for something that that something exists anywhere other than in the imagination. That applies to this so-called "Hermetic Law". It is the case that there are things that exist which are not subject, in any way, to the human mind. It follows from that that Hermetic 'Law' directly conflicts with known fact. Laws do not allow exceptions. Calling something a law does not make it so. Both cannot be true. One or the other is false. Seeing how it is easily proven that some things exist independently of the mind, and that fact alone denies this 'Hermetic Law', in order to hold a belief that 'Hermetic Law' somehow explains the way the world is, one must deny known facts. There is no two ways about it.

Doing that, denying known fact in lieu of belief which contradicts such, is believing on faith and faith alone.

I cannot make much sense of the claims that you're putting forth, and there has been no rationable, reasonable, or logical thinking put forth in order to support those claims. In fact, I see no evidence in support and plenty which denies them being worthy of any further contemplation.

I don't contradict myself. I was saying Duh... no kidding to your statement

"Space-time was identified and named by Einstein, not created by him. That which he called "spacetime" existed long before he had ever lived."

Duh... no kidding.

You do not, nor have you been willing to discuss what you are even talking about when you refer to the term "the mind."

So it is no wonder you don't have a clue about what I am talking about.

I never contradict myself. You just don't comprehend what I am talking about.

Point in case, "human mind."

I am speaking of "MIND."

I am not confining that concept to humans.

You do not comprehend the difference, so yeh, this conversation is pointless.

Here you have succeeded in making my case against your made up term "universal morality."

Come now, jb. You don't really believe that I am so silly as to hold a belief, or put forth an argument which cannot stand up to the likes of my own criticisms do you?

This could be an interesting off-shoot which directly involves not only morality, but all human knowledge. What do you think is involved in the process of naming things?

I am still waiting for your proof. So far, you have not offered any proof of the existence of a 'thing' called "universal morality" except to say that it is a concept.

Calling it a law does not make it so, as you have often stated.

Since concepts are of the mind, Universal morality cannot exist independent of the mind. (And neither can space-time.)

Here I am talking about universal mind, not the human mind specifically.

(And for clarity:
Universal mind is ALL THINKING STUFF.
That would be anything that processes any information and performs any function.)

Come on Jb. What constitutes being proof to you? What would it take to satisfy your criterion? What are the parameters of that criterion?

I suspect that you'll not offer a criterion for proof which you cannot satisfy with "thinking stuff".

What does that even mean? What criterion is satisfied for making the claim that "thinking stuff" exists which cannot be or is not satisfied by "universal morality exists"?

Make this meaningful.

So proof of existence amounts to creating a definition?