metaphysics

Redwave posted a question in another thread about whether or not MRT would or could cause less suffering than ERT models, most significantly materialist philosophy. To respond, let’s first identify what exactly we’re talking about recognizes the distinction between MRT actually being true, and those who believe it to be true. Obviously, if MRT is actually true, one can still believe in External Reality Theory (ERT) and materialism. There may be ERTs that cause less or more suffering, depending on their specific qualities, so the specific question is: would belief in the specific MRT I am making the case for likely generate less suffering than a belief in materialism? We must also define “suffering” for this conversation. There are many Read More ›

(Since the original thread is way down the list and there has been no response in that thread, I’m making a new post for him to respond in. KF, if you don’t have time to properly engage this discussion, please just say so instead of cutting and pasting the same things as if they are responsive to actual MRT theory but are only responsive to your straw man version of it.) KF, you’re using straw man, category error, irrational appeal to consequences and circular reasoning in your argument against MRT. I’ll show you where and how. STRAW MAN:KF said: WJM, nope. On the contrary, any frame of thought that leads to the conclusion that the broad common sense view on Read More ›

(No insult or mocking intended by use of the word “boy.” Those that have been redacted in other threads are given a second chance to participate here. Off-topic comments will probably be redacted. Let’s keep it civil.) The two biggest objections to Mental Reality Theory is are: (1) it is essentially solipsist, and (2) it has no means of determining between “reality” and “delusion.” I’m going to address those items in this thread. Any hypothesis that an external physical world exists must include aspects of mental reality theory or else it fails. The ERT proponent must insist there are at least three distinct categories of mental experience that are entirely real: (1) that which is correlated to the external world; Read More ›

[ETA: The OMG TOO LONG I don’t know if I wanna read all that teaser: I have said before it’s impossible to deny the value of the external physical world theory. In one sense it’s true – we have made a lot of scientific progress under that model. However, in comparison to what MRT could have provided and prevented, the overall effect has been disastrous, not just for science, but for the human condition as well.] External physical world theory is the theory that an objective, physical world exists external of mind that causes a set of subjective personal experiences, thus explaining the difference between experiences we have in common with other people, and experiences that others don’t appear to Read More ›

Millions of people visit what we call “the afterlife” every day bringing back empirical reports and information, including ongoing contact with the “dead.” Interaction with the dead and “cross-dimensional” visitation has been reported from the earliest times in recorded history. According to available data, it may be that a majority of people have experienced ADCs, or “after-death contact” of one kind or another, ranging up to fully physical manifestations of the dead here and long visitations with the dead in their world. There has been a vast amount of technological interaction with what we call “the afterlife,” including with people who lived and died here. The technological evidence includes video, photos, and audio recordings. Teams of scientists and engineers here Read More ›

By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view, we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality. I will attempt to roughly outline such a theory here, with the caveat that trying to express such a theory in language that is thoroughly steeped in external, physical world ideology is at best difficult. Another caveat would be that, even though the categorical nature of the theory probably cannot be disproved (mental reality would account for all possible experiences,) some models might prove more useful and thus be better models. IMO, the phrase “we live Read More ›

When how I choose to observe a photon at a particular time and place can (1) instantaneously affect a photon a billion light years away and (2) retroactively changes the history of that photon (delayed choice quantum eraser), and when we have searched far, wide and deep and have not found any “matter,” we have comprehensive, conclusive evidence that we do not live in an objective, external, material world. At some point, if your views are guided by reason and evidence, you will have to accept that whatever “experience” is, it is not caused by an objective, external, material world.