reality

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 ›

In most theologies, it is said that God created the material world. It is also said that God is (1) omnipresent, (2) omnipotent, and (3) omniscient; that God knows the future and the past. It is also said that God is an unchanging, eternal, immaterial being and the root of all existence. Unless God is itself subject to linear time, the idea that God “created” anything is absurd. The idea of “creating” something necessarily implies that there was a time before that thing was created. From the “perspective” (I’ll explain the scare quotes below) of being everywhere and everywhen in one’s “now,” nothing is ever created. It always exists, has always existence, and will always exist, from God’s perspective, because 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 ›

All experience is mental, regardless of whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it. We can only ever directly interact with and experience mental experience/phenomena. We have direct, empirical evidence mind exists and that is the only thing we can have such evidence exists, even in principle. What we actually experience as “reality” is thus necessarily, entirely mental (again, whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.) Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence. The only relevant question is if an additional, extra-mental “world” exists that our mental reality interacts with in any meaningful way. Since mental reality is an experiential and Read More ›

(I think we’ve corrupted KF’s thread long enough.) The entire problem of mind/matter dualism is rooted in a single error of thought: the reification of an abstract descriptive model of experience into an causal agency independent of the mind that conceives it and the mental experience it is extrapolated from. It is similar to the same error of thought that mistakes “forces” and “physical laws” and “energy” as independently existing causal agencies, when in fact they are abstract models of various mental experiences. All experience and all thought about experience takes place in mind, regardless of whether or not it is caused by something external to mind. Therefore, “an external, physical world” is a mental abstraction about mental experiences. Insisting Read More ›