ML: "It depends on what you mean by 'our senses'. If you mean things like 'vision', 'hearing', 'touch', then you are right, it's silly to argue that those things don't exist. But that's not what I said anyway, all I said was that those things are not "physical"."
How do you define "physical"?
ML: "On the other hand, if by senses you mean "eyes", "ears", "brain", then you are in the extremely unjustified position of asserting that your senses exist because you can sense them. That's a circular argument."
You can see your eyes in a mirror. How else ultimately will you detect anything other than in consciousness? Some types of circularity may be essential?
Why should it be any superior to hear your eyes than to see them?
ML: "I would define "existence" as a property of experience which is unrelated to my conscious will. If I start singing in my head, the music is not real; I can start and stop it, change the pitch, the lyrics, do whatever I want. I know something does not "exist" when I perceive a strong correlation between my perception and my will. On the other hand, I can't do anything about the muzak in my favorite restaurant; my experience of the music does not correlate to my will. The muzak in the restaurant exists, the song in my head doesn't."
That is not correct in my opinion. The music in your head is just as real as the muzak in the restaurant; it is simply a different presentation.
Similarly, the muzak in the restaurant is just as real as the music of live musicians in a band before an audience; simply a different presentation.
ML: "So far so good, I suppose. But it can be shown that the act of perception is essentially mental in character. Muzak doesn't really exist, only sound waves do. It takes a mind to convert sound waves to music. However, by the same reasoning sound waves do not exist, only changes in air pressure... only air... only atoms... only quantum particles... only what? "
No; muzak DOES exist. I seem to recall reading that suggests it is a well known fallacy in philosophical circles to claim that music doesn't exist but only sound waves do (fallacy of reductionism)..
ML?: "The world as perceived by you is a mental construct, but the world as it really is is not a mental construct. So what is it then? The simple answer is, things you cannot mentally construct."
Questioning this: I would say the world as perceived by you is the world as perceived by you.
It doesn't have to be anything??? (or not be ...except consistent with law of non-contradiction surely..... and consistent with ..............) ; you can associate freely with it; you and the world are freshly created in mutual meeting; "the world"
does not have to be seen as a static dead object already here.
You and the world can be arriving newly together; freshly minted in eternal life.
someone wrote: "In this case the universe is your dream."
This reminds me of the movie "The Matrix". But the universe is not a dream; a coerced association future: that is dreamland; an assumed universe is an assumed universe; a dreamland. The real universe says "Hi".
ML: "Nope. Dreams are also mental constructs. The real universe, as it really is, cannot be seen, heard, touched, it can only be understood in abstract terms, such as the ones used in physics".
I may be able to show you that "physics" is "math INSIDE math"; when one meets one; each has a perspective on 1 meet 1; so youi have TWO versions of 1 meet 1.
Stephen Hawking , Christopher Langan, and Dr. Richard Stafford have seemingly
somewhat un-realisingly uncovered this; Chris Langan seems more aware of it.
Try QED as "distributive law seeing itself in the mirror"....
someone wrote: "You cannot prove that I myself am not just another abstraction."
ML: "You are as much an abstraction as I am. That is what makes you real (remember, reality is abstract)"
It is COUNTING that seems to be "abstract" where it involves sticking a label on something as if the thing is ASSUMED to exist kind of dead-like. But if you have faith in God (in Existence) then you might understand about eternal life.
If a thing is not ASSUMED to exist but is fresh and new; how can you count it?
God says "for I have counted every hair on your head, I have called you by name", I've heard it said.
God counts; any counting by us appears voluntary (free association; free grouping; only law of non-contradiction might give necessary groups? ????
Someone: "This is all in YOUR mind and I am not real. "
ML: "Actually, the abstract ideas in my mind are absolutely real. It's the things "out in the world" that are not real."
Might I suggest that it is the COERCIVE FORCING TOGETHER OF THINGS IN THE WORLD that is just that; but that the free meeting of things out in the world (counted by consciousness rather than by ASSUMPTIONS) that is real. Reality appears free Voluntary restrictions are just that.
What does this mean?: "For thou art Peter, and to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. As you bind on Earth, consider it bound in Heaven; as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven."
someone: "You seem to be implying that there is no physical ... only mental."
ML: "That's not quite correct. The words and pictures you are currently seeing in your computer screen are "physical", but they are not a correct description of what is really going on. I suppose you know the story about electron beams and cathode-ray tubes. I suppose you also understand there must be yet another story behind that one. It's stories all the way to the end. The stories are real, the images and sounds that help you understand them are not."
Everthing that IS ; IS. Reality is what/ who IS.
The "images and sounds" are CATEGORIES; or GROUPS. They are real generalisations.
someone: "But if the universe is "inside", then so am I, and I exist only in your thoughts. However if the universe is "outside", then there is a physical that we all are experiencing.
If the contents of my experiences are private to me, if you can't see what I see and hear what I hear, how is it that you know we all experience reality the same way? What if my experience of reality is so foreign to you that you can't even conceive of it?
Here's the thing. You think we all share the same reality for a very particular reason: because the abstract concepts we communicate, the stories we tell each other, make some sense. And the reason the stories make sense is because we all share them. We don't share our senses, we only share the stories they tell us. Reality is the story our senses tell us.
So either there's a physical universe, or you're alone right now..."
By definition of DIFFERENCE; your experience MUST BE foreign to mine, or there would be just mine? But in CONSCIOUSNESS; we can be one super-experience. In God we are many yet in being many we are one with Him.
When two meet; there are two, but one meeting.
ML: "Actually, it's quite the opposite. Either our minds are connected through abstract ideas, such as love, friendship, understanding, rather than sensations, such as brown eyes, white skin, low voice, or we're all completely separated from each other. If you ever felt lonely in the middle of a crowd, or if you ever experienced a deep connection with a person without saying a single word, you know what I'm talking about."
I wonder: "abstrct ideas" as : "abstract as COUNTED (grouped); "idea" as "CATEGORY" so "GROUP": "abstract idea" as "group group".
but that is meeting of groups; consciousness.
In consciousness and free association we are connected by definition; that's what connected means! Doesn't it?
ML: "Don't be bothered by the fact that your perception of the physical world is just an illusion. The world of the abstract, of the mind, is so much richer."
Your perception of the physical world IS: your perception of the physical world.
Illusion is illusion. Ambiguity is ambiguity. Confusion is confusion. Assumption is assumption. Boxing things in to number-labels is boxing things in to number labels. Zeno's Arrow is Zeno's arrow.