Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Ah, so you've never seen WTBDWK, good for you! I'm not militantly against it or anything, but it's become an annoyance the way so many people think it's the ultimate truth when in fact it barely scratches the surface.












I wouldn't say it prooves true, but it's a theory. I just don't buy into this view that everything is the result of our perception/mental creation. We discover new planets we'd never seen before, did we just imagine them into existence? What about all the geological evidence that shows billions of years of developement, before anybody was there to percieve it, and therefor form it? Or did you you have something else in mind?




Why do you care how far you take a concept? Why do any of us? It's just discussion.



This is relevant? You can't prove the validity of you own stance by finding one that's worse. Not that I'm saying your stance is wrong, I think a huge amount of your ideas hold much merit, I'm just talking about logical debate.

Enjoy your day.




HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE


OUR mind doesnt create reality objectively! objectively, reality IS a mind.

our individual minds create our subjective reality, our perceptions.


THE mind, not our individual perceptions, is the source.


alright, so i said IF it proves true. if it doesnt then i am just fantasizing, but if it does, it means i have already reached that said conclusion, proof pending.
nothing is the result of our perceptions, except the way we perceive them.i did, in fact, have something else in mind.

the mind of a rock.

a rock has a mind, but no brain. more acutely, the body of a rock has a mind, then the rock itself has a mind.



ok let's try something more easily conceivable: humans have minds.

the human body also has a mind, the autonomous physics of our bodies are not mindless, they are intelligent interactions between cells and molecules and atoms and protons.

interactions cannot exist without at LEAST an autonomous mind to govern them.


the body is governed by an autonomous mind, but organic bodies are gifted a personal mind, a mind with which to guide the autonomy of the body, to make choices.


the mind of a rock is limited to observation, they cannot move their bodies, for their bodies are not designed for movement, they can only observe the world around them through whatever senses a rock might have.

the benefit is they have nothing to distract their minds and can focus on psychic influences, the loss is that they gain little to no respect from other bodies, and are ignored as a form of life.



the whole point is all that exists is life, has life, and is alive mentally and physically.

inanimate life is still life.

the very interactions between atoms requires mind, and mind is akin to life.




i dont care how far i take an idea or anyone else for that matter until it becomes destructive to other people.


leading to the Islamic comparisons, the relevance of that statement is a question implied:
what is too far, and why or how was i taking something (which i had no reference of mind you) too far?