At a fundamental level, I'd argue that the world needs the mind, and the mind needs the world. Imagine two mirrors reflecting back at each other - the result is one reflection.

What's your opinion, though? Agree with me, disagree?

Put down the Schopenhauer :P

The "I think; therefore I am" pretty much is the best we are going to get about our own existence. As the argument goes, I can doubt what I think is true, but I cannot really deny that there is something that is doing the thinking. In other words, by having thoughts, I know that something must exist: namely, my own mind. Of course, there are some doubts about this argument, but I think that it is pretty good against most criticism.

If you are looking for a good, knockdown answer to the problem of external world skepticism, then you are probably not going to find it, as if there was, we would not be having this discussion and skepticism would be considered something only the insane consider.

There are pragmatic considerations, as even though I know the external world may completely be a lie, everything in the past indicates to me that I have to do certain things to persist and that this is the only world I am aware of, so, therefore, I ought to act as if the world I perceive is real. However, I do not find solely pragmatic foundations to be good for epistemology, so I think that this answer is insufficient.

I agree, for us to remain alive we must keep sustained and we can only do so by using the world as a wall to lean on. However, our needs and the existence of the world could possibly be all ideas in our mind. Assuming we were just minds without the means to eat, sleep, survive; what wall would there be to lean on? We wouldn't need one, so could that suggest that even our primal needs are just figments of our imagination, and something that we never truly experience?

That is indeed interesting, I believe that the world does indeed need the mind to exist - giving that we all have a representation of it that we cannot really distinguish between that of the "real world" - but does the mind really need the world to exist? Assume that we were just minds, how would we know of our surroundings if we aren't aware of ourselves prior to us being able to figure out that we can think, feel, hope and fear. Without our physical representation of our bodies, the mind and the world. Therefore, Can we really be sure that the mind needs the world in order to exist?

The mind requires the world because the world is the body in which the mind houses itself (the brain).

Therefore, Can we really be sure that the mind needs the world in order to exist? — GreyScorpio

After a few hour in a sensory deprivation tank, people can lose their minds and feel like they cease to exist. So there is good neurocognitive evidence to argue that the patterning the world provides is very much needed for our having an "inner world" of differentiated experience.

Of course, idealists may argue that the experiments that prove such a thing are further fictions of their minds. You can't in the end get anywhere with an ardent idealist anymore than you can with a naive realist. ;)

The issue is that the old traditions of foundationalism (DeCartes and the like) suffer from problems. Even the more permissive inductive versions of foundationalism are fraught with problems.

The problem can be traced back to the notion of justification. Normally, we require some sort of justification to say we know something. The intent of justification is to reduce error in our beliefs. For example, we want evidence that reduces the possibility of error and closes off alternate possibilities to what appears to be the case. However, there is no number that shows how well we are justified, or even what cut-off number would be permissible. In other words, there is no exact science in epistemology once we go beyond the realms of established scientific, mathematical, logical, or statistical methods. Even then, there are problems, particularly that the foundations of these fields' epistemologies are always in question. Further, as some have commented, some epistemologists demand a level of rigor to hold knowledge such that even if we accept their epistemological systems as sound, most people do not know basic facts about there day-to-day life.

If the world depends on the mind, and the mind depends on the world, which came first? :-O

PS: Your picture/gif mysteriously disappeared :-|

I disagree, The mind cannot be housed in the world, if we assume that everything that we experience are just ideas. You can't have something 'real' be a product of an idea that is passive in our own minds, could you?

Indeed we must need justification. So what may your justification be for the existence of the world and our cerebral minds that are seen to be beings? Furthermore, it is imperative that we go beyond scientific and statistical reasoning as they are all based on mathematics. We cannot define and identify certain short comings of the world by numbers and statistics; because numbers don't exist. Thus forcing us to branch into further realms of thought in order to understand how the world works. Physics and mathematics are a foundation based on statistical facts that logically do not exist.

I think differently, Being trapped in a deprivation tank will deny our access to our senses, yes. But who is to say that we will be unable to still think, hope, fear and dream? There are things about the world that we possibly can figure out through the deduction and intense thought. Perhaps this is the only way that we can retain true knowledge as we may be under a deceptive spell to believe that we exist. It is not a matter of a person loosing their mind. It's a matter of someone creating something in their own mind, in order to substitute for the world they are being deprived of. Thus suggesting that maybe we rely on this deceptive barrier around us that we call existance?

I agree, for us to remain alive we must keep sustained and we can only do so by using the world as a wall to lean on. — GreyScorpio

I like that analogy, the world as a wall. I think of this wall as a confinement. Do you see that with respect to the past, and with respect to the future, it is not the same wall? Doesn't this imply that there is a break in the wall at the present?

Of course, I agree that the 'wall' is a confinement that we rely on for many reasons. And the world has had many advances; making rapid progress from past to the future to come. However, I don't know if there would be a break, I would just say that there is a evident change in the wall.

However, I don't know if there would be a break, I would just say that there is a evident change in the wall. — GreyScorpio

When I look to the past, I see that all physical things have definite location. I have seen things. But I have no capacity to move into the past, toward any of those definite locations. I assume that for the very same reason that I can't move into the past, the locations of things in the past are definite. The past has been fixed, it cannot change. I cannot go there to change it. I apprehend a wall, a barricade to my actions. But when I look toward the future, I have no capacity to see anything, I only see it as it goes past. I apprehend a wall to my senses, I cannot sense anything in the future, though I have sensed many things in the past. However, I apprehend real possibilities with respect to the future, the possibility to act, to move, and to change things which have remained the same in the past.

So the wall toward the future prevents me from sensing anything in that direction, but it allows me to move with some freedom. The wall toward the past allows me to see all that has been around me in the past, but it prevents me from moving, or changing anything which has been. Since these two walls are radically different, almost opposed to each other actually, it is impossible that it is the same wall in the past as in the future. Therefore it appears like there must be a break in the wall at the present.

If the world depends on the mind, and the mind depends on the world, which came first? — Agustino

Neither.

PS: Your picture/gif mysteriously disappeared — Agustino

:-d

I disagree, The mind cannot be housed in the world, if we assume that everything that we experience are just ideas. You can't have something 'real' be a product of an idea that is passive in our own minds, could you? — GreyScorpio

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

for us to remain alive we must keep sustained and we can only do so by using the world as a wall to lean on. — GreyScorpio

What sustains us? The wall? What sustains the wall?

It may be impossible for us to be able to put ourselves in the position of our future locations, but the break in the wall remains doubtful to me; as when you walk around a circular wall you have no idea what is to come, yet you are still able to walk with the same wall adjacent to you. In other words, if there were a break in the 'wall' there would be no intention of us progressing to the future (the broken wall) as it would be detached from existing in time. Though it may be correct that what hasn't happened does not yet exist, but the intention for there to be a future does. Therefore, it is only logical that there must be a 'wall' for us to continue down to process, as we progress in journeys with a similar was adjacent to us. It seems as if it is the same concept, However I do admire your premises.

Neither. — Heister Eggcart

So then you suggest they arise together (à la Buddhist interdependent origination)? How is this possible?

What sustains us? The wall? What sustains the wall?

If you continue reading on you will realise that my argument was to remove the wall (world) and support the fact that there are just minds and there cannot be a wall for us to lean on because we wouldn't need one.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

What are you having trouble with?

So then you suggest they arise together (à la Buddhist interdependent origination)? How is this possible? — Agustino

I'm not sold on going down the rabbit hole of there being a first cause, which seems too linear a causal chain. Infinite regression becomes a logical problem then, in my understanding.

If you continue reading on you will realise that my argument was to remove the wall (world) and support the fact that there are just minds and there cannot be a wall for us to lean on because we wouldn't need one. — GreyScorpio

If there are only minds, then you have to account for material reality somehow. Why is there a distinction between the immaterial mind (let's say ideas, thought, etc.) and the world-proper (galaxies, planets, matter at large)?

What are you having trouble with? — GreyScorpio

You'll prolly help me understand as we go :)

I'm not sold on going down the rabbit hole of there being a first cause, which seems too linear a causal chain. Infinite regression becomes a logical problem then, in my understanding. — Heister Eggcart

Surely but that does nothing except postulate a first cause. For example... A and B mutually depend on each other and constitute the world. That means that A and B - taken together - are the first cause. Indeed you'd end up with one substance and two attributes, à la Spinoza ;)

That is indeed interesting, I believe that the world does indeed need the mind to exist - giving that we all have a representation of it that we cannot really distinguish between that of the "real world" - but does the mind really need the world to exist? Assume that we were just minds, how would we know of our surroundings if we aren't aware of ourselves prior to us being able to figure out that we can think, feel, hope and fear. Without our physical representation of our bodies, the mind and the world. Therefore, Can we really be sure that the mind needs the world in order to exist? — GreyScorpio

One way to view the problem is not that the mind needs or doesn't need the universe but that the mind is embedded in a holographic universe, such as the Implicate/Explicate Universe as described by David Bohm.

The Universe as we view it is real, it is there, it is substantial, and it is exactly as we perceive it. It can be thought of as a hologram and the mind is a reference beam that is tuned to a frequency in order to view a personal aspect of that hologram. So everything is real and there.

From these views, a personal mind (both distinct but still part of a Universal Mind) creates its own personal memory which is also part of the fabric of the universal hologram and is accessible via a personal mind frequency This can be what is commonly referred to as Self.

So we have a Universal Mind and a Personal Mind and they are embedded in the fabric of a Holographic Universe.. Does the Personal Mind persist as part of the Holographic Universe? In this model it does.

Surely but that does nothing except postulate a first cause. For example... A and B mutually depend on each other and constitute the world. That means that A and B - taken together - are the first cause. Indeed you'd end up with one substance and two attributes, à la Spinoza — Agustino

Erm, no I don't think so. What are you suggesting is the cause of A and B taken together? And tell me what A and B are, or at least what you think I find them to be.

Erm, no I don't think so. What are you suggesting is the cause of A and B taken together? And tell me what A and B are, or at least what you think I find them to be. — Heister Eggcart

A and B taken together have no cause. Whatever reality you imagine - say you imagine that mind depends on world and world depends on mind - in that case all you're saying is that there's an A and a B which taken together form the first cause - like two sides of one coin. It could also be A and B and C and... The first cause is inescapable.

You misread. I mean to ask what is the cause that A and B taken together creates?

Why must there be material things. There is no need for material substance to formulate ideas. Why wouldn't there be a distinction between minds and the world? The mind is something inexplicable to the human. We can't concieve of the mind, nor can we experience it. However we can be certain that they exist as we are able to think, feel and fear.

I admire the argument, however, this hologram must be in a distinct location in order for our 'beams' to create our representation of the world. And where would this location be? Yet another hologram? So that would entail; a hologram inside a hologram and an infinite continuous loop of holograms with no explanatory location. Moreover, what is referred to as the self, that must also be a hologram right? Would that then make our minds part of this hologram or a materialistic representation of what our minds tend to be?

The nature of a holographic wave pattern is that the referenced wave images appear everywhere since waves have no limits. It is the defining characteristic of the hologram. There is no there there. The there is everywhere.

There is material substantially but in essence it is all energy. This doevetails our current understanding of the energy/material universe. The material is substantial energy.

Why must there be material things. — GreyScorpio

I think it's more pertinent to ask, "why are there material things?"

There is no need for material substance to formulate ideas. — GreyScorpio

I'm not necessarily making that claim, but if this is true, then why is there materiality at all? If there is no need, then..?

Why wouldn't there be a distinction between minds and the world? — GreyScorpio

I dunno! Why is there?

The mind is something inexplicable to the human. We can't concieve of the mind, nor can we experience it. However we can be certain that they exist as we are able to think, feel and fear. — GreyScorpio

If the mind is non-conceptual and non-experiential, then how do you know for certain that it exists?