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

Whatever A and B create cannot be cause but effect. The effect is whatever arises out of the two.

Which is?

Which is? — Heister Eggcart

If A and B are the basic components of your ontology, then everything else that exists arises out of the two. For example, A is extension and B is thought. The whole realm of extended and thinking things arises out of those two.

If A and B are the basic components of your ontology, then everything else that exists arises out of the two. — Agustino

What else exists?

Are you proposing that science is the holographic image that you're thinking of?

I would say that science is a manifestation of the creative mind that is embedded within the holographic image as the mind seeks to view itself. The mind cannot view itself directly so it uses mirrors called science, arts, psychology, etc.

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

Because it is evident that we can think, feel, fear and so on; if you have to doubt yourself, you would still need a mind to be able to do that. You can't experience the mind directly, but it's clear and obviously that the mind exists.

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

I disagree, we are not sure for certain that material things exist. So it woule thus be foolish to ask why the would.

I disagree, Science cannot be the main fundamental manifestation, or one atall as it provides information that could not exist due to the fact that it is mainly based upon mathematics. As mathematics is non-existant I would assume that neither is the information that it provides. Yes, 1 + 1 is 2 but that is a concept created to represent the '1 thing' add another '1 thing' is equal to '2 things' and is not necessarily existing. The mind cannot view itself directly; I agree. But neither can science view the mind, art and even technology despite its many advances. However we still remain certain that it is there.

Symbols do exist as memory and are as real as anything else, they are less substantial. Symbolic representations, whether in memory or written on paper as a means for commuting an idea is one of the ways that the mind continues to grow and create.

Whatever is there in the holographic universe is there for me. I do not distinguish between real and imaginary. They all exist.

What else exists? — Heister Eggcart

Quite obviously the instantiations of those two. In the case of Spinoza, the modes - the particular extended things, or thinking things, etc.

Because it is evident that we can think, feel, fear and so on; if you have to doubt yourself, you would still need a mind to be able to do that. You can't experience the mind directly, but it's clear and obviously that the mind exists. — GreyScorpio

This doesn't follow. Is thinking and feeling not conceptual or experiences one might have or what?

I disagree, we are not sure for certain that material things exist. So it woule thus be foolish to ask why the would. — GreyScorpio

I think one can be relatively certain that material things exist, in whatever capacity - the question is whether or not material things are all that exists. You seem to have taken a fully idealistic position, whereas I'm more in the dualism camp.

I think if you're after a concerted materialist position, whisper Terrapin, as I think he identifies more in that way :)

Quite obviously the instantiations of those two. In the case of Spinoza, the modes - the particular extended things, or thinking things, etc. — Agustino

Okay, I admit to being no expert on this topic, but if there is only mind and the world, what else is there that comes about as a result of A (mind) and B (the world) having formed a relationship together?

Okay, I admit to being no expert on this topic, but if there is only mind and the world, what else is there that comes about as a result of A (mind) and B (the world) having formed a relationship together? — Heister Eggcart

Experience for one :P

Yeah but such comes about as a result of the world. Experience is in the nature of the world and of the mind.

Yeah but such comes about as a result of the world. — Heister Eggcart

Can there be experience if there is just world and no mind?

Experience is in the nature of the world and of the mind. — Heister Eggcart

Remember my mirrors example. You have one mirror and it can't see itself, experience itself. Add in another mirror that similarly cannot see itself, but then have each mirror reflect into each other. At this point you have a relationship which forms between two of the same but separate things that can only be once joined.

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. — GreyScorpio

But the point was that we cannot find this continuity in the wall, we cannot "walk around" the wall because there is a break in it, and that is the present. See, there is a wall to the past of us, and a wall to the future of us, and these two walls have completely different features. As much as we try to connect these two walls, by claiming that what "is", is at the present, we cannot validate this "what is at the present", so the two walls remain as distinct. We cannot connect them.

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. — GreyScorpio

What is detached, is "existing in time". This is what we make up, fabricate, as what is existing at the present. From our perceptions, we create a concept of what it means to exist at the present, and this is our fabricated world. In reality though, things are behind the two walls, past and future. However, we are given a glimpse at reality through this separation between the two walls, when things pass from being in the future to being in the past. From this glimpse of reality we create our "world".

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. — GreyScorpio

What I think, is that there is separation between us, there is separation between your mind and my mind. I am not thinking your thoughts, and you are not thinking mine. Because of this separation we think that there is some sort of wall at the present. the wall separates us. This validates our claim that there is a material world, the separation which exists between us. We apprehend this separation as a spatial separation, that is what we perceive, there is space between us, we can measure the distance. But when we try to comprehend this separation with our minds, it takes on the character of a temporal separation. You are always in the past from my perspective at the present, and I am always in the past from your perspective at the present.

But the point was that we cannot find this continuity in the wall, we cannot "walk around" the wall because there is a break in it, and that is the present. See, there is a wall to the past of us, and a wall to the future of us, and these two walls have completely different features. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree, I think that there is a continuous wall, Just because we live in the present and remain here does not mean that we are unable to foresee or progress the future. I agree there may be different features for each time frame (past, present and future) but not everything changes between these time frames. A break in the wall would suggest a complete rework of time, thought and maybe life itself; as if there were a break in time. I agree, we aren't able to interchange between fragments of time, ourselves:

But our minds have that capability.

We are able to travel back to the past in our minds and revisit events that have already happend. Is it not possible that we do the same thing for the future; during a common night time dream or a day dream? Time may be a problem for our physical states. But if it wasn't a possibility, would we have things like memory? And would memory exist if there was a break in the wall?

Agreed, a relationship may be formed between the mirrors sepereatley; but together they are no longer functional for what they are intended to be used, correct? Furthermore, the relationship between two mirrors is fairly different between the mind and the world. If the mind needed the world to exist as some sort of barrier, then there would be no need for relationship between the two as there would be nothing for us to draw our own concepts and representations from. Meaning that a table would look the same from every angle. Shadows would remain the the same no matter the time of day or your movement; and so on. There needs to be a distinction between the two for these things to remain how they seem to be. A relationship between the two means fixation on the things that change often. As a result, the mind therefore looses its function.

THE ANSWER IS QUITE SIMPLE (but it was difficult to arrive at):

Reality is that which will annihilate you, whether your mind acknowledges its existence or not.