Exist

[Jack_Sparrow]

The known:
(1) My mind exists
(2) I percieve physical reality

The known unknowns:
(A) If my mind is alone or accompanied
(B) If physical reality is real or illusion



I assume (2) implies (A) = accompanied and (B) = real. But there are other known-compatable possibilities...

[Jack_Sparrow]

...I assert God is compatible, among other things

[ZNFYRH]

I'm ignoring the God comment and addressing the OP.

You can perceive physical reality.

By being able to perceive everything not your mind, you effectively isolate your mind.

That means that every other mind is ultimately isolated from everything else.

And since "everything else" has to bridge the gap between outside the mind and inside the mind, and since every mind is also different, then every perception of "everything else" is relative.

Therefore, "everything else", being relative, is real, but also a personal illusion.

The illusion is real.

[Kamehameha34]

The known: (1) My mind exists

How is this known? Scientifically, or logically?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Jack_Sparrow (B) If physical reality is real or illusion

Did you just watch the matrix?

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You can perceive physical reality.

Whether it is truly something 'filtering in' or not is another matter; we could have the case where ones mind perceives an illusion, thus the reality is that all that exists is the mind itself and nothing outside.

Quote by: ZNFYRH By being able to perceive everything not your mind, you effectively isolate your mind.

You are considering the case where physical reality is real, thus there is something your mind is isolated from. There is another case, as I said, where there is nothing outside your mind, there is just an illusion percieved in your mind that outside lies physical reality. Whats more, your mind may not be powered by biology at all.

Quote by: ZNFYRH That means that every other mind is ultimately isolated from everything else. And since "everything else" has to bridge the gap between outside the mind and inside the mind, and since every mind is also different, then every perception of "everything else" is relative.

Assuming now that there is more than ones own mind, and that the physical reality is more than an internal illusion, but instead the space in which all the other minds reside (in isolated form)

Quote by: ZNFYRH Therefore, "everything else", being relative, is real, but also a personal illusion. The illusion is real.

Yes, this makes sense to me, but for the case where physical reality truly lies outside, so the perception I have is based on something real, as opposed to an illusion.

But I want you to consider the fact that all we know is that 'we exist' not that each other exist or that the laws of physics are real. The only 'Law' I know, that is certain 100%, is that one intelligence exists, Me. This is my most powerful law and rule I know, it is constant no matter what the real state of affairs is. For all I know, nothing exists bar me and somthing tricking me into perceiving

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: Kamehameha How is this known? Scientifically, or logically?

Both

-The evidence is that I (you) are thinking
-The inference is that I (you) exist. Let me expand. I define existence as 'being able to think', thus I propose existence is acceptable with certainty under these conditions as your awareness of your own thoughts could not fulfill the criteria for existence any more than it does.

"I think therefore I am".

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: HelioPrime Did you just watch the matrix?

No, but that is a useful way to consider this. Only God, ones self or something else may be creating everything witnessable as opposed to the 'architect' or whatever his name is in the matrix

[Jack]

How do you see your philosophy in relation to existentialism? (Same as, similar to, a subset of...)

[5010]

My response is similar to Pascal's Wager. What do I gain by disbelieving the consensual reality and thus walking into walls or stepping off cliffs? If normal=real then I really get hurt or die. If normal=illusion then no harm done. What if I play by the rules? If normal=real no harm, and if normal=illusion no harm.

So I can equally think of the norm as true or false and yet act the same. But there is a difference. When I presume reality is a dream and play by the rules, I am a bit more detached. So this perspective is psychelogically more efficient when detachment aids function, such as while experiencing suffering. But immersion allows a deeper level of enjoyment or disgust, so I prefer immersion while experiencing joy or comfort.

The same goes for the paranormal experienced during shamanic journeying or via power plants, when the perceiver and perception are known with lucidity. But when lucidity is lacking, I tend to automatically presume illusion.