all it takes for something to exist is...

angelica wrote:

hehe....So how do we figure out whether the contents of beliefs are real or not? Or are you saying they are not real across the board?

The contents of a belief are always real in the sense that those beliefs exist and are comprised of attributes contained in a person's mind. However, the question here is better stated as:

Are perception and reality distinct entities?

In other words, are a person's beliefs separate from the objects of those beliefs? And, from that, are a person's beliefs consistent with the objects of those beliefs? The latter gives rise to the concept of true and the concept of false.

A person who believes in the Easter Bunny has a very real belief in the Easter Bunny. Whether or not the Easter Bunny actually exists separate from that belief, however, is a secondary existential question. If the Easter Bunny does in fact exist separate from that belief, then that belief is true in that it is consistent with reality. If the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, that belief is false in that it is inconsistent with reality.

The Solipsist, by the way, would suggest that there is no reality separate from perception, making "reality" dependent on perception rather than the other way around. A bit backwards in my opinion, but pure Solipism really can't be disproved.

Absent a solipist mindset, one figures out whether the objects of their beliefs are real by testing the consistency of those objects with those beliefs as well as the independence of those objects from those beliefs. Enter science, for better or for worse.

angelica wrote:

I look forward to fully processing your whole post. I have a question here, however. I wonder if you could please define "mind" for me. Thanks.

Mind would be the biological structure of the brain combined with the concomitant perception of self and reality that give rise to thought, emotion, reason and volition.

hodge wrote:

thoughts can become reality
the mind is more powerful than we can suppose

yes thoughts can become reality, but in order for the statement to be true, thoughts would always have to become reality.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Truth, in regards to humans, is relative... not absolute.

are you absolutely sure that the truth re: humans is relative?

Truth is absolute. Now, people may believe something to be true, but when it is found out to not be true, it becomes a belief or an opinion or wrong.

angelica wrote:

This is great stuff, farfromglorified! I'm looking up the word concomitant to understand precisely what you are saying. It would help me if you could tell me what you specifically mean by your usage of the word.

Concomitant would mean "occurring with". The faculties of the mind occur with and because of the biological structure of the brain.

perceived reality over time can become physical reality. They are related.

angelica wrote:

Please forgive my piece by piece approach here.

There's nothing to forgive -- it's a completely valid and constructive approach.

Would you agree that the contents of a belief are comprised of attributes contained within the mind, while also shaped around the physical reality?

Of course.

For example, My delusions in the midst of mental illness always coincided with, were transposed upon and interminged with the reality everyone else perceives. That's why a mentally ill person perceives them as real. They are not independent of reality, excepting in the interpretive aspect, which springs from our internal brain wiring prior to conscious awareness. Most people don't recognize that they are making these decisions of what they will and will not perceive unconsciously, and beyond awareness. They assume that what they see is real. Compared to the consensual reality of the "sane", one who is mentally ill has wires that are crossed which translates to them seeing outside of what is consensually accepted as real.

So, again, do you agree with the aspect here, where even our false perceptions are firmly intermingled with the 3-dimensional reality the way it is for 'common' views?

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Certainly our beliefs, be them true or false, valid or invalid, common or uncommon, or however you want to classify them, are all "firmly intermingled" with an x-dimensional reality. That, however, does not make all beliefs equal. Everything that is real is "firmly intermingled" with reality. Yet not all things are the same. For example, death and life are two different states, both completely intermingled with reality. Yet death and life are not the same.

angelica wrote:

By the word "because" do you mean as an effect of the biological structure?

Certainly, yes.

Or do you give any sort of credence to the possibility that mind precedes the biological structure?

I find that to be implausible, but not impossible. In order to accomodate that one must likely enter the "soul" or the "god" or some form of the preternatural, which in turn defines something based on its inability to be defined. And that's an anti-concept, something that disproves itself. Regardless, at that point we arguably re-enter the idea of belief driving reality as opposed to the other way around. And that likely sets up a contradiction wherein we say that reality gives rise to belief and belief gives rise to reality at the same time. Logically, it becomes very troubling.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Studies have shown that people who imagine themselves losing weight or gaining more muscle, gain more and lose more than those who exercise and eat identically but don't visualize.

Merely thinking something can bring about a physical reality. Not immediately visible in all cases but it does happen.

Be careful of false cause. Just because you have 100 people who imagine themselves losing weight that lose weight doesn't mean that they lost weight because they imagined themselves losing weight.

Certainly the mind has powers we are not currently able to comprehend, but the concept of the "thinking makes it so" can be stretched to both ludicrous and dangerous conclusions.