I read his post differently than you. I didn't see the mind separated from the body but rather that he was expressing the mind was the culmination of our experience?Londoner wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 6:03 amNot me.jerlands wrote: ↑February 24th, 2018, 5:42 pm
Does the mind have any connection with the senses? What you're saying implies it doesn't..
Again, it seems you're separating the mind from the senses? There is no physical state, either in meditation or an isolation chamber, that will separate us from our senses. Sense is simply duality, it's this compared with that. If we breath we are experiencing duality.
The OP says: Everything we percive as real is created in our minds. If that was the case, then we do not have senses. We might think we sense external things but if Everything we percive as real is created in our minds we don't.
So my point is that when the OP goes on to speak of what is 'real' or 'true' these words are meaningless, because if 'everything' is created in our minds then there is no external standard to which we can compare particular thoughts.
We are left stuck in solipsism with no possibility of escape.
I think my point was that using logic to define a dimensional state is incomplete. Does logic relate to existence at all? Theorists employ logic in an attempt to define existence but in my view it will not be complete without understanding the cause. Logic does however seem to prevent us from wandering as long as we have an objective. I guess I really don't understand what you're saying though?Londoner wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 6:03 am.Me: They would neither be right or wrong. They might be valid, meaning that we had applied the rules of whatever system we had adopted, but that would not give us a 'fact', it would not tell us anything about any 'reality'.
The notion of right and wrong.. Doesn't right imply 'moving in a straight line' and wrong 'crooked?' Logic is a straight line where we can get from point a to point b without deviation. The problem with logic defining a state is that things don't exist in logical sense but coexist in dimension with everything else. It's like logically expressing fire so that it's comprehensible without experience
Right or wrong as described in the OP
My question is whether there are more sets of logic where a paradox for example would be a completly rational conclusion or where 2+2=3;
Of course we see those to be wrong but they could as well be correct in their own set of rules making them true. We defined them to be wrong, not show they are wrong.
Logic does not move us in a straight line, if that implies we end up somewhere different from where we started. Rather, it prevents us from wandering. It does not allow us to make unstated assumptions.
Like the examples in the OP, it is tautological. It only allows you to put what you started with in a different way. It doesn't tell you that what you started with, or end with, is 'true' in that it corresponds to a 'state'. Nothing 'exists in a logical sense', logic doesn't relate to existence at all.