Human mind is the Universe

[tarak]

Dear friends,
Our mind is our universe.It is an operating system and a software which runs our hard ware.The difference is our software is autocontrolled and self sutainable in exclusion.It is adaptable and works according to the rules of the game of a larger cumulative software of the world and believes certain assumptions.
I donot feel that our brain is exclusive piece of hardware and every process of thinking occurs inside it.it is obvious there is a cephalic concentration of nervous tissue and the nerves that are wired in our entire body have to be looked as a holistic integrated operating system of thought and life.

[emessay]

Universe = Function[ Space-Time, Energy-Mass ]

How can we possibly hypothese that human mind = Universe ?
Perhaps Mind = Universe , because we still do not understand what's really mind = consciousness = spirit is it ?

[Boerseun]

Every individual lives within his/her own mind, and that individual's mind constitutes the universe in which that person resides.

Some contains flat earths, some contains supernatural beings, some contains fairies and dwarves. We, as subjective human beings, cannot criticize anybody else's illusions, seeing as we're all suffering from our own. Who knows who's right in these matters?

The only possible Truth is that broad line which intersects everybody's realities, regardless of the sensitive nature of your specific personal delusion.

Scientific Truth.

Science, being testable, can blow your delusions out of the water. Science can prove to you that the Earth is neither flat, nor tied to the back of a huge turtle. The way Science works, is to describe a universal reality to individuals suffering from thousands of differing world views, and views of reality in general. It's impersonal, and not very sensitive, to be sure, and an individual might feel angry at having his or her personal beliefs blown out of the water, but hey - knowing the impersonal, objective Truth isn't such a bad thing altogether, is it? What we should not do, however, is to attach a personal identity to science. If science isn't in agreement with your specific beliefs, don't attack science - it's not a planned mechanism to erode specific beliefs. It's just the way it works. Science didn't consciously decide to attack your Belief/Religion, the method through which it operates just makes it possible for that perception to be created.

[tarak]

Originally Posted by emessay

Universe = Function[ Space-Time, Energy-Mass ]

How can we possibly hypothese that human mind = Universe ?
Perhaps Mind = Universe , because we still do not understand what's really mind = consciousness = spirit is it ?

Emessay I was surprised to see a reply to this thread...Its been a long time I posted some of my ideas on human mind.I donno what I was upto then...Anyway what I meant here was if our entire universe is experienced/felt within the limits of nervous system (CNS+PNS+PSNS) aided by other body hardware,then this human mind(The Operating System on the hardware) should exist as an integration process of all those faculties to stand as platform and a reference point for an individual's existence.Naturally an individual's universe is within one's mind.We feel an almost similar universe from a multitude of our experiences and therefore we are fellow human beings.........

[mother engine]

science is a system designed by beings that perceive and therefore its objectivity and 'truth' are bound to the limitations of subjective perception. how can one know if science reflects any truth outside of one's own mind when all of the data and correlations are tallied by one's own mind. does the universe validate our mathematics because of universal truth or because the template of mathematics and the universe must be perceived thus to fit a collective 'delusion' we take as reality/nature?

[HydrogenBond]

With science, if data is reproduceable than the data reflects reality. In other words, irregardless of one's subjectivity, if one ran an experiment and achieved the same results as somebody else with a different underlying subjectivity, then we have reached the common ground of reality. Statistical studies are a little more subjective since the experiments are not often repeatable, except with a range, and the same data can be used to support alternate subjective theories. Statisitcal is something between rational and subjective and should be seen as such. Mathematics is consistent within itself, in that the same results are repeatable. However, reality predictions stemming from mathematics may not always reflect objective reality and may contain a level of subjectivity. For example, the many dimensions of string theory are consistent with the math, but lack repeatable proof in reality.

[CraigD]

I believe Tarak is venturing in to the philosophical domain of Phenomenalism.

While The wikipedia article “Phenomenalism” gives an adequate, dispassionate description, I personally feel that the finest English language expression of phenomenalism is contained in the 1974 movie “Dark Star”. Alas, the IMDB memorable quotes page for it is missing some key dialog. I recommend that serious students of Philosophy who have not already done so either watch the movie, or read it’s script.

[UncleAl]

Our mind is our universe.It is an operating system and a software which runs our hard ware.

That is so sad. Human creativity gives lie to your second statement. Mind - which is what a brain does - is not deterministic. As for your first, physical reality exceeds perception. No culture without mathematics is more than reproducing animals. No culture without written language has a past. Humans live, not exist. To degrade Homo sapien to a mechanistic exercise is to embrace god. The thinking rest of us create our own futures filled with danger and wonderment, all beyond imagination at any given moment.

Nowhere in all of science fiction did the hand calculator, desktop computer, Internet, e-mail, cell phones, CDs, DvDs... arise first. Humanity cannot imagine its own future, it can only create it.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

No culture without written language has a past.

Tell that to the Irish and all the other cultures without written language whose bards had outstanding memories with which to pass down history (and myth and legend) by word of mouth.

[damocles]

Originally Posted by mother engine

science is a system designed by beings that perceive and therefore its objectivity and 'truth' are bound to the limitations of subjective perception. how can one know if science reflects any truth outside of one's own mind when all of the data and correlations are tallied by one's own mind. does the universe validate our mathematics because of universal truth or because the template of mathematics and the universe must be perceived thus to fit a collective 'delusion' we take as reality/nature?

"I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it"
Albert Einstein

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm

Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists', or 'My mental states are the only mental states'. However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, 'existence' means for me my existence and that of my mental states. In other words, everything which I experience - physical objects, other people, events and processes, in short, anything which would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the spatio-temporal matrix in which I coexist with others - is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word 'pain', for example, to mean 'my pain' - he cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

Such a viewpoint is properly viewed as PSYCHOTIC.

Best regards;