this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

weirdway

1 readers
1 users here now

weird (adj.)

c. 1400,

• "having power to control fate", from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd "fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates," literally "that which comes,"

• from Proto-Germanic wurthiz (cognates: Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt "fate," Old Norse urðr "fate, one of the three Norns"),

• from PIE wert- "to turn, to wind," (cognates: German werden, Old English weorðan "to become"),

• from root wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus).

• For sense development from "turning" to "becoming," compare phrase turn into "become."

OVERVIEW

This is a community dedicated to discussing subjective idealism and its implications. For a more detailed explanation, please take a look at our vision statement.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So this sub has been dead for a while so I figured I would try to breath a little life into it with the little experience I have in subjective idealism. That out of the way, I have been thinking recently about the the relation between the mind and the brain.

The Mind is you, or a better way of putting it, a being that perceives. If we were to define perception under a subjective Idealist lens then this includes thought, experience, and conscience in addition to the general understanding of it being the 5 senses (or more, however that is a whole nother post). Defining what the brain is is a little trickier however. Under subjective idealism the brain is really just a perception of our ability to perceive, same with the body. We apply "physical" mediums such as the brain or the eyes or our hands so that the mind can interact with the physical. if we can perceive the world but not interact with it then what is the use given the normal view of perception. With this in mind I want to dive a little deeper into what this means to the brain specifically.

First being a phrase coined by George Berkeley saying "esse est percipi" which is Latin for "to be is to be perceived". This doesn't just mean that our perceptions out dependent on us, it means that our ability to perceive is also dependent on us perceiving a way for us to perceive. I can see a field of flowers, however the "physical" substantiation of that is through the eyes, and from the eyes to the brain which is the physical substantiation of the mind. This isn't to say this is the only way or even the "right" to perceive how we perceive, however it is a way. It reminds me of the phrase "I think therefore I am" from Descartes, however "esse est percipi" is a much more powerful way to look at it. It helps me see that my existence is dependent on the self. It reveals a greater sense of control over the self than just the fact that "sense I think (which is just one way one can perceive) then I know that I exist". With subjective idealism, this changes into "I exist because I perceive myself."

This then leads me into my final thoughts on this. If I currently perceive the physical substantiation of my mind to be the brain, then isn't that limiting? In essence I am forcing a limitation on myself bc the brain is inherently a limiting factor to what we can think about, and how we perceive. Separating the the mind from the brain could mean a world of things. Such as having one mind but multiple bodies, all perceiving independently of each other but feeding into the same mind. Or we could look at it another way, Why am I limiting perception though the medium of the "physical". There are many other ways to perceive that I can't even describe because I haven't experienced them, and bc they are impossible to describe thought this "physical" medium.

Anyways I hope some of this made sense, Subjective idealism is one of the harder things to dive into or even describe. Hope to here some of yalls thoughts on this and maybe get this sub a little more active again.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Hmmm I really like that definition of the mind being "the capacity or potential to experience. Much simpler to view it that way instead of defining it material language.

I also like defining the brain as an illusion. This is much more in line with subjective idealism and I can't help but be drawn to Plato's allegory of the cave.

Lots of good things to think on. Thanks for the reply :)

Originally commented by u/bitzzle on 2023-03-20 09:30:35 (jcvp03z)