Common Sensing The Nonsense

Just to clarify, you do want to rule out the purpose that the brain has, in relation to the duties that the body performs like breathing digesting etc.., etc... or are you ruling out the correlation between mind and brain altogether.

Hi Infinidream, I would like to go intot this matter with you, but it is not going to be an easy discussion I think. Looking at this through my eyes you have not made certain connections and seperations. I am going to introduce some terms and definitions as well as explain some consequences of those terms and definitions and then use your post to show the relevance.

First of all I want to say that there is a difference between empiricism and rationalism. These are the definitions:

Rationalism - Empiricism
Empirism is the philosophy that thought begins with perception. From perceptions a certain frame of reference is formed from which future perceptions can be understood.
Rationalism is the philosophy which states that a frame of reference can only be formed by comparison; perceptions can only be understood by use of something which is already known. So, to form a frame of reference something must already be present a priori. Because perceptions can only be understood by a certain comparisson a necessary condition for thought is the forming of a frame of reference which inturn can only happen by something which is a priori present in rational being. This a priori part of thought is also called transcendental.


Through my eyes empiricism refutes itself because the theory is that thoughts are formed by usage of the senses (thought objects are formed by the usage of senses and reason) and therefore it refines itself. Going backwards we reach deeper levels of 'unrifinedness'; arriving at a basic level where no thoughts had ever taken place. From that point no new thoughts can be explained because thoughts are derived by usage of thoughts, thereby refining itself (according to empiricism). Therefore we must conclude that there is a difference between thought and thinking. Which is what rationalism puts forward.


I think we agree.


I think the general rule is that what our senses allow us to percieve necessarily exist, but that may very well be only a small portion of what exists, so it is not true that what we percieve is all that exists. By 'we' I mean humanity.


I think in this case the seperation between thinking and the thinker must be made. The definition of 'mind' usually has both aspects inside itself. There are many thought-experiments by the name of 'brain in a vat'. We have a nice topic on that right here. Perhaps you can blow some new life into it if you are willing to do so.

Hi Arjen,
Thank you for your thoughtful response,



I don't agree with that statement. There is nothing in existence, as we know it, that would remain if our minds ceased to exist.

If human's didn't exist (you might have to go further to say if animals didn't exist), would there be such things as water, sound, air, anger, etc. Everything we can say about the world is a function of our ability to perceive it.

Without humans, you might be able to say that there is a universe with properties, but even that is debatable ('matrix' or 'brain in vat' theory). It could be that the 'universe' has infinite properties perceivable by infinite possible senses, and we are just seeing one representation of it based on the senses we have.

further, the universe as we see it isn't about the properties themselves. its about the meaning we give to them. Without a mind to assign meaning, the universe as we know it would not exist.

not ruling out correlation, but I think the relationship isn't co-dependent. its more like a campfire. (wood being the brain and fire being the mind) fire couldn't exist without the wood, but it is something completey different.

Exactly this is why I linked to the topic on Gottlob Frege in my previous post. My opinion in this matter is that there is a difference between what we percieve and what exists in reality. Indeed, it is even debatable what exists in reality. As Gottlob Frege points out, what we percieve are thoughtobjects made out of what we 'grasp' ('fassen') from what our senses tell us. I think that you are talking about something Immanuel Kant also tells us; that it is entirely possible that everything outside us is merely imagined by us. However, Kant is an idealist and he does think that there are things outside us (as do I). It is these things which form the basis of what our senses tell us. Because of our way of sensing we 'deform' what we observe though. I think that this philosophy is best represented by Frege's sense and reference

Nice one Infinidream that would make information the oxygen for the fire to burn. Thank-you for that.