>>11676426>So what?very big problem this intuition, since we are absolutely lended with its credibility. the physicist can dispose of all of his notions, but he can't have any notions without except space and time. this intuition is precious to such a degree that-
>>we are all so lended with a belief in an outside world and other people's minds>I do not reject the existence of the world or other minds.-you were forced to drop the "outside" out of an inability reject the world, but this is a joke. "merely" reducing the world to your perception does nothing less than totally annihilating it in the same way that dream world is annihilated when one realizes that they are dreaming.
i will remind you that this-
>The brain, matter and reality itself, are insubstantial apparitions of the mind.is quite unambiguous. it is also radically different from:
>I contend that reality is basically God with a bad case of dissociative identitydisorder.
because in this view, all the people and all the stuff very clearly exists quite independently from whether or not one(namely, you, since i'm just dreamspirit, evidently) perceives them(or any other human for that matter).
don't play semantic games around this. when we speak without further specificity about things happening "in the mind", it obviously means in one's own phenomenal reality, (and if you're gracious enough to admit other minds, then in their own respective phenomenal realities). that is to say: when i say that my monitor exists in the mind, i mean precisely to say that i perceive it, not that it's stored in God's mind-independently existing ram disk.
you're inconsistent about whether or not things can exist outside of your mind. if the answer is yes, then there can be yourmind-independent existences, and you a a realist. you may well be an idealist realist, but you should say so at least.
