"If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable - what then?"

-1984, George Orwell




but seriously folks. this is the question that has me up late at night.

Then both the past and the external world are controllable, if the premisses are true. But, are they? If they are then I would be able to tranform my surroundings to fit my desires and fix all the errors of my past with a simple act of mind, but it's obvious that I can't. So either the past and external world do not exist only in the mind, or the mind itself is not controllable, or both.

we may rewrite a new history, but it although we erase all traces of the real history, this new history would not be the real histroy. just another legend of how we got to where we are.

it means that we have to be careful what our records are, and what gets erase and rewritten.

asd, i think you are assuming that we can control our own minds. but i think the majority of us don't try to control any mind at all. we try to perceive and observe, make logical inferences, try to figure out "reality" as if reality is something outside of perception. those who try to control minds are those who would have power over others. advertising is an example of "mind control". the propaganda put forth for political reasons is a form of mind control. to quote 1984 again, "who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." so if the past and the present exist only in the mind, and the mind is controlled, the future would depend on the intentions of who is doing the controlling, wouldn't it?

also, i don't think it's obvious that you can't change your surroundings with an act of will. in fact, i think it's obvious that you can. i am changing my environment as i write. the past and the present may exist only in the mind and still be subject limitations.

of course, it all depends on whether or not we are consciously in control of our own minds. i don't think we are, and i think the proven existence of the sub-conscious and dream cycles proves this.

the scary part is that i don't think most people are trying to overcome their mental limitations.

Have you ever read the book 1984?

If we wrote another history and erased all traces of the previous history, how would anyone know the difference? We could be basing our lives on a false history right now. The book Farenheit 451 is another example of this.

The funny thing is, though, in books the main characters are always unsure of their falsified past. they realize that they have no way of knowing for sure what is true. but in real life most of us assume that what we think we know is in fact truth. we are taught things and urged to accept them as truth before our minds develop enough to think independently. most people never give a second thought to their assumptions.

I wasn't assuming this at all. I stated clearly in my conclusion that either one or both of the two premisses, that the world and past exist in the mind, and that the mind is controllable, must be false.

You've subtly changed what I posted. I said act of mind, not act of will. The act of writing does not exist solely in the mind, but is carried out via the body.

There are two phenomena concerned here: thoughts which are generated solely in the mind and stimuli which are received by the sensory organs and become thoughts. The latter is what we refer to as the "external world." But if the "external world" actually exists in the mind, the separation between the two an illusion, and the mind controllable, then I should have the same power over the "external world" as I do any solely mentally generated thought. For example, it is easy for me to imagine an object transforming into something else, such as a lamp into a frog. I happen to sense such a lamp in my living room; however, in no possible way known to me can I sense that lamp turning into a frog. So I can only conclude that either that lamp exists independently of my mind, or I cannot control my mind to the point where I can manipulate my perceptions or both.

ah, but here the dilemma lies... you CAN transform your surroundings. nut only for yourself. it is a matter of altering perception. you can choose either to believe that the holocast happened or not. because it is the general consensus (via collective unconciousness) that it did, most go with the flow and do not question it.

personally, i think it did happen... but have i seen any evidence to that fact? no. have i seen anything like a death camp? have i seen ashes fall from the sky like black snow? no and no. what i do know comes from what i have been told. what society tells me happened. THAT is the controling aspect of society.

Follow the white rabbit...

This misses the distinction I made between solely mental thought and sensory perception. What you've read and have been told about the Holocaust exist now only in your memory and is thus subject to the powers of you imaginations. But what if you were sensing the Holocaust as it were happening, and you were being tortured by Nazi inquistors; could you, with an act of mind, alter you sensory perception so that instead you were being messaged by swedish maidens?

memory is perceived as well. if we can alter our memory, then how would we know if we had been tortured physically? the present is only an instant in time, like a point on a circle.

but i derfinitely see your point. if we can alter reality by changing our perceptions, then why can't i escape this pain? and more importantly, why am i spending all this money on alcohol?

*looks down at the ground from the clouds* ...mastering the art of self delusion is not exactly difficult..we all do it every day just to get by...look at how many people eat a cabbage leaf a day because they want to get fit...*drifts a bit*...they know it's not going to help much after the three big macs but it brings them comfort...like gods..

i beleive that depends on how much i would want to distance myself from the general consensus of reality. such cases are not uncommon, but we call them insane.

It sounds to me like the point which evan is trying to make is that what one perceives as truth can be controlled, it's a pretty standard Orwellian concept.

It happens. "History is written by the victors," as the saying goes. If you control education and control the media, the average person will only know what they are told. Hell, many people live like that right now, by choice, in countries with a free media and fairly open education systems...

I was using "percieve" with the definition "to become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing." I wouldn't say we perceive memory, but that we are or become conscious or, to put it another way, aware of it. Once an event has completed and is no longer being perceived, it becomes only memory and thus subject to imagination and degradation.

Memory is fallible and never wholly accurate, so we determine its validity inductively. There are many things to consider: the possibility of the memory's content; the credibility of the person with the memory; how well the memory stacks up to relevant evidence; and how often the memory contradicts the testimonies of others concerning the same event. All this will lead to a probability of the memory's truthfullness; however, absolute certainty is unobtainable.

This implies that insanity is a willful distancing from common perceptions of reality; I wholly disagree with this since it denies those who struggle with mental illnesses such as manic depression and schizophrenia, illnesses which they neither cultivated for themselves or wish to retain. Often times their only respite comes from external stimulus, sensory or chemical, such a psychiatry (sensory) and medication (chemical). Which suggests not only that the mind does not control the external world, but that the external world very much controls our individual minds.

i see. however, your use of the word "memory" implies something from the past. my reference to "a point on a circle" was meant to imply that the present can never be fully realized because it can only exist in the past. the neurons in the brain don't transmit information at light speed, or infinite speed. there is a delay. so any perception as the result of any stimulus to the senses is already in the past. why question the validity of memory and assume perception through the senses to be true?

sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors, i am really high right now. as if that means anything.