Something out there?

[Srinivas Sista]

Allan Curry writes:

>Srinivas Sista writes:
>
>>This is like postulating gravity to explain "falling" objects. You
>>seem to give an independent existence to events(in whatever form)
>>and that mind just represents it as we are aware of them.
>>
>
>Your second sentence sums it up pretty well all right. I'd like to
>know why it's not the most reasonable thing to do in the circumstances?
>Do you think it's more reasonable to assume there is nothing outside of
>our mental representation of the world?
>

One can assume whatever one pleases and argue its degree of
reasonableness based on another set of assumed logical principles.
The counter examples I gave(regarding dreams) are intended to show
that the mind does not need any kind of external(if such a thing
exists) environment to create, sustain and destroy realities.
Note: I am not saying that you should assume that there is nothing
      outside the mental representation. That would be as much a
      postulate as the assumption that there is something "out there".

regards,
Srinivas Sista.