consciousness inside the brain listens to these for instance as a melody. Then who is it that listens to
the loud music aired from powerful loudspeakers and how?"

Same as 3 above. People do NOTlisten to (objective) sounds; they constructthe subjective
experienceof sound. As for wholistens, see 1 and 3 above.

"5. The image is formed inside a miniature spot in the brain."

NO. See 3 and 4 above.

"Then how is the three-dimensional image with depth is formed on this diminutive screen? For
instance when I look at the horizon or the sky, how is such an image with vast depth formed at this
tiny spot of center of vision just as identical to its original with the same depth and sense of distance?"

You keep making the same mistake over and over. I'll just say it one more time: There is no image in
your brain; your subjective experience bears no relationship that we know of — except the most
general structural relationships (see Kant, Palmer, etc.) — to the reality "out there". There is no
objective"light", no "sound", no "screen", no "depth". Zero, none, nothing. Those are subjective
experiences. Neural impulses are reacting to each other, generating, we do not know how, those
experiences. Period.

"What is it that gives me the feeling of distance and space?"

Now thisis a better question, but one no one knows how to answer it. We do indeed have "feelings"
or experiences of space, light, sound, etc. How are they generated, by neurons inter-reacting? We do
not know. There are many studies showing what areasof the brain process what stimuli from various
sensory inputs (to put it crudely), and you could say that those areas are "what" gives those feelings,
but that's not really a good answer, is it. But it's about the best we can do right now.

"6. When a person sees a glass of water, in fact he does not see its real form but only a copy of it in
his brain."

Not a copy, a construct.

"The coldness that he feels when touching the glass surface is not the real coldness of the glass but
only a copy of it. This means nobody is ever able to feel that he touches the real glass."

That's better; nowyou're getting it.

"Since it is not his fingers that feel the sense of touch, but merely the sense of touch in the brain.
Should we not in this case conclude that people are never able to reach the reality of objects and can
never touch the reality of a glass?"

Good question, and some have. But if we assume that there's anythingout there, we have to assume
somedegree of correspondence with what we construct; otherwise, as I say above, we'd be dead,
because we'd be falling off cliffs, eating poison, etc, etc.

"But not every person knows this fact. Everyone thinks they touch and see real objects. Is it not
strange that people are not aware of this and they never think about this?"

When you do, you're called a "philosopher" under the best circumstances, "insane" under the worst,
and many in between. Also, to do this thinking to any reasonable extent, one needs leisure, food,
shelter, as a minimum. If you're desperately trying to get those, you just don't have time, right? Also,
it's scary... see 13 below.

"7. Nothing changes when a person is hit by a bus or comes across a lion."

Well, it sure hurts when it happens to me.

"Since, just like the image of the bus, the sense of collision or the fear while running away from a lion,
all form in the brain. When I see a bus, I see it at the center of vision inside my brain. If I go and hold
the door of the bus, I feel the coldness of the metal inside my brain. Then I cannot discriminate from
this fact what happens when I feel pain if a bus hits or a lion bites. Then is it not very illogical when
people say, 'It shows I am in contact with the bus or the lion because I feel pain when the bus hits or
the lion bites'?"

This is the same question as 6, basically. However, it's not illogical, since it's based on the
assumption(usually not stated) that there's a world out there. Given that assumption, the rest follows.
Now if you want to question that assumption, fine... see the refs above for literature on this.

"8. We live the entire period of our lives inside our brains. In a similar way, we also have dreams in
our brain. For instance when we touch a piece of ice in our dream, we feel it is wet and cold. Or,
when we smell a rose, we get the wonderful scent of it. We again sense the feelings of fear, pain,
anxiety and panic in a similar fashion. Then are the dreams and the real life the same in this sense?"

When I slept I dreamed I was a butterfly; now I think I'm awake... am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a
prince, or a prince who just dreamed he was a butterfly? This is an old Chinese story, true, as far as I
know. As you can see, you're not alone.

"9. The person's own body is also included in the images a person sees. So, a person only sees the
copy of his own body."

Good inference.

"This means every person all through his life lives in the cave in his skull where he never knows what
is outside, including his own body and other objects. Now think over this happening once more: Right
now are you inside of the room you are present or is the room inside of you? Isn't the second
alternative the right answer scientifically?"

"Scientifically" the first is correct, since science assumes that there is a world to be investigated. As to
what is actuallycorrect, see my discussions above.

"10. Let us imagine 5 different people who look at a garden of roses. Since every one of these people
see the rose garden in his own brain, then aren't there 5 different rose gardens in the brains of every
one of the 5 people? Is the color red that each one sees the same with the other's perception of red?
Would there be any possibility to compare these?"

Now this is a much better set of questions, and one that is the subject of hotdebate right now; see
the refs above. First, there are indeed 5 different subjective experiencesof the rose garden. Second,
no one knows; but there are ways to compare certain aspects of the experiences of red: their
relationship to the experience of blue, for example: how the colors fade into one another, how much
light is necessary to see red. Stephen Palmer is more or less the expert on this at this point. But this
is a verydifficult and technical issue, and if you don't have background in cognitive science and
perception, wait until you do before you tackle this literature.

"11. We say that the original objects we see the copies of in our brain exist outside, but what if
nothing exists outside? Because we never have the ability to test this or observe this. Then is it not
dubious that the original objects are outside? At least there is a 50-50 percent possibility. Then how
can we be sure that the original objects are outside? If there is no original object outside, then what is
the entity that makes the images and the senses in our brain?"

Wait, wait. "50-50 percent possibility"? No. How can you give anyanswer, anynumbers, anydefinite
statement of possibility on a question that you have absolutely NOdata on? Answer: you cannot. See
my discussion of 3, 4, 6, etc., above. This is basically the same question. Again, Kant tackled this
issue head-on; many others have also. See the references above.

"12. If we are living an illusion that has the possibility of not having any reality outside, then we may
be existing in a very different place. For instance is it not possible for the entire humanity to exist right
over a piece of crystal? Or is it not possible that the complete history of humanity has been
experienced in a place not bigger than the head of a pin? Would there be anything to stop us thinking
in such a broad extent?"

Nope; go see the movie "The Matrix". Again, you're asking the same question as before. A more
interesting question might be, "could humanity move into a virtual world inside a computer and be
satisfied?" An interesting question indeed. I suggest that we aren't contacting alien life because
they're all living in their computers, translated into conscious programs, having a much happier time in
virtual universes than in the "real" one (And of course this one might be someone else's virtual
universe... who knows? But for sure, it's not ours.).

"13. Some people are incredibly afraid when these topics are discussed? What do you think the
reason for this may be?"

You've got to be kidding. Questioning one's entire basis for reality? For living? For believing what we
see, feel, touch? The question is, why are those of us who do it notscared? Simple insanity, or what?
That's part of the reason why philosophy is hard, and why people have to be introduced to it gently.

Well, have fun; you've got a lot of reading ahead...

Steven Ravett Brown

There is really one question here: how does the physical materialist account for reality? There short
answer is: he does not. This kind of materialist thought scarcely begins to approximate reality, let
alone question it. It is not "strange that people are not aware of this" [that reality is only "in the brain"]
because for most people such questions fall short of the common sense which the grammar of
ordinary language expresses and codifies. For instance, "brains" do not think and perceive in any
language except the specialist technical language which belongs to areas of scientific research,
which presuppose the dogma of materialism to begin with and to that extent is already
sub-philosophical. It is persons who think, not "brains", not objects. And persons are not mechanisms
either. Classical literature testifies to the fact that personal being, personality, is not purely
mechanical or mechanistic, that thinking is not about "brains" and that "brains" do not have ideas;
psychology, history, philosophy and common sense all attest to the same thing. The notions of
human dignity, natural law and rights are all grounded in a sense of irreducible human spirit. The very
word "spirit" evokes a whole vocabulary of words with acknowledged meanings and real sense,
beyond the abstract understanding of materialist conception.

To interpret your questions Berk, as I expect other respondents will try to do, is (I would argue) to give
tacit credence to the fallacies of the hard materialist position which they announce.

Matthew Del Nevo
http://www.sicetnon.com