• Do you regard the perceiving mind as distinct from the world it perceives (trees, buildings, hats, etc.)?
• It is evident that the mind and world are not identical since we can imagine things that do not exist in the world (moons made of cheese).
• But if we accept that the mind and world are distinct, precisely at what point can they be separated?
• If you can’t identify at which point they become separated then you may be forced to conclude that they are continuous, effectively united.
• As we give this question more thought we are driven into accepting that the mind is both distinct from and continuous with the world it perceives.
• This in itself does not explain the relationship between the mind and world, but it is the best description we have of it, and if we want ultimately to arrive at an explanation it is preferable to have a better description to work with that a worse one.
• This is not a metaphysical question, or a least not exclusively so. It is a basic, practical problem that requires, and is amenable to, conventional scientific methods of investigation. The conventional scientific method, however, must embrace paradoxes, contradictions and ambiguities as essential components in our descriptions of reality, rather than logical flaws to be eradicated.
• There is a pragmatic imperative to arrive at a useful solution because all other problems relating to mind, consciousness, and reality supervene on this foundational question. Depending on which view you take you will make radically different assumptions and arrive at radically different conclusions.
• The world contains no boundaries other than those imposed on it by the mind.
• The mind cannot be separated from the world — they are identical with one another. So the boundaries apparent to the mind, which is part of the world, are also part of the world.
