A Non-Mental Reality Must Exist.

A “non-mental reality” amounts to “inconceivable concept”, and is thus an oxymoron. Every set, process, object or law is identical to a description and thus qualifies as “mental”. One may be tempted to prop up a distinction between definition and that which is defined, but this leads to problems. For if definition does not distribute over definiendum, then either the definiendum is inconceivable and the distinction meaningless, or the definiendum somehow differs from how we’ve defined it, thus amounting to “X =/= X”. In other words, anything we can point to is necessarily an expression of cognition. “Out there” is either meaningless or mental by cognitive embedment and thus a projection of our minds. As Chris Langan observes: “...insofar as the mind is that which perceives and theorizes, and insofar as there can be no perception or theorization without the mind, the structure of the mind necessarily intersects with that of phenomenal reality.” The intersection is total.We cannot even conceive of a situation or context in which “something” is non-mental. One may ask: “If everything is mental, how can we distinguish between things which exist and things which are merely imagined? After all, thinking something does not make it so.” The distinction does not lie within the concepts themselves, but rather in the relationship between concept and reality. That is, a purely imagined concept only describes itself, while a “real” concept describes our conception of reality in a general sense. Reality amounts to a kind of theory whose rules of inference determine its composition. Since reality is defined within a theoretic context - since “reality” is by definition a definition - it follows that “inclusion in reality” requires that something be mental - otherwise it cannot be mentally included in our conception of reality. Since any absolute difference between reality and our conception of reality is inconceivable, such a difference is necessarily irrelevant to our notion of real and thus doesn’t exist i.e., is irrelevant to “reality”. Our experience is obviously shaped by more general structure than solipsism allows for. Our perceptions and thoughts are not ours to choose at whim, but are in a sense “sculpted” by the world around us. However, this does not imply that this structure is non-mental, for that would lead to contradiction. Rather, it implies that our minds are images of the mind of reality as a whole. That is, our experience of reality amounts to reality experiencing itself within the bounds it’s set for itself. This does not mean that we must be consciously aware of this structure, or that we have to agree with it, for it to take effect. It merely implies that the overall structure of reality is implicit in the structure of our minds, and that any descriptions of this structure amount to reality describing itself. In other words, our minds define and are defined by reality. Although for most purposes, a non-mental reality might as well exist. My opponent argues that “mental” is meaningless without a logical complement. While this is true, it is irrelevant to whether or not a non-mental reality exists. For by the same logic, reality is meaningless without a logical compliment. And yet, if non-reality exists in the sense my opponent is talking about, it would be part of reality, in which case reality would have no logical complement. And if reality is meaningless, then my opponent can hardly make any definite statements in regard to it. Since I am associating “reality” with “mental”, the case really is no different. Anything which is “non-mental” is irrelevant to “reality” and thus unreal. Therefore, “mental” is defined in juxtaposition to “unreality” just as reality is.