Please explain the difference between the internal and external world

[ygolo]

What is the difference between the internal and external world?

Please elaborate and explain.

------------

My Own Answer

I have been playing around with the idea that the internal world is ones own mind, while the external world is everything (else?).

The "Mind"

From an outside observer, the mind is what the body/brain stores. Just like a file or program is something stored on a hard-disk.

The same file or program can be transfered to a flash drive, streamed over the Internet, etc. This is just to elaborate the point that the file/program is not simply part of the physical state of the hard-drive. It is something more abstract that can separately manifested in an alternate form, if the technology exists.

I believe it is the same with the mind. If we had the technology, I believe we would be able to take "abstract state of mind" represented in the physical state of the body/brain, and transfer it to another storage mechanism.

My Mind is Part of My Internal World, while Others' Minds are Not

To further elaborate my distinction, I put forth that my mind is my internal world but others' minds are not part of my internal world.

Insight gained from my own internal world may be relevant in understanding other people's internal worlds. Nevertheless, another person's mind is not part of mine.

My Mind Can be Part of My External World As Well

As I analyze minds in general, I include mine as well. In this sense, my mind is included in my external world as well as my internal world.

If I were to have my mind analyzed by others and then described to me, once again my mind will be part of my external world.

I believe, however, that the character of how I see my mind as my internal world will be different from how I see my mind as part of my external world.

--------

So that's about it. For me, my internal world is my mind, while my external world includes everything.

How would you make the same distinction?

 

[Mole]

What is the difference between the internal and external world?

The internal is the imagination. And the external is reality.

 

[Athenian200]

The internal world is what you keep to yourself, the way you process things, the way you make connections. Things you might not even be consciously aware of. The external world is whatever you share with others, and what they can perceive about you, or experience with you.

Basically, the inner world is that which cannot be shared or expressed, the external world is that which can be shared and expressed.

 

[EcK]

none
but we can see different rates of information transfer between 'an object' and an environnement etc.
Otherwise, things are just mental construct. Such mental contructs are evolutionary advantages allowing for creatures with limited computing power and 'qualitative'+spatial sense data to differentiate between threats, food and the rest of the environnement.

Now it's all a question of how we define 'what is true'. As truth is a mental construct in the first place. So basically you have to know at what level of analysis you're positioning yourself when asking that question.

ps: i didn't read other posts, i'm sort of changing for cardio

 

[EcK]

The internal is the imagination. And the external is reality.

Ever watched matrix ?

 

[Mole]

To create a work of the imagination, it is necessary to fully imagine it.

Many works of art fail because they are not fully imagined.

And instead of being fully imagined we are given special effects, moralism, ideology or cardboard characters.

When the artistic imagination fails, we try to fill it with bells and whistles. American movies are good example of this because they have such high budgets, they can have high production values but no artistic value.

And when an artist fully imagines a work then it captures our imagination too. And it fully lives in our imagination, just as the work fully lived in the imagination of its creator.

Human being are extraordinary in that we can respond to our imagination in a similar way we respond to reality.

And so it is crucial that we learn very early on the difference between imagination and reality. And this is the work of children.

For play is the work of children. And the purpose of play is to learn the distinction between imagination and reality.

 

[ygolo]

Interesting responses. I would actually like everyone to elaborate a bit more since I don't completely understand the distinctions--or lack of distinction as the case may be.

To Athenian:
How do we know what can or cannot be shared?

To Eck:
Are you denying the existence of one or the other world? I did not fully understand the informations transfer part. Also, as part of the everything-is-a-mental-construct concept, are you denying the existence of the external world?

To Victor:
How do we know that what we see as reality is not in our imagination? Also, it seems like there are other things like the inputs from our 5 senses with is neither reality nor imagination, true?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The internal world is a person's subjective sense of self and all of the thoughts that it generates. The external world is everything else.

 

[Athenian200]

To Athenian:
How do we know what can or cannot be shared?

We don't. We can only make assumptions, and not all of us make the same ones. Many philosophical debates actually deal with the boundaries of what is expressible.

 

[Xander]

To the subject there is no difference between the inner world and the outer world except when speaking in specific arenas where it seems to stand for something similar to reception and broadcast. To the object however the difference is stark, I imagine.

 

[EcK]

To Eck:
Are you denying the existence of one or the other world? I did not fully understand the informations transfer part.

duh.
entropy within a system

Also, as part of the everything-is-a-mental-construct concept, are you denying the existence of the external world?

What?
No I meant that things are mental constructs, there's no fundamental difference between a chair and the ground it lays on, everything expanded from the basic patterns/fundamental forces equilibriums setted just after/at/during the big bang.
Emergence is just an illusion as obviously one could 'guess' any particle etc from a complete model of To (so guess the emergence of fusion, the mendeleiev table, have a model of every possible history of the universe [not saying its actually feasible, just that its conceptually possible| etc.)

I mean, even if you take dot like particles like electrons, the uncertainty/ wave function still make the delimitation sort of fuzzy for the macro-scale born human concept of object

 

[ygolo]

I understand that information and entropy are essentially two sides of the same coin.

I also understand that all things, at base, are the result of th laws of nature, even emergent properties of systems.

But just based on those things there are a myriad of possible distinctions possible between the internal and external world. I would like to know (more clearly) why you say there is no distinction.

In short, can you elaborate why the points you made lead to there being no distinction. Because I believe many people believe the same points you made but have a different demarcation between internal and external worlds.

Are you saying that the internal world is all of the universe, and so is the external world? If not, it seems like, there ought to be some difference between the two (given your points in your first post in this thread).

Maybe I am missing something you are saying. But I would like to understand your viewpoint.

 

[ygolo]

To the subject there is no difference between the inner world and the outer world except when speaking in specific arenas where it seems to stand for something similar to reception and broadcast. To the object however the difference is stark, I imagine.

Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean by "the subject" and "the object?"

There are many possible interpretations of those words.

The internal world is a person's subjective sense of self and all of the thoughts that it generates. The external world is everything else.

This seems very close (possibly identical) to my own view.

We don't. We can only make assumptions, and not all of us make the same ones. Many philosophical debates actually deal with the boundaries of what is expressible.

Ah. Ok then. Can you give some examples of possibly places to make the boundaries?

 

[EcK]

I understand that information and entropy are essentially two sides of the same coin.

I also understand that all things, at base, are the result of th laws of nature, even emergent properties of systems.

But just based on those things there are a myriad of possible distinctions possible between the internal and external world. I would like to know (more clearly) why you say there is no distinction.

What you're saying makes no sense. Objects and limitations are just mental tools we use due to our evolutionary history.

edit: basically you can only consider closed/self contained systems. And I'm sorry but a human body for example isn't a self contained system, be it only because homostasis isn't possible without external energy input.

So sure, u could say the universe is a thing, but the concept is meaningless since there's nobody to observe the universe in its entirety and as I said, objects are a mental tool. Also quantum physics sort of tells us that without an 'observer' the universe is just a 'probability wave' and so again, not a clearly definable object(i don't buy the CONSCIOUS observer argument, it's sort of ridiculously ethnocentered)

 

[kyuuei]

Imo. The internal world is everything involving myself. Things I can control, influences in my life, my personal inner thoughts, my actions, and reactions. They include the things I influence, my morality, and my philosophy. Imo, the internal and external world changes. For example: I considered my apartment part of my internal world, but now that I no longer live in it, it is not.

The external world is that which I cannot touch. The things outside of my control, the people I am a stranger to, information and knowledge I am not aware of or never bother to/fail to understand and grasp, the ideas and beliefs of those around me, and so on.

 

[ygolo]

What you're saying makes no sense. Objects and limitations are just mental tools we use due to our evolutionary history.

edit: basically you can only consider closed/self contained systems. And I'm sorry but a human body for example isn't a self contained system, be it only because homostasis isn't possible without external energy input.

So sure, u could say the universe is a thing, but the concept is meaningless since there's nobody to observe the universe in its entirety and as I said, objects are a mental tool. Also quantum physics sort of tells us that without an 'observer' the universe is just a 'probability wave' and so again, not a clearly definable object(i don't buy the CONSCIOUS observer argument, it's sort of ridiculously ethnocentered)

Again, I basically agree with you on the science. But again there are lots of interpretations I could draw for what is the internal world vs. the external world.

I am rather slow today. Can you put it in the form:

The/My internal world is <insert what you think the internal world is here>.
The/My external world is <insert what you think the external world is here>.

Then explain why they are the same?

Imo. The internal world is everything involving myself. Things I can control, influences in my life, my personal inner thoughts, my actions, and reactions. They include the things I influence, my morality, and my philosophy. Imo, the internal and external world changes. For example: I considered my apartment part of my internal world, but now that I no longer live in it, it is not.

The external world is that which I cannot touch. The things outside of my control, the people I am a stranger to, information and knowledge I am not aware of or never bother to/fail to understand and grasp, the ideas and beliefs of those around me, and so on.

Ah. Yes. I beleive Covey calls what you say is the internal world as your "circle of influence."

 

[EcK]

What I said is that one cannot make the distinction in the first place, so I don't need to define internal and external as one implies the other.

And I explained it already.

 

[ygolo]

Ah. OK. I was under the impression that you were saying that "they are both the same"...which is different from "one cannot make the distinction."

Thanks for your patience.

 

[EcK]

 

[Xander]

Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean by "the subject" and "the object?"

There are many possible interpretations of those words.

In many situations I guess the subject would be the observer and the object would be the observed but those titles rely on vision and hence I was going for something more neutral. Admittedly neutral also tends to go hand in hand with vague.