Philosophy Now Forum

It is. However, minds have yet to effectively define the nature of a mind. GL How about minds are computers? Pick your favourite model of computation... I made a living with computers for half a century, and found that it was no big deal getting rubes to believe that a thought process controlled th...

the space that contains the observable universe is not defined, for it has no boundaries. So it's an infinite set. I'm not fond of infinities in physics, though they are inevitable in math. When I was learning what little I know, any exam solution that produced an infinity got an automatic zero. Ho...

I must be. Throughout the process of getting a simple BS in physics I was never introduced to an explanation of space that made an iota of sense. Give me a description of space that somehow differs from modern cosmology's use of "field." and I'll come back as best I can. The abstract-math...

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is? GL Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. And that substance is....??? Why ask me? The sentence you quoted i...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:53 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:26 pm A good definition should be a function of the thing being defined.

So, is it, or is not a function of the mind to synthesise definitions?

It is. However, minds have yet to effectively define the nature of a mind.
GL

Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor." The whole point of philosophy is to create a story that fits your experiences and beliefs, much as you have done with your beon hypothesis. If i...

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition. Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way? The only defined spaces we know of seem to be those sections of a more general s...

That does sound better. Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas. Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move...

Here is the argument: 1) Causation requires knowledge 2) Knowledge is structured 3) Therefore any caused thing is structured 4) Anything which is structured cannot be free 5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end. The seco...

So is there a better explanation than either the Big Bang theory or a supreme being? What would be a third alternative or "better explanation"? I think so. Instead of trying to explain the universe and human consciousness from a single hypothesis that is internally complex, as per Rupert ...

3 spaces, each with 3 simple properties: Existence, the manifestation of a single and rudimentary force, and a boundary condition. Are those topological spaces, or are you using "space" in some undefined way? I must be. Throughout the process of getting a simple BS in physics I was never ...

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:34 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:16 am Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

And that substance is....???

A good definition should be a function of the thing being defined. So, is it, or is not a function of the mind to synthesise definitions? Yes! Unless you know of some other mechanism capable of doing so. The human mind is the only mechanism on the planet (except for whatever ancient aliens one beli...

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is? In one thread you insist upon solving Metaphysical problems with modern tools, and then you go and make exactly the same mistake as every philosopher ever. Inde...

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL