There is a change therefore there is a mind

[commonsense]

Neither sound nor valid.

(Not sound and valid includes either one of the two.)

Why?

Just a language thing.

Not sound and valid includes

Sound but not valid, and not sound but valid.

[bahman]

Neither sound nor valid.

(Not sound and valid includes either one of the two.)

Why?

Just a language thing.

Not sound and valid includes

Sound but not valid, and not sound but valid.

So you understood my argument?

[Age]

Neither sound nor valid.

(Not sound and valid includes either one of the two.)

Thank you for this.

I really need a LOT of help like this.

[Age]

I am talking about the first premise, the change exists, that is evident. The second premise, I proved it.

ONCE MORE, are you AWARE that what is 'proved' to 'you' has NOT YET necessarily been 'proven' to absolutely ANY one else?

The proof is there. You are free to put effort to understand or leave them non-understod.

I do understand that what you have written is NOT actual irrefutable 'proof' at all, and thus is NOT necessarily 'proven' to ANY one else either.

Either you understand this or you do NOT.

Therefore, the conclusion follows.

I AGREE the conclusion follows, to 'you'.

But, considering 'you' ACTUALLY ASSUMED and BELIEVED that the conclusion was true BEFORE, that you would say here that the "conclusions follow" actually would, logically, follow.

I am talking about the argument. Not my belief.

But there is NO difference, right?

Or is there?

You do BELIEVE that YOUR premises and conclusion is true, right, AND correct, correct?

Do you think that experience and causation are simultaneous? If not one comes after another. This means that there is a gap between cause and effect.

If you want to make the CLAIM that there IS 'a gap' between cause and effect, then just EXPLAIN and/or SHOW WHERE EXACTLY this, alleged, "gap" IS.

Can you do this?

The gap is there. You do even experience it.

Please REFRAIN from talking about 'ME'.

I CAN experience 'gaps' is LOT of places. That is; IF I REALLY wanted to.

Gaps in relation to the Universe, Itself, ONLY exist in human thought, ONLY.

And, I have EXPLAINED WHY perceived 'gaps' are NECESSARY for 'you', human beings to comprehend AND understand.

There is gap between you reading this sentence and then answer to it. You however experience many other things at the same time.

As I have explained earlier, there is OBVIOUSLY 'a duration', but NOT necessarily 'a gap'.

The fact is that there is a gap between experience and causation. Otherwise, our conversation would be simultaneous that is not.

OBVIOUSLY, there is A DURATION between what is KNOWN as "experience" AND "causation" but there is NO ACTUAL 'gap'.

Because 'you' are NOT LOOKING AT 'things' PROPERLY NOR CORRECTLY, you are NOT able to SEE that there is just One Thing in continual change, evolution, AND creation.

That there are 'things' (with an s) is ONLY because 'you', human beings, have made up distinct boundaries to differentiate, and then created labels and names and placed them on those conceptualized separations.

A PERFECT EXAMPLE of this is with 'motion', itself. Or, what some of 'you' call with the label 'time'.

There is NO actual 'gap' absolutely anywhere. But because there is some ASSUMPTION/BELIEF there is 'a gap' they MAKE UP a distinct boundary, which they have labeled with the MADE UP created name 'planck time' or 'planck length'.

Some of 'you' even say this as though it actually exists.

I have already answered that in the previous comment.

You have written a reply. But you NEVER "answered" ANY thing. This is because NO 'question' was asked here.

Also. what you call an "answer" is just the response 'you' provide to "your" OWN 'self' because 'you' OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET able to PROVE ANY thing here to ANY one else here, but to 'you' and "your" OWN 'self'.

I have an argument against the existence of God. Therefore, (P2) in their case doesn't follow.

I am NOT sure if I am met ANY one as BLIND as 'you', "bahman", are here.

So called "christians" ALSO have an argument against YOUR CLAIM. But, just like YOUR ARGUMENT this does NOT make THEIR ARGUMENT sound NOR valid. And, if an argument is NOT sound AND valid, then REALLY it is NOT even that worthy of being EXPRESSED and HEARD.

The only arguments that I find being worthy of being LOOK AT and DISCUSSED are those arguments that are sound AND valid. This is because only those ones are Truly irrefutable.

Oh, and by the way, YOUR, so called, "arguments" here are NOT sound AND valid arguments.

Do you want to see my argument against God?

YES.

You don't know what it is?

Are you asking me or telling me?

How could you say that it is unvalid?

AFTER you SHOW 'it', then I COULD say that 'it' is invalid. That is HOW I could say that 'it' is invalid.

Also, WHY have you, ONCE AGAIN, ATTEMPTED to DEFLECT?

WHY do you NOT LOOK AT and REPLY to 'that' what 'you' ACTUALLY quote?

[bahman]

ONCE MORE, are you AWARE that what is 'proved' to 'you' has NOT YET necessarily been 'proven' to absolutely ANY one else?

The proof is there. You are free to put effort to understand or leave them non-understod.

I do understand that what you have written is NOT actual irrefutable 'proof' at all, and thus is NOT necessarily 'proven' to ANY one else either.

Either you understand this or you do NOT.

Could you please tell everybody what is my argument if you understand it well?

I AGREE the conclusion follows, to 'you'.

But, considering 'you' ACTUALLY ASSUMED and BELIEVED that the conclusion was true BEFORE, that you would say here that the "conclusions follow" actually would, logically, follow.

I am talking about the argument. Not my belief.

But there is NO difference, right?

Or is there?

You do BELIEVE that YOUR premises and conclusion is true, right, AND correct, correct?

The conclusion follows from two premises. Premise one is a fact, change exists. And I proved the second premise. QED.

If you want to make the CLAIM that there IS 'a gap' between cause and effect, then just EXPLAIN and/or SHOW WHERE EXACTLY this, alleged, "gap" IS.

Can you do this?

The gap is there. You do even experience it.

Please REFRAIN from talking about 'ME'.

I CAN experience 'gaps' is LOT of places. That is; IF I REALLY wanted to.

Gaps in relation to the Universe, Itself, ONLY exist in human thought, ONLY.

And, I have EXPLAINED WHY perceived 'gaps' are NECESSARY for 'you', human beings to comprehend AND understand.

There is gap between you reading this sentence and then answer to it. You however experience many other things at the same time.

As I have explained earlier, there is OBVIOUSLY 'a duration', but NOT necessarily 'a gap'.

So you agree that there is a duration between any experience and related response?

[Age]

The proof is there. You are free to put effort to understand or leave them non-understod.

I do understand that what you have written is NOT actual irrefutable 'proof' at all, and thus is NOT necessarily 'proven' to ANY one else either.

Either you understand this or you do NOT.

Could you please tell everybody what is my argument if you understand it well?

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT understand what I was saying, correct?

I will HAPPILY ADMIT, like I did in the other thread, that I do NOT ANYMORE understand your, so called, "arguments".

I am talking about the argument. Not my belief.

But there is NO difference, right?

Or is there?

You do BELIEVE that YOUR premises and conclusion is true, right, AND correct, correct?

The conclusion follows from two premises. Premise one is a fact, change exists. And I proved the second premise. QED.

I asked 'you' three questions here. 'you' either MISSED them COMPLETELY or 'you' are just 'trying to' DEFLECT here.

Either way, what you say you have "proved", I have ALREADY SHOWN is ONLY "proved" to 'you' ALONE.

So, thee ACTUAL Truth IS, 'you' have ONLY 'proved' some 'thing' to 'you' and 'you' ALONE here.

Unless thee is ANOTHER human being who wants to SAY that "bahman" has PROVEN TO THEM that "Any change requires a mind".

If ANY OTHER human being, besides "bahman", wants to say this, then HOW EXACTLY did "bahman" PROVE to 'you' that "ANY change REQUIRES a mind"?

The gap is there. You do even experience it.

Please REFRAIN from talking about 'ME'.

I CAN experience 'gaps' is LOT of places. That is; IF I REALLY wanted to.

Gaps in relation to the Universe, Itself, ONLY exist in human thought, ONLY.

And, I have EXPLAINED WHY perceived 'gaps' are NECESSARY for 'you', human beings to comprehend AND understand.

There is gap between you reading this sentence and then answer to it. You however experience many other things at the same time.

As I have explained earlier, there is OBVIOUSLY 'a duration', but NOT necessarily 'a gap'.

So you agree that there is a duration between any experience and related response?

What do 'you' MEAN by this question here?

I was the ONE who FIRST said and POINTED OUT that there is a duration, between perceived events.

[Dimebag]

What do we define as change? Can change only occur when a mind is there to experience it? What happens when we close our eyes, does the world stop turning? Does light freeze in its place, waiting for us to open our eyes? If things happen without our observing them, then we can infer change without our presence during the change. If we remove the idea of a mind being necessary for change, then we allow the universe to do what it has been doing for billions of years without our help, and in fact is the whole reason we can be here to argue over whether we are necessary for the universe to keep turning.

[bahman]

What do we define as change?

Going from one state of affair to another state of affair.

Can change only occur when a mind is there to experience it?

Yes.

What happens when we close our eyes, does the world stop turning? Does light freeze in its place, waiting for us to open our eyes?

The world, whatever it looks like after closing your eyes, exists there.

If things happen without our observing them, then we can infer change without our presence during the change.

There are Minds who are in charge of controlling the universe.

If we remove the idea of a mind being necessary for change, then we allow the universe to do what it has been doing for billions of years without our help, and in fact is the whole reason we can be here to argue over whether we are necessary for the universe to keep turning.

I already answer this.

[commonsense]

There are Minds who are in charge of controlling the universe.

I can’t figure out whose minds these are. Can you help me with that?

[bahman]

There are Minds who are in charge of controlling the universe.

I can’t figure out whose minds these are. Can you help me with that?

We first have to agree that a conscious mind is needed for any change. If we accept that then there is one mind which is in charge of moving your body which is your conscious mind. There are changes that you observe but your conscious mind is not responsible for those changes. Therefore, there is at least one more mind that is in charge of moving the rest.

[commonsense]

There are Minds who are in charge of controlling the universe.

I can’t figure out whose minds these are. Can you help me with that?

We first have to agree that a conscious mind is needed for any change. If we accept that then there is one mind which is in charge of moving your body which is your conscious mind. There are changes that you observe but your conscious mind is not responsible for those changes. Therefore, there is at least one more mind that is in charge of moving the rest.

You have said that a conscious mind is necessary for any change, but you have not proved this. Once you have proved that, I could agree.

[bahman]

I can’t figure out whose minds these are. Can you help me with that?

We first have to agree that a conscious mind is needed for any change. If we accept that then there is one mind which is in charge of moving your body which is your conscious mind. There are changes that you observe but your conscious mind is not responsible for those changes. Therefore, there is at least one more mind that is in charge of moving the rest.

You have said that a conscious mind is necessary for any change, but you have not proved this. Once you have proved that, I could agree.

That is OP. Which part do you want to discuss?

[commonsense]

We first have to agree that a conscious mind is needed for any change. If we accept that then there is one mind which is in charge of moving your body which is your conscious mind. There are changes that you observe but your conscious mind is not responsible for those changes. Therefore, there is at least one more mind that is in charge of moving the rest.

You have said that a conscious mind is necessary for any change, but you have not proved this. Once you have proved that, I could agree.

That is OP. Which part do you want to discuss?

A conscious mind is necessary for every change.

[bahman]

You have said that a conscious mind is necessary for any change, but you have not proved this. Once you have proved that, I could agree.

That is OP. Which part do you want to discuss?

A conscious mind is necessary for every change.

That is basically A.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

The existence of a mind is a matter of necessity. It has to have the ability to experience and cause too otherwise there cannot be any change either.

[commonsense]

No. One does not have to leave space for the other for every change. Space is not necessary, so a mind is not necessary for change.