Another proof of mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5632
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:35 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:40 pm

Please note that this is hierarchical/vertical causation which simply asserts that anything changing is contingent and you need God/mind to hold it in changing existence.
You are out of context.

You do not need mind. You ARE mind.

Mind needs 'changing existence' it needs the appearance of 'something' in order to know itself. Appearances can only be known in reference to what otherwise cannot be known.

“No one has lived so close to his skeleton as I have lived to mine: from which results an endless dialogue and certain truths which I manage neither to accept nor to reject.”

Truth needs no proof.
I am right on the topic.
Dontaskme
Posts: 11404
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by Dontaskme »

bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:35 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:40 pm

Please note that this is hierarchical/vertical causation which simply asserts that anything changing is contingent and you need God/mind to hold it in changing existence.
You are out of context.

You do not need mind. You ARE mind.

Mind needs 'changing existence' it needs the appearance of 'something' in order to know itself. Appearances can only be known in reference to what otherwise cannot be known.

“No one has lived so close to his skeleton as I have lived to mine: from which results an endless dialogue and certain truths which I manage neither to accept nor to reject.”

Truth needs no proof.
I am right on the topic.
Yes you are right on the topic, therefore there's no need for this right to be proved. Is all I'm saying to you.

Proof is only to show another person your right. But even that proof is not needed, for everyone is right.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5632
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:52 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:35 am

You are out of context.

You do not need mind. You ARE mind.

Mind needs 'changing existence' it needs the appearance of 'something' in order to know itself. Appearances can only be known in reference to what otherwise cannot be known.

“No one has lived so close to his skeleton as I have lived to mine: from which results an endless dialogue and certain truths which I manage neither to accept nor to reject.”

Truth needs no proof.
I am right on the topic.
Yes you are right on the topic, therefore there's no need for this right to be proved. Is all I'm saying to you.

Proof is only to show another person your right. But even that proof is not needed, for everyone is right.
Ok.
Dontaskme
Posts: 11404
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by Dontaskme »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:24 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:52 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:04 pm
I am right on the topic.
Yes you are right on the topic, therefore there's no need for this right to be proved. Is all I'm saying to you.

Proof is only to show another person your right. But even that proof is not needed, for everyone is right.
Ok.
When we tell someone else they are wrong, it's only because their way of seeing something, is not how it is seen from the other's perspective. That doesn't actually mean the other someone is wrong, the other is always right in their own personal knowing. All knowing is an absolute truth, because there is only ''Absolute Truth''.

Lies, are told by the ones who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, yet, even to say that is an absolute truth.

Everything is ok. It's only not ok, when there's no one around to say it's ok. :D
Belinda
Posts: 5759
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by Belinda »

bahman wrote:
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:49 pm
The prime mover did not create the causal chain once and for all and then vanish, but is the constant ground of causes of every event.
This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".

The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5632
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:49 pm
The prime mover did not create the causal chain once and for all and then vanish, but is the constant ground of causes of every event.
This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".

The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
If what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?
Dimebag
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".

The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
If what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?
Sin is a human idea. The going ons of the natural world are just the way they are. Sin is a Christian idea, whereby god laid down rules to live by. What I think is, man discovered god in himself, or rather, not separate, and realised to keep in touch with god, he/she had to maintain certain ideals of purity, that is, the body and mind needed to remain pure enough for god to “enter”. Over time, these rules became written in stone, that is, they became cultural norms. But rather than being rules, they were “conditions” for gods appearance in man.

It also happens that, many of those sins were also important for larger groups and societies to survive without unnecessary conflict and infighting. Therefore such groups would have been stronger, more stable and long lived compared to others. Having rules to ensure stability allowed the continuation of culture, which also contains collective knowledge and tech-knowledgy.

Once those rules became cultural norms, they were imposed on others by an external governing and judging body, and thus, the impetus to self govern was taken from people, instead of those rules being for the purpose of inner spiritual work, they became a way for people to judge others, and by extension, the man made idea of God, the creator of these rules, or the one who seemed to care about them. The funny thing is, one of the very rules was, do not make an idol or image of god. The very thing man was doing in the Christian religion was forming a mental image of what god is. And so, slowly they lost touch with gods reality, being replaced by their mental image of god. The very condition for knowing god, was “sinned” against by Christianity. And so, their religion was stillborn.

Of course over years, individuals regained touch with the truth of the religion, but those individuals tended to keep that truth to themselves, while handing out the stillborn version to the common folk. It became more about controlling the laypeople and not about the truth of god.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5632
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:46 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:



Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".

The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
If what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?
Sin is a human idea. The going ons of the natural world are just the way they are. Sin is a Christian idea, whereby god laid down rules to live by. What I think is, man discovered god in himself, or rather, not separate, and realised to keep in touch with god, he/she had to maintain certain ideals of purity, that is, the body and mind needed to remain pure enough for god to “enter”. Over time, these rules became written in stone, that is, they became cultural norms. But rather than being rules, they were “conditions” for gods appearance in man.

It also happens that, many of those sins were also important for larger groups and societies to survive without unnecessary conflict and infighting. Therefore such groups would have been stronger, more stable and long lived compared to others. Having rules to ensure stability allowed the continuation of culture, which also contains collective knowledge and tech-knowledgy.

Once those rules became cultural norms, they were imposed on others by an external governing and judging body, and thus, the impetus to self govern was taken from people, instead of those rules being for the purpose of inner spiritual work, they became a way for people to judge others, and by extension, the man made idea of God, the creator of these rules, or the one who seemed to care about them. The funny thing is, one of the very rules was, do not make an idol or image of god. The very thing man was doing in the Christian religion was forming a mental image of what god is. And so, slowly they lost touch with gods reality, being replaced by their mental image of god. The very condition for knowing god, was “sinned” against by Christianity. And so, their religion was stillborn.

Of course over years, individuals regained touch with the truth of the religion, but those individuals tended to keep that truth to themselves, while handing out the stillborn version to the common folk. It became more about controlling the laypeople and not about the truth of god.
I agree with what you said.
Belinda
Posts: 5759
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by Belinda »

bahman wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:
This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.
Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".

The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
If what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?
A man's responsibility is a response to his power and his freedom. If he is relatively powerless he can't be responsible. Freedom and reason give power. For instance we educate children so they can be more free and more reasoning and thence more responsible.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5632
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Another proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:48 am
bahman wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:13 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:05 pm bahman wrote:



Yes, but we did not originate all the events of which we are agents. The originator of all events, events which all link together in a great network , is what is variously called "existence itself" , "nature", "the Absolute", "the absolute", and "God".

The originator is uncaused and is alone in being uncaused. We men are incapable of pure origination, and to presume that we are capable of pure origination is hubris, dangerous hubris, that justifies evaluating other men.
If what you do is not originated from you then it is originated from God! So our sins also originated from God. Why does God keep us responsible for our actions?
A man's responsibility is a response to his power and his freedom. If he is relatively powerless he can't be responsible. Freedom and reason give power. For instance we educate children so they can be more free and more reasoning and thence more responsible.
If man has power and freedom then something is originated from him.
Post Reply