bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
What do you really mean by experience, decision, and causation are correlated?
Let me give you an example: Suppose that you have a cup of tea next to you now while you are reading my post from your computer. You look at the cup of tea and experience wanting tea. You then decide to drink some tea. You then cause your hand to move and drink some tea. So there are three steps in here:
1) experience of wanting tea,
2) decision to drink tea and
3) taking tea.
These three steps as you can see are correlated. For example, you won't go and take some coffee after you decide to drink tea, etc.
You should have done the above explanation long ago. That is why I complained your communication is not clear, thus wasting a lot of time and we talking pass each other.
Your point 1 is misleading.
All the 3 points 1-3 constitute experience by the empirical person.
Note 'empirical person' is the person we can all see and observed as existing alive.
The fact that you have a cup of tea beside you is already indication you has wanted to drink tea.
The more factual situation in the above is;
- 1. All humans has the primal urge for nutrition, food and drink
2. Decision is triggered to drink tea as a drink and its nutrients.
3. Caused to drink the tea.
The above three steps are sequential, not correlated.
The ultimate root cause of the above is reducible to the survival drive of the individual which contribute to the preservation of the human species.
This survival drive trigger in the person the urge to eat food [hunger pangs] and drink water [liquids] [thirst].
There is no need to bring in the term 'mind' to explain the above.
More so, there is no need for a mind as an entity to explain all the above actions.
The only reason to introduce the term "mind" [as defined] is merely as a placeholder to represent the collection of brain activities plus activities from the whole person plus activities from the gut bacteria is participating in the whole series of actions 1 to 3.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Why these particular 3 elements only?
Because there are these three elements in any act, experience, decision, and causation. You need to experience in order to have a need for doing something. You then decide considering all priorities. And finally, you cause.
Your 3 points are badly presented and I have corrected them and explained to you the root cause. There is no need for a mind as an independent entity.
Are you aware, there are many parasites that infect a person and they alone can control and drive a person to drink [e.g. rabies] or eat certain food.
In this case, you are implying these parasites are the independent mind as an entity that is correlated? This would be absurd.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
You are too fast and presumptive, there must a 'thing' to the correlation.
Why? You see such a correlation in all your actions if you reflect and study them well. My question is why they always correlate? It cannot be a matter of chance.
I explained they are not correlated but a triggered in sequence from root causes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Your argument is loaded with too many blanks, that is why I stated your claim is baseless and groundless.
I hope things are clear now.
Your explanation in your first point exposed the flaw therein and I have corrected them.
Person cannot exist in materialism.
Regardless, the point is the person exists as a real empirical being that can be verified and justified as objective.
The point of 'materialism' [not tenable] is not the issue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
Whatever experience, decision, causation related to the person is leveraged [or correlated] to the self.
The self is not an independent entity by itself but merely a bundle of activities as proven by Hume. Note,
So self to you is a name to a collection of activities?
You see an empirical person as a self and can easily explain that real empirical person [self] as a collection of activities.
I state, you yourself are a collection of activities. What is wrong with that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:45 am
This theory [Bundle Theory] owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are
in a perpetual flux and movement' (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ory-of/v-1
Generally, the self has a mind but such a mind is not an entity.
If the mind is not an entity/objective then it must be subjective. There is no other option. A subjective thing such as mind cannot cause, decide and experience since these activities are subjective too. Simply a subjective thing cannot cause, decide and cause because they belong to the same category.
Nah you got rhetoric here.
An entity is objective which is intersubjective, thus fundamentally subjective.
You as a self, i.e. a person can experience from your primal drives to eat, drink and do whatever.
There is no need to introduce the idea that you have a mind that is an independent entity.
Where I refer to your mind, that is merely a collection of activities which is a part of another collection of activities, called the self.
Yes, the mind is subjective in your perspective and that is the source of the problem. A subjective thing, mind, cannot experience, decide and cause since these three activities are subjective too. Why this is correct? Because the mind in your perspective is only a state of mater or a configuration of mater. A configuration cannot experience since experience to you is a state or configuration of mater too.
That my and your mind is intersubjective, i.e. fundamentally subjective is not the problem.
Such a intersubjective mind can be verified with evidence and agreed upon consensus by scientists and others.
Your mind as an independent entity is not proven, but speculated.
Your argument re,
- 1) experience of wanting tea,
2) decision to drink tea and
3) taking tea.
is too flimsy and prove nothing regarding an mind as an entity.
Fundamentally there is no thing-in-itself,
the mind is a thing
therefore there is no thing as mind-in-itself.
Note whatever things humans can speak of, such things cannot be independent of the human conditions.
And as Wittgenstein stated,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Note,
An independent entity cannot be spoken [not verifiable] of,
The mind you claimed to exists is an independent entity.
Therefore the mind you claimed to exists cannot be spoken of,
Since the mind you claimed to exists cannot be spoken of, you have to shut up on such a claim.