The emergence of expeirnce

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:29 pm
You face a regress if mind itself was subject to change. I think we can agree that that is mind that causes change. You need something else if mind itself is subject to change. Etc. That is a regress. The only way to avoid the regress is to accept that the is an ultimate thing so-called mind which is not subject to change and causes changes.
I don't agree it is 'mind' [an independent entity] that causes change.
So what does cause change?
When we see 'water' changes into 'ice', we study what is observable and infer from observations the relevant principles and mechanism involved.
As such "what is the cause" should be confined to what is observed and inferences that can be explained, verified, justified and repeated.
In this case, the direct observable cause is obviously the change in temperature.

If it is is not observable by the senses, the inferred cause must be capable to explanation grounded on the empirical observations, reason, justifiable, and repeatable.

Why must you bring in
the 'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?

The answer is due to some internal desperate psychology as Hume alluded to.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am Note I can and test changes empirically based on observations and experience and verify its credibility via philosophical critical thinking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am When water changes to ice, I can explain that easily.
I can explain any changes which are empirically easily using Science and critical thinking.
There is no need to speculate the involvement of an independent mind as an entity is all the empirical evident changes.
Matter in motion is described by quantum field theory in which the quantum field is destroyed and created. It is through this, destruction and creation, that motion of particles is possible.
What has the above to do with your,
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am If ever the term 'mind' is used, it is with reference to this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
not the "mind" [independent entity] you have in mind [nb as per wiki's].

I think to avoid further confusion, you should counter why the "mind" as defined in wiki and accepted by all Scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists are WRONG.

Note the mind is;
As defined wrote:The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
-wiki
I am aware of that definition. It is just wrong. Mind is not an idea. It is an entity. I have an argument for that.
You argument is based on X changes into Y, e.g. 'water' change to 'ice'.

As explained above, in such changes or any changes of state, there is NO
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?

the only mind involved is the mind as defined above [re wiki]
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
I once had out of body experience. My eyes were open but I could see things differently. I was as tall as always but I could see things such that I am as tall as several story building.
I have had similar of such experiences.
I thought I was special [with similar experience of some mystics] from the majority.
I did research on this and there is a medical name for it.
Some experience the opposite as small and short, etc.
It is an altered state of consciousness due to certain activities in the brain not because 'you' are an independent mind by itself.
There is just not a material explanation for that. The electro-chemical process in the brain cannot create a vision of where the eyes cannot possibly perceive.
Nah, you have not done sufficient research on this are of 'altered states of consciousness'.
Scientific tests has been done where one can 'switch' on and 'off' various altered states of consciousness.
Those who have had 'altered states of consciousness' without planning, had been cured with medicines and other procedures.
I have had various types of 'altered states of consciousness' but I don't have them all the time.

Since altered states of consciousness are easily explained by Science there is no room for YOUR,
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
This is an evidence in front of the scientific community including you. How do you interpret this?
Do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?
Aren't you a scientist or philosopher?
Philosophy depend on Science for the relevant knowledge to support their views.
So, do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?
It would be very degrading if you simply make claims, its magic, without substantial evidence to support your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am

Omnipresent means that it is present everywhere which is different from something which does not have any location.
If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.
The universe, for example, does not have any location but it exists. Mind also does exist and does not have any location.
The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
The term 'universe' is merely a general placeholder as a reference ALL of the above without any specifics.
Where the universe is specified, it is the observable universe which is measurable.

Where is your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Where can I observe and measure it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am

Again, you are concluding that something that has no location must be everywhere. Something that is omnipresent is different from something which has no location.
If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.
No, as it is illustrated.
Illustrated where?
Where is your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Where can I observe and measure it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
I did provide my argument for existence of mind that you, unfortunately, didn't pay any attention to it.
Where?
Meh. I repeat it again: Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has the ability to experience and cause.
I have countered this many times re 'water' changing to 'ice' etc.
Note my counter at the top of this post.

Do not bring this again except to counter my explanation above.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:00 am
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am I don't agree it is 'mind' [an independent entity] that causes change.
So what does cause change?
When we see 'water' changes into 'ice', we study what is observable and infer from observations the relevant principles and mechanism involved.
As such "what is the cause" should be confined to what is observed and inferences that can be explained, verified, justified and repeated.
In this case, the direct observable cause is obviously the change in temperature.

If it is is not observable by the senses, the inferred cause must be capable to explanation grounded on the empirical observations, reason, justifiable, and repeatable.

Why must you bring in
the 'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Because for any change in the microscopic level there is a gap between two consecutive states of affair, this gap is filled by mind. My justifications are the quantum field theory and my argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:00 am The answer is due to some internal desperate psychology as Hume alluded to.
Hume just didn't know my argument otherwise he would change his mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am Note I can and test changes empirically based on observations and experience and verify its credibility via philosophical critical thinking.
There is a change, therefore, there is a mind. My argument shows that the reality in its core is discrete. It requires mind in order to coherently move. Coherence is the result of decision.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am When water changes to ice, I can explain that easily.
I can explain any changes which are empirically easily using Science and critical thinking.
There is no need to speculate the involvement of an independent mind as an entity is all the empirical evident changes.
Matter in motion is described by quantum field theory in which the quantum field is destroyed and created. It is through this, destruction and creation, that motion of particles is possible.
What has the above to do with your,
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
The quantum fields are destroyed and created withing quantum field theory. This is the case in my model of reality too. The scientific community just misses mind between. How there could be any coherence in reality without mind?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am If ever the term 'mind' is used, it is with reference to this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
not the "mind" [independent entity] you have in mind [nb as per wiki's].

I think to avoid further confusion, you should counter why the "mind" as defined in wiki and accepted by all Scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists are WRONG.

Note the mind is;
Because forms cannot possibly turn into ideas, idea is the coherent form, unless a mind is involved. Things just don't happen as a result of coincidence. The reality is indifferent in its core.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
I am aware of that definition. It is just wrong. Mind is not an idea. It is an entity. I have an argument for that.
You argument is based on X changes into Y, e.g. 'water' change to 'ice'.
No, my argument is not about the change of condition, ice to water, which is described by physics. My argument is about how change is possible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am As explained above, in such changes or any changes of state, there is NO
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?

the only mind involved is the mind as defined above [re wiki]
Such a definition claims that mind is an idea, a sequence of things. The scientific community, however, owes to explain how such coherence is possible in reality? Reality in its core is indifferent.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am I have had similar of such experiences.
I thought I was special [with similar experience of some mystics] from the majority.
I did research on this and there is a medical name for it.
Some experience the opposite as small and short, etc.
It is an altered state of consciousness due to certain activities in the brain not because 'you' are an independent mind by itself.
There is just not a material explanation for that. The electro-chemical process in the brain cannot create a vision of where the eyes cannot possibly perceive.
Nah, you have not done sufficient research on this are of 'altered states of consciousness'.
Scientific tests has been done where one can 'switch' on and 'off' various altered states of consciousness.
Those who have had 'altered states of consciousness' without planning, had been cured with medicines and other procedures.
I have had various types of 'altered states of consciousness' but I don't have them all the time.

Since altered states of consciousness are easily explained by Science there is no room for YOUR,
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
You don't understand what I am saying. My eyes couldn't possibly be in the top of a three-story building therefore they could not possibly perceive any light from there. The question is where that vision comes from? No light from the top of three-story building no vision. This is a part of science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am Do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?
Aren't you a scientist or philosopher?
Philosophy depend on Science for the relevant knowledge to support their views.
So, do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?
It would be very degrading if you simply make claims, its magic, without substantial evidence to support your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
So you refuse to provide any claim in favor or against what is presented?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.
The universe, for example, does not have any location but it exists. Mind also does exist and does not have any location.
The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
The term 'universe' is merely a general placeholder as a reference ALL of the above without any specifics.
Where the universe is specified, it is the observable universe which is measurable.

Where is your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Where can I observe and measure it?
What is mind? The thing that experiences, decides and causes. Experience just doesn't happen. You are saying that there is experience, decision and then causation and they are somehow coherent. How such things are possible?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am If not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.
No, as it is illustrated.
Illustrated where?
Where is your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Where can I observe and measure it?
In whatever you do. There is fantastic correlation between what you experience, decide and cause. That is you who makes such a thing possible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am
Where?
Meh. I repeat it again: Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has the ability to experience and cause.
I have countered this many times re 'water' changing to 'ice' etc.
Note my counter at the top of this post.

Do not bring this again except to counter my explanation above.
This is already answered. And what is your opinion about my argument now?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:02 pm No, my argument is not about the change of condition, ice to water, which is described by physics. My argument is about how change is possible.
Your whole argument seem to be banking on this,
"how change is possible"

Note change is an empirical possibility, change can be predicted and real changes can be proven empirically.

It is the same as there is no need to bring in an agent of change such as a God, unless you can provide evidence to justify God exists as real.
In your case, there is no need to bring in your 'mind as an independent entity' as a cause of the change.

There is only a mind as defined here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

It is too flimsy for you to insist,
  • because there is change and
    change is possible,
    therefore there is a mind.
there is no argument to the above.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:22 am
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:02 pm No, my argument is not about the change of condition, ice to water, which is described by physics. My argument is about how change is possible.
Your whole argument seem to be banking on this,
"how change is possible"

Note change is an empirical possibility, change can be predicted and real changes can be proven empirically.

It is the same as there is no need to bring in an agent of change such as a God, unless you can provide evidence to justify God exists as real.
In your case, there is no need to bring in your 'mind as an independent entity' as a cause of the change.

There is only a mind as defined here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

It is too flimsy for you to insist,
  • because there is change and
    change is possible,
    therefore there is a mind.
there is no argument to the above.
As I mentioned several times there is a gap between two states of affair in which there is nothing in the gap. You cannot possibly have the second state of affair from nothing. Therefore, there must exist an entity which could persist to exist during change so it can cause the second state of affair. I call that entity as mind.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:22 am
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:02 pm No, my argument is not about the change of condition, ice to water, which is described by physics. My argument is about how change is possible.
Your whole argument seem to be banking on this,
"how change is possible"

Note change is an empirical possibility, change can be predicted and real changes can be proven empirically.

It is the same as there is no need to bring in an agent of change such as a God, unless you can provide evidence to justify God exists as real.
In your case, there is no need to bring in your 'mind as an independent entity' as a cause of the change.

There is only a mind as defined here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

It is too flimsy for you to insist,
  • because there is change and
    change is possible,
    therefore there is a mind.
there is no argument to the above.
As I mentioned several times there is a gap between two states of affair in which there is nothing in the gap. You cannot possibly have the second state of affair from nothing. Therefore, there must exist an entity which could persist to exist during change so it can cause the second state of affair. I call that entity as mind.
You are too stuck with dualism.

I believe you are not into Eastern Philosophy and is not familiar with the actual principles of the commonly seen Yin- Yang symbol?

Note the Yin - Yang symbol which denote the basic fundamental of reality.

Image

From the above you will note the two states of affairs black and white are separate sections, which seemingly imply there is a Gap.
But note within each section, the opposite in embedded in it.
Note the small dot of black embedded in the white section and vice versa.

Imagine the two states i.e. black and white are in flow from black to white or vice versa.
As the white increases, the black reduces.
However within the white there is the inherent 'black' note the black do within the white section.

As such the evidence and conclusion is there is no gap within two states of affairs.
Regardless of the seemingly and apparent separateness, both states of affairs are always connected.
In fact there is only a continuum from one state of affair to another which keep flowing and interchanges from one state to another endlessly.
  • Example:
    There is no absolute 100% black or 100% white.
    What is grey is 50% White and 50% Black.
    Then we have the lighter grey of 75% white and 25% black.
    Then as it goes to the lightest grey and seemingly 100% white, the reality is the state of affair is 99% white and 1% black.
    It can go up to 99.99% white and 0.01% black and more finer % of black, but white is NEVER separated from black.
    Thus even with the purest white [on state of affair] there is always a % of black.
    Therefore black and white are not two separate states of affairs as exemplified here.
Reflect more on what is going on in reality;
  • Are there separate stated between the four seasons?
    The Yin-Yang principles are perfect to explain the movement and flow of the four seasons from one to another.
    It is not surprising to have winter conditions in spring during the transition and even mid-spring at times and similar during transition of the other seasons.
Here is another from Tai Chi principles of the Yin and Yang;
  • When you walk you body weight shift from one leg to the other, i.e. two states of affairs from right to left and vice-versa throughout the distance you walk.
    Is there a gap between these two states of affairs?
    No!
What is seemingly two states of affairs [dualism] is merely an illusion.
The reality is the seeming two states of affairs are interconnected and are dynamically flowing within a continuum.

Your dogmatism and the tight grasping of dualism - two independent states of affair with a gap in between - is due to desperate psychology of hasty generalization, i.e. a primal jumping to conclusion.

You are inherently desperate and can only insist, but cannot provide any sound argument at all.
There is no independent entity called mind as you defined it.
What you think is your 'mind' is an illusion and it is delusional to keep insisting it is real.

What is mind is only this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

I strongly suggest you use your above mind [re Wiki] to study your own desperate psychology on why you are so delusional in insisting there is a separate entity of an independent "mind".
Carpe Diem .. Know Thyself!

Note, I am calling for a permanent Time-Out on this OP.
Image
Don't want to waste time on this endless circle of yours.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:25 am
bahman wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:44 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:22 am
Your whole argument seem to be banking on this,
"how change is possible"

Note change is an empirical possibility, change can be predicted and real changes can be proven empirically.

It is the same as there is no need to bring in an agent of change such as a God, unless you can provide evidence to justify God exists as real.
In your case, there is no need to bring in your 'mind as an independent entity' as a cause of the change.

There is only a mind as defined here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

It is too flimsy for you to insist,
  • because there is change and
    change is possible,
    therefore there is a mind.
there is no argument to the above.
As I mentioned several times there is a gap between two states of affair in which there is nothing in the gap. You cannot possibly have the second state of affair from nothing. Therefore, there must exist an entity which could persist to exist during change so it can cause the second state of affair. I call that entity as mind.
You are too stuck with dualism.

I believe you are not into Eastern Philosophy and is not familiar with the actual principles of the commonly seen Yin- Yang symbol?

Note the Yin - Yang symbol which denote the basic fundamental of reality.

Image

From the above you will note the two states of affairs black and white are separate sections, which seemingly imply there is a Gap.
But note within each section, the opposite in embedded in it.
Note the small dot of black embedded in the white section and vice versa.

Imagine the two states i.e. black and white are in flow from black to white or vice versa.
As the white increases, the black reduces.
However within the white there is the inherent 'black' note the black do within the white section.

As such the evidence and conclusion is there is no gap within two states of affairs.
Regardless of the seemingly and apparent separateness, both states of affairs are always connected.
In fact there is only a continuum from one state of affair to another which keep flowing and interchanges from one state to another endlessly.
  • Example:
    There is no absolute 100% black or 100% white.
    What is grey is 50% White and 50% Black.
    Then we have the lighter grey of 75% white and 25% black.
    Then as it goes to the lightest grey and seemingly 100% white, the reality is the state of affair is 99% white and 1% black.
    It can go up to 99.99% white and 0.01% black and more finer % of black, but white is NEVER separated from black.
    Thus even with the purest white [on state of affair] there is always a % of black.
    Therefore black and white are not two separate states of affairs as exemplified here.
Reflect more on what is going on in reality;
  • Are there separate stated between the four seasons?
    The Yin-Yang principles are perfect to explain the movement and flow of the four seasons from one to another.
    It is not surprising to have winter conditions in spring during the transition and even mid-spring at times and similar during transition of the other seasons.
Here is another from Tai Chi principles of the Yin and Yang;
  • When you walk you body weight shift from one leg to the other, i.e. two states of affairs from right to left and vice-versa throughout the distance you walk.
    Is there a gap between these two states of affairs?
    No!
What is seemingly two states of affairs [dualism] is merely an illusion.
The reality is the seeming two states of affairs are interconnected and are dynamically flowing within a continuum.

Your dogmatism and the tight grasping of dualism - two independent states of affair with a gap in between - is due to desperate psychology of hasty generalization, i.e. a primal jumping to conclusion.

You are inherently desperate and can only insist, but cannot provide any sound argument at all.
There is no independent entity called mind as you defined it.
What you think is your 'mind' is an illusion and it is delusional to keep insisting it is real.

What is mind is only this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

I strongly suggest you use your above mind [re Wiki] to study your own desperate psychology on why you are so delusional in insisting there is a separate entity of an independent "mind".
Carpe Diem .. Know Thyself!

Note, I am calling for a permanent Time-Out on this OP.
Image
Don't want to waste time on this endless circle of yours.
I think I have said enough. I leave you and your delusion which works perfectly alone.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:19 pm I think I have said enough. I leave you and your delusion which works perfectly alone.
Alone?
Of those who reflect on such metaphysical issues of the mind, my view is shared by >75%, which is supported by direct evidence and justified empirically. Your independent mind as an entity is claimed via speculation, without evidence and justification [thus delusional] by 25% of those who deliberate on the issue.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:12 am
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:19 pm I think I have said enough. I leave you and your delusion which works perfectly alone.
Alone?
Of those who reflect on such metaphysical issues of the mind, my view is shared by >75%, which is supported by direct evidence and justified empirically. Your independent mind as an entity is claimed via speculation, without evidence and justification [thus delusional] by 25% of those who deliberate on the issue.
Illusion cannot cause illusion that is coherent to the former since there is nothing between. Therefore, there should exist a mind that fills the gap making sure that things are coherent. QED.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:12 am
bahman wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:19 pm I think I have said enough. I leave you and your delusion which works perfectly alone.
Alone?
Of those who reflect on such metaphysical issues of the mind, my view is shared by >75%, which is supported by direct evidence and justified empirically. Your independent mind as an entity is claimed via speculation, without evidence and justification [thus delusional] by 25% of those who deliberate on the issue.
Illusion cannot cause illusion that is coherent to the former since there is nothing between. Therefore, there should exist a mind that fills the gap making sure that things are coherent. QED.
Your argument is no different for the argument for God.
  • All things do not come from nothing but are created.
    All Created things must have a Creator
    There are thing [quarks to Universe] created by a Creator.
    The Creator is God.
But where is that God which is justified by empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
And I have demonstrated;

God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I have used the same approach to counter your mind as an independent entity cannot be real empirically and philosophically.

I have insisted you show which scientist has proven your kind of mind as independent entity is real scientifically?
Then you stated, the Scientists cannot be trusted to do this.

At every turn of questioning and asking for evidences, you merely keep throwing in your very silly unjustified argument,
"there is change, so there must be an independent mind entity to close the gap".

I have given up on your above.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:12 am
Alone?
Of those who reflect on such metaphysical issues of the mind, my view is shared by >75%, which is supported by direct evidence and justified empirically. Your independent mind as an entity is claimed via speculation, without evidence and justification [thus delusional] by 25% of those who deliberate on the issue.
Illusion cannot cause illusion that is coherent to the former since there is nothing between. Therefore, there should exist a mind that fills the gap making sure that things are coherent. QED.
Your argument is no different for the argument for God.
  • All things do not come from nothing but are created.
    All Created things must have a Creator
    There are thing [quarks to Universe] created by a Creator.
    The Creator is God.
But where is that God which is justified by empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
And I have demonstrated;

God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
I have an argument against the existence of God. That is, however, a separate topic. To what comes to empirical evidence, I can conclude that there are other minds. You are not a perturbation of an stuff, matter, that you don't know what it is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am I have used the same approach to counter your mind as an independent entity cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
You cannot find mind. You have evidences for its existence though, my arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am I have insisted you show which scientist has proven your kind of mind as independent entity is real scientifically?
Then you stated, the Scientists cannot be trusted to do this.
How could you scientifically study an entity which does not have any location?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am At every turn of questioning and asking for evidences, you merely keep throwing in your very silly unjustified argument,
"there is change, so there must be an independent mind entity to close the gap".

I have given up on your above.
Can you tell me why the reality is coherent?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm
Illusion cannot cause illusion that is coherent to the former since there is nothing between. Therefore, there should exist a mind that fills the gap making sure that things are coherent. QED.
Your argument is no different for the argument for God.
  • All things do not come from nothing but are created.
    All Created things must have a Creator
    There are thing [quarks to Universe] created by a Creator.
    The Creator is God.
But where is that God which is justified by empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
And I have demonstrated;

God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
I have an argument against the existence of God. That is, however, a separate topic. To what comes to empirical evidence, I can conclude that there are other minds. You are not a perturbation of an stuff, matter, that you don't know what it is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am I have used the same approach to counter your mind as an independent entity cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
You cannot find mind. You have evidences for its existence though, my arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am I have insisted you show which scientist has proven your kind of mind as independent entity is real scientifically?
Then you stated, the Scientists cannot be trusted to do this.
How could you scientifically study an entity which does not have any location?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am At every turn of questioning and asking for evidences, you merely keep throwing in your very silly unjustified argument,
"there is change, so there must be an independent mind entity to close the gap".

I have given up on your above.
Can you tell me why the reality is coherent?
This is your irrational escape clause to avoid giving evidence and justifications;
  • bahman: How could you scientifically study an entity which does not have any location?
The above answer is very intellectually bankrupt.
Any madman can use the above reason like yours to support his claim of an independent entity [like your independent mind] they only know scientifically [most reliable in a court], but others cannot not know because it is without location.
  • Example, when a madman had killed thousands, his defense in court is,
    "GRxxL a real entity which has no location had taken over my independent mind and made me killed those thousands of people."
The illusory direction you are taking to support your mind as an independent entity is humanely irresponsible without no effective utilities but rather promote terrible evil in one extreme.

Your sort of claims re the Body-Mind Dualism has been debated ad nauseam where Dualism is ungrounded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

Note the alternative "Enactivism" which is a kind of "emergence" I proposed above.
Enactivism argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment.[1]
It claims that our environment is one which we selectively create through our capacities to interact with the world.[2] "Organisms do not passively receive information from their environments, which they then translate into internal representations. Natural cognitive systems...participate in the generation of meaning ...engaging in transformational and not merely informational interactions: they enact a world."[3] These authors suggest that the increasing emphasis upon enactive terminology presages a new era in thinking about cognitive science.
The above is grounded on empirical evidences of he acting organism and the environment to explain human actions.
There is no need to speculate the existence of an illusory location_less mind as an independent entity.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:14 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am
Your argument is no different for the argument for God.
  • All things do not come from nothing but are created.
    All Created things must have a Creator
    There are thing [quarks to Universe] created by a Creator.
    The Creator is God.
But where is that God which is justified by empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
And I have demonstrated;

God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
I have an argument against the existence of God. That is, however, a separate topic. To what comes to empirical evidence, I can conclude that there are other minds. You are not a perturbation of an stuff, matter, that you don't know what it is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am I have used the same approach to counter your mind as an independent entity cannot be real empirically and philosophically.
You cannot find mind. You have evidences for its existence though, my arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am I have insisted you show which scientist has proven your kind of mind as independent entity is real scientifically?
Then you stated, the Scientists cannot be trusted to do this.
How could you scientifically study an entity which does not have any location?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:50 am At every turn of questioning and asking for evidences, you merely keep throwing in your very silly unjustified argument,
"there is change, so there must be an independent mind entity to close the gap".

I have given up on your above.
Can you tell me why the reality is coherent?
This is your irrational escape clause to avoid giving evidence and justifications;
  • bahman: How could you scientifically study an entity which does not have any location?
The above answer is very intellectually bankrupt.
Any madman can use the above reason like yours to support his claim of an independent entity [like your independent mind] they only know scientifically [most reliable in a court], but others cannot not know because it is without location.
  • Example, when a madman had killed thousands, his defense in court is,
    "GRxxL a real entity which has no location had taken over my independent mind and made me killed those thousands of people."
The illusory direction you are taking to support your mind as an independent entity is humanely irresponsible without no effective utilities but rather promote terrible evil in one extreme.

Your sort of claims re the Body-Mind Dualism has been debated ad nauseam where Dualism is ungrounded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

Note the alternative "Enactivism" which is a kind of "emergence" I proposed above.
Enactivism argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment.[1]
It claims that our environment is one which we selectively create through our capacities to interact with the world.[2] "Organisms do not passively receive information from their environments, which they then translate into internal representations. Natural cognitive systems...participate in the generation of meaning ...engaging in transformational and not merely informational interactions: they enact a world."[3] These authors suggest that the increasing emphasis upon enactive terminology presages a new era in thinking about cognitive science.
The above is grounded on empirical evidences of he acting organism and the environment to explain human actions.
There is no need to speculate the existence of an illusory location_less mind as an independent entity.
Could you please tell me why the reality is coherent? Why your hand always move in the direction you want and not any other direction?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:14 am There is no need to speculate the existence of an illusory location_less mind as an independent entity.
Could you please tell me why the reality is coherent?
Have you heard of the pattern recognition instinct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)

To facilitate survival humans and other animals are embedded and imbued with the instinct to recognize patterns , coherency, repetitions, regularities, constancy and other similarities that is positive to survival.

This is why Hume highlighted the basis for causation, i.e. it is from human internal psychological in seeking patterns out of regularity and constancy.
Why your hand always move in the direction you want and not any other direction?
Have you heard of instincts and involuntary actions by the person?
I am sure you are familiar with teenagers and young adults who get erections often without their intentional wanting it. [or from personal experiences]
There are cases, where a person's arm would 'try' to choke the person against his will. Do you think the person wanted to choke himself? [to produce reference on this]

The majority of human actions are involuntary as triggered from the unconscious 'mind'.

It is well known the conscious 'mind' constitute only a small % [say about 10%] of the total mental capacity of the average person.

If you observe the living species, you will note the trend of increasing mental activities from lower animal to higher animals where it is only the highest evolved animal at present, i.e. humans which has the capacity of a conscious mind with a will to make decisions.

If there is an independent mind, why it is not present in non-humans?
It is highly probable given another million years, certain primates may evolved to have some kind of mind like humans which has their own independent will and make decision in accordance to some kind of conscious deliberate intentions.
Thus, the human mind as it is at present is evolved from since billions of years. The human mind is not an independent entity that appear from nowhere to inhabit in the brain of a person.

Definition of human mind is here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

This conscious mind is a system of collective mental activities emerging from an empirical person that enable the person to make conscious actions and decisions.

There is no mind as an independent entity [as you are claiming] within the empirical person interacting within an environment.

Your problem is you are like the majority driven by instincts to jump to conclusion hastily when you are ignorant of much knowledge and your own human nature.
Note the amount of justified knowledge I have thrown so far [more available] in to wake you up from your dogmatic slumber.

On the other hand, all you have is;
  • X change to Y,
    therefore there is a mind [an independent entity] to note the change.
When questioned on the above, you will provide very stupid [not intelligent and not logical] reasons to justify your confirmation bias.

I have been trying to get a 'time-out' on this, but still stuck in this! :shock:

TIME-OUT!!!
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by Dimebag »

I still don’t understand the X to Y argument for mind. Bahman, could you please explain the argument in less abstract terms more psychologically and neurobiologically?

For starters, what are these 2 “states of affairs” in terms of a brain, or one’s psychology?

Why must these 2 states of affairs change from one to the other? What is the comparison to what happens in the brain or mind?

How does some intervention or causation of an external entity called mind cause the process to be coherent?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of experience

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:26 am
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:14 am There is no need to speculate the existence of an illusory location_less mind as an independent entity.
Could you please tell me why the reality is coherent?
Have you heard of the pattern recognition instinct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)

To facilitate survival humans and other animals are embedded and imbued with the instinct to recognize patterns , coherency, repetitions, regularities, constancy and other similarities that is positive to survival.

This is why Hume highlighted the basis for causation, i.e. it is from human internal psychological in seeking patterns out of regularity and constancy.
Why your hand always move in the direction you want and not any other direction?
Have you heard of instincts and involuntary actions by the person?
I am sure you are familiar with teenagers and young adults who get erections often without their intentional wanting it. [or from personal experiences]
There are cases, where a person's arm would 'try' to choke the person against his will. Do you think the person wanted to choke himself? [to produce reference on this]

The majority of human actions are involuntary as triggered from the unconscious 'mind'.

It is well known the conscious 'mind' constitute only a small % [say about 10%] of the total mental capacity of the average person.

If you observe the living species, you will note the trend of increasing mental activities from lower animal to higher animals where it is only the highest evolved animal at present, i.e. humans which has the capacity of a conscious mind with a will to make decisions.

If there is an independent mind, why it is not present in non-humans?
It is highly probable given another million years, certain primates may evolved to have some kind of mind like humans which has their own independent will and make decision in accordance to some kind of conscious deliberate intentions.
Thus, the human mind as it is at present is evolved from since billions of years. The human mind is not an independent entity that appear from nowhere to inhabit in the brain of a person.

Definition of human mind is here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

This conscious mind is a system of collective mental activities emerging from an empirical person that enable the person to make conscious actions and decisions.

There is no mind as an independent entity [as you are claiming] within the empirical person interacting within an environment.

Your problem is you are like the majority driven by instincts to jump to conclusion hastily when you are ignorant of much knowledge and your own human nature.
Note the amount of justified knowledge I have thrown so far [more available] in to wake you up from your dogmatic slumber.

On the other hand, all you have is;
  • X change to Y,
    therefore there is a mind [an independent entity] to note the change.
When questioned on the above, you will provide very stupid [not intelligent and not logical] reasons to justify your confirmation bias.

I have been trying to get a 'time-out' on this, but still stuck in this! :shock:

TIME-OUT!!!
I heard all these before. Again, there are three phenomena, experience, decision and causation. You need to explain how each of these phenomena is possible and how they are possibly coherent. Telling that is emergence doesn't cut. You need to tell how emergence is possible. Telling that the correlation is gained through evolution doesn't cut it either.
Post Reply