Mind is immortal

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh yeah, My argument is simple, two premises and one conclusion:

1) Mind is irreducible,
2) Anything which is irreducible is immortal,
3) Therefore, mind is immortal.

I can prove the two premises.

Your premise 1 is unsound.

• 1. You did not defined "mind" which I am aware in your case, is an ontological independent entity/thing which I do not agree with.
  In this case, you presumed your ontological 'mind' exists without proving it exists and is real.
  
  2. "Reduction" ??
  There is no such thing as absolute 'reduction'.
  At present Science has reduce the physical to only a limited range thus this reduction is at best pseudo and not absolute.

Premise 2 is an impossibility;

• 3. "Immortality"
  Immortality is eternal life, being exempt from death; unending existence.
  The idea of immortality is illusory in terms of 'mind'.

All the elements 1-3 are false and not realistic,
therefore your conclusion is false.

[attofishpi]

• 3. "Immortality"
  Immortality is eternal life, being exempt from death; unending existence.
  The idea of immortality is illusory in terms of 'mind'.

Which is why I asked bahman what he means by 'mind'.

If in the least attribute, a mind must include a collection of memories, then it is lost upon reincarnation. (or so it appears from all accounts )

[bahman]

Not relevant.

It is relevant. The mind is real if the free decision is real. It then follows that the mind is irreducible as the free decision is irreducible.

Your burden is to demonstrate that mind is immortal.
You cannot do that.
Your premise remains a speculation based on a wish.

I can prove the second premise (the first premise is illustrated in the previous comment, it is obvious). The second premise can be proven by other arguments, 1) The mind cannot be created and 2) Something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated. I have a separate thread for each of these.

Minds are created everyday.
I have a son. Once he did not used to exist. He was created by sex, and his mind was generated by his neural tissue which did not exist 24 years ago.
QED minds are created.
QED you are talking nonsense

You don't pay any attention to my argument. Mind is irreducible. You cannot create something which is irreducible. I have an argument for that.

[bahman]

Mind is irreducible since it makes free decision. Anything which is irreducible is immortal. Mind, therefore, is immortal.

What is a mind?

The mind is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. It is irreducible because it can freely decide. Something that is irreducible cannot be annihilated. Therefore, the mind is immortal.

[bahman]

Oh yeah, My argument is simple, two premises and one conclusion:

1) Mind is irreducible,
2) Anything which is irreducible is immortal,
3) Therefore, mind is immortal.

I can prove the two premises.

Your premise 1 is unsound.

1. You did not defined "mind" which I am aware in your case, is an ontological independent entity/thing which I do not agree with.
In this case, you presumed your ontological 'mind' exists without proving it exists and is real.

What is known is that there is a correlation between experience and brain activity. Consciousness is due to Matter activity. There is causation too. In the middle, we have a decision. Brain activity cannot resolve the conflict of interest in a situation when options are equally liked. That is true since the matter is a deterministic substance, one input and one output. There is no algorithm for free decision. It is not due to a deterministic object.

In simple words, the free decision is irreducible. The matter is reducible. Therefore, the free decision is not due to matter. It is due to the mind.

2. "Reduction" ??
There is no such thing as absolute 'reduction'.
At present Science has reduce the physical to only a limited range thus this reduction is at best pseudo and not absolute.

Premise 2 is an impossibility;

Matter can be annihilated. Therefore, it is reducible. Something which is irreducible cannot be created and therefore cannot be annihilated too. I have an argument for that in separate threads.

3. "Immortality"
Immortality is eternal life, being exempt from death; unending existence.
The idea of immortality is illusory in terms of 'mind'.

All the elements 1-3 are false and not realistic,
therefore your conclusion is false.

3 follows from 1 and 2. Can we focus on 1 and 2?

[attofishpi]

Mind is irreducible since it makes free decision. Anything which is irreducible is immortal. Mind, therefore, is immortal.

What is a mind?

The mind is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. It is irreducible because it can freely decide. Something that is irreducible cannot be annihilated. Therefore, the mind is immortal.

So the mind does not necessarily have to be what humans consider ..intelligent?

[bahman]

What is a mind?

The mind is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. It is irreducible because it can freely decide. Something that is irreducible cannot be annihilated. Therefore, the mind is immortal.

So the mind does not necessarily have to be what humans consider ..intelligent?

Mind control the matter, in case of human, the body.

[Sculptor]

It is relevant. The mind is real if the free decision is real. It then follows that the mind is irreducible as the free decision is irreducible.


I can prove the second premise (the first premise is illustrated in the previous comment, it is obvious). The second premise can be proven by other arguments, 1) The mind cannot be created and 2) Something which cannot be created cannot be annihilated. I have a separate thread for each of these.

Minds are created everyday.
I have a son. Once he did not used to exist. He was created by sex, and his mind was generated by his neural tissue which did not exist 24 years ago.
QED minds are created.
QED you are talking nonsense

You don't pay any attention to my argument. Mind is irreducible.

You are not paying attention to the facts. You have no argument.
Mind is reducible; created and destroyed.

You cannot create something which is irreducible. I have an argument for that.

DUH

[Dubious]

Without neurons minds wouldn't exist. But neurons also exist in the lower gut which has a mind of its own. This creates a quandary as to whether each is immortal or only one. My personal experience is that it's not unusual for the upper mind to cuss out the lower one telling it that whatever mind it has to blow it out of its caboose.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh yeah, My argument is simple, two premises and one conclusion:

I can prove the two premises.

Your premise 1 is unsound.

1. You did not defined "mind" which I am aware in your case, is an ontological independent entity/thing which I do not agree with.
In this case, you presumed your ontological 'mind' exists without proving it exists and is real.

What is known is that there is a correlation between experience and brain activity. Consciousness is due to Matter activity. There is causation too. In the middle, we have a decision. Brain activity cannot resolve the conflict of interest in a situation when options are equally liked. That is true since the matter is a deterministic substance, one input and one output. There is no algorithm for free decision. It is not due to a deterministic object.

In simple words, the free decision is irreducible. The matter is reducible. Therefore, the free decision is not due to matter. It is due to the mind.

We have gone through the above before.

The simple fact is when the person is dead there is no ontological independent human mind to talk about.
The urge to insist there is an ontological independent human mind is due to desperate psychology.

2. "Reduction" ??
There is no such thing as absolute 'reduction'.
At present Science has reduce the physical to only a limited range thus this reduction is at best pseudo and not absolute.

Premise 2 is an impossibility;

Matter can be annihilated. Therefore, it is reducible. Something which is irreducible cannot be created and therefore cannot be annihilated too. I have an argument for that in separate threads.

Question is, it is reducible to what fundamental element?

Yes, water is reducible to H2O atoms, atoms to nucleus and electrons, .....quarks, particles or waves, strings [speculation], higgs boson, ... what else?
but what is the ultimate element it is reducible to?
Without knowing the possible final element, such a reduction is merely a convenient linguistic term that things can be broken up with a certain limit but not to any ultimate level.

From another perspective, reduction is ultimately reduced partly to the observers, i.e. the subjects. I have argued for this from the Philosophical Anti-Realist perspective.

3. "Immortality"
Immortality is eternal life, being exempt from death; unending existence.
The idea of immortality is illusory in terms of 'mind'.

All the elements 1-3 are false and not realistic,
therefore your conclusion is false.

3 follows from 1 and 2. Can we focus on 1 and 2?

All elements within the argument must be true.
If one element is false, then the conclusion is false.

In your case all your premises are false.

[Spyrith]

Mind is irreducible since it makes free decision. Anything which is irreducible is immortal. Mind, therefore, is immortal.

It is not certain that the mind makes free decisions. When you are in the present and look towards the future, it does appear to be so. However, when you look into the past it seems there was really only one choice available.

Even if that were not the case, is drinking water a free decision? After all, you are compelled to do so and always obey this command.

[bahman]

Minds are created everyday.
I have a son. Once he did not used to exist. He was created by sex, and his mind was generated by his neural tissue which did not exist 24 years ago.
QED minds are created.
QED you are talking nonsense

You don't pay any attention to my argument. Mind is irreducible.

You are not paying attention to the facts.

What fact? The only fact is that there is a correlation between brain activity and conscious experience. You are not experience but experiencer. No motion in the stuff that we experience, matter, no experience.

You have no argument.

I do. But instead of you attacking it, you bring your fact which doesn't indicate what you claim.

Mind is reducible; created and destroyed.

Is your free decision reducible to anything too?

DUH

Yes DUH.

[bahman]

Without neurons minds wouldn't exist. But neurons also exist in the lower gut which has a mind of its own. This creates a quandary as to whether each is immortal or only one. My personal experience is that it's not unusual for the upper mind to cuss out the lower one telling it that whatever mind it has to blow it out of its caboose.

There is no emergence of mind. Mind cannot be emergent since it freely decides, free decision is irreducible, matter is reducible. Therefore there a mind.

[bahman]

Your premise 1 is unsound.

1. You did not defined "mind" which I am aware in your case, is an ontological independent entity/thing which I do not agree with.
In this case, you presumed your ontological 'mind' exists without proving it exists and is real.

What is known is that there is a correlation between experience and brain activity. Consciousness is due to Matter activity. There is causation too. In the middle, we have a decision. Brain activity cannot resolve the conflict of interest in a situation when options are equally liked. That is true since the matter is a deterministic substance, one input and one output. There is no algorithm for free decision. It is not due to a deterministic object.

In simple words, the free decision is irreducible. The matter is reducible. Therefore, the free decision is not due to matter. It is due to the mind.

We have gone through the above before.

The simple fact is when the person is dead there is no ontological independent human mind to talk about.
The urge to insist there is an ontological independent human mind is due to desperate psychology.

No, we have not been through this before. In here I am saying that free decision is irreducible, therefore it is due to something irreducible instead of reducible, such as matter.

2. "Reduction" ??
There is no such thing as absolute 'reduction'.
At present Science has reduce the physical to only a limited range thus this reduction is at best pseudo and not absolute.

Premise 2 is an impossibility;

Matter can be annihilated. Therefore, it is reducible. Something which is irreducible cannot be created and therefore cannot be annihilated too. I have an argument for that in separate threads.

Question is, it is reducible to what fundamental element?

Yes, water is reducible to H2O atoms, atoms to nucleus and electrons, .....quarks, particles or waves, strings [speculation], higgs boson, ... what else?
but what is the ultimate element it is reducible to?
Without knowing the possible final element, such a reduction is merely a convenient linguistic term that things can be broken up with a certain limit but not to any ultimate level.

From another perspective, reduction is ultimately reduced partly to the observers, i.e. the subjects. I have argued for this from the Philosophical Anti-Realist perspective.

An electron and positron annihilate upon the collision. The result is photon. Matter obviously reducible. It cannot give rise to something irreducible, such as free decision.

3. "Immortality"
Immortality is eternal life, being exempt from death; unending existence.
The idea of immortality is illusory in terms of 'mind'.

All the elements 1-3 are false and not realistic,
therefore your conclusion is false.

3 follows from 1 and 2. Can we focus on 1 and 2?

All elements within the argument must be true.
If one element is false, then the conclusion is false.

In your case all your premises are false.

They are correct.

[bahman]

Mind is irreducible since it makes free decision. Anything which is irreducible is immortal. Mind, therefore, is immortal.

It is not certain that the mind makes free decisions.

I am arguing that mind is necessary. Matter is irreducible, free decision is not.

When you are in the present and look towards the future, it does appear to be so. However, when you look into the past it seems there was really only one choice available.

That is not the case when you make free decision.

Even if that were not the case, is drinking water a free decision? After all, you are compelled to do so and always obey this command.

Free decision applies to situation in which the options are equally liked or we are uncertain about the outcome of our decisions in the future.