There is a change therefore there is a mind

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:22 am
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:30 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:24 pm
No, it's experientially different; thus an experiential change. Or in other words, this isn't an example of time occurring but there being no changes.

If you're saying that there's no experiential difference, no experiential change, then there's no way to tell if time occurs or not--no way to tell a millisecond from 2 days. And thus it's no evidence of time occurring, and again it's not an example of what I asked for.

(Of course, what I asked for an example of is impossible, because the notion of it is completely incoherent, which is the point.)
What do you want as an example? And when you are waiting time changes regardless if another subject of your experience changes or not.
Surely the knowledge of waiting IS evidence of change.

But, you are referring to some chosen target of change. But meanwhile, as your chosen target of change remains static, other changes are happening all around you, and indeed, inside you the whole time. Neurons firing, neurotransmitters being released, breathe going in and out, the heart beating, the blood circulating.

Life IS change. It relies ON change, as it is a dynamic process. So unless you pause time, there will be change, at least in your immediate vicinity.

This is not to mention all of the micro-jiggles of particles of non organic material, air particles bumping into each other, cosmic rays passing through you, and all other matter in the vicinity, light rays striking the surface of your skin, UV rays, breaking through the top layers of your skin and striking the DNA in your cells, altering their patterns. The continual dying and renewing of cells in your body, and expressions of genes from DNA.

Then there is the movement of our planet as it rotates about its axis, and its movement relative to the sun as it orbits, and our solar system’s motion around the galaxy, then our galaxies relative motion to other galaxies.

There is SO much change to speak of, happening every second, 99.999% of which we are not aware of at any moment, which doesn’t rely on our observation to happen.

Imagine we observe a planet through a telescope, say, mars one day. Then a week later, we observe it again. Now, it’s position in the sky relative to the background of constellations has changed. It seemingly jumped from one point to another point, with no smooth transition, skipping large swathes of space in between. Now obviously, the planet Mars had to pass through all points in between its initial observed point, and the new point. The planet mars has a particular velocity which seems not to change, and so, we can infer its position between both observation points at any time, based on some equation for planetary motion.

So, even though we didn’t observe it pass through all those transitionary points in space, we know it must have. Thus, there must be change without at least OUR observation of it.

Now, you claim, there must be A mind to allow any change. Since it cannot be OUR mind which oversees all change of the universe, it must be some universal mind, which exists outside of time, and space, as it observes all points at all times. Is there a difference between a universe without a grand observing and overseeing mind, and one with one?

You would claim such a universe would be incapable of changing.

This is all because, you can’t imagine how a particle could travel from point a to point b, without this universal mind allowing it to happen. You say, for anything to move, it must disappear at point a, and reappear at point b. What if, and I know this sounds like crazy talk, but, what if a particle, which seems to be a pattern of information, could travel between those two points. Such particles possess all the necessary forces to allow this to happen, such as momentum, energy, spin etc. Physics has described all those properties which allow all the changes to occur.

Is it inconceivable, that these changes could take place, based on these described rules, without the need for an overseeing mind to give the OK for such changes to happen?

If we can describe the system without the need for such an overseeing mind, why then come along and demand that such a mind is necessary, when physics sees no need for one? This would be far more parsimonious.

I am still not convinced that such a mind is necessary.

Now we haven’t gone down the path of quantum uncertainty yet, and how you might be able to insert such a mind there, or find some reason why a mind is necessary. There is of course the interpretation of quantum mechanics that DOES describe the need for the subjective observation in order to allow quantum uncertainty of the wave function to collapse and for the system to be pinned down to a particular state, namely the Copenhagen interpretation.

I don’t know enough about either quantum mechanics, or that particular interpretation, nor other interpretations, to pass judgement on whether such a mind might slide into that realm. But, it would seem to be that, if there Were such a universal mind overseeing ALL points in the universe, there would be NO uncertainty and thus, no weird quantum effects. So, maybe the fact that we do observe such quantum weirdness such as superpostion, uncertainty, etc, would be evidence of ABSENCE of a universal mind, otherwise, there would be NO uncertainty, all particles position, momentum, etc would be known, and thus, we would have a purely mechanistic description of subatomic physics.
Of course, there are changes in your brain, body, and rest of the world when your subject of experience seems static and you are waiting. Your mind experiences the byproduct of your brain activity though which this byproduct is a physical state and it is static. You are in fact not your brain otherwise you couldn't have a moment of silence. But even if we accept that the experience is an emergent property of the brain activity then we are faced with other problems such as the one that I discussed in depth in this thread. Needless to say that I have an argument against emergence that you can find it in here.

I am still thinking about the uncertainty principle.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:10 am
By the way, even if we say that for x to change to y, say, x has to disappear and then y appear, why can't that happen? Why would a mind be necessary for that to happen? And if disappearance and subsequent appearance of something different is necessary for change, then that would be the case for minds, too, no? So if minds can disappear and subsequently appear in order for change to obtain, then why can't other things?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:29 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:10 am
By the way, even if we say that for x to change to y, say, x has to disappear and then y appear, why can't that happen? Why would a mind be necessary for that to happen? And if disappearance and subsequent appearance of something different is necessary for change, then that would be the case for minds, too, no? So if minds can disappear and subsequently appear in order for change to obtain, then why can't other things?
Because of the fact that there is a small amount of time needed that there is nothing between the process of x to y. That is because first, x and y cannot coincide and therefore they are in the vicinity of each other. The process also is continuous.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:48 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:29 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:10 am
By the way, even if we say that for x to change to y, say, x has to disappear and then y appear, why can't that happen? Why would a mind be necessary for that to happen? And if disappearance and subsequent appearance of something different is necessary for change, then that would be the case for minds, too, no? So if minds can disappear and subsequently appear in order for change to obtain, then why can't other things?
Because of the fact that there is a small amount of time needed that there is nothing between the process of x to y. That is because first, x and y cannot coincide and therefore they are in the vicinity of each other. The process also is continuous.
Huh???

What does that have to do with requiring minds?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:18 am
bahman wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:48 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:29 pm

By the way, even if we say that for x to change to y, say, x has to disappear and then y appear, why can't that happen? Why would a mind be necessary for that to happen? And if disappearance and subsequent appearance of something different is necessary for change, then that would be the case for minds, too, no? So if minds can disappear and subsequently appear in order for change to obtain, then why can't other things?
Because of the fact that there is a small amount of time needed that there is nothing between the process of x to y. That is because first, x and y cannot coincide and therefore they are in the vicinity of each other. The process also is continuous.
Huh???

What does that have to do with requiring minds?
Think through.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:18 am
bahman wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:48 pm
Because of the fact that there is a small amount of time needed that there is nothing between the process of x to y. That is because first, x and y cannot coincide and therefore they are in the vicinity of each other. The process also is continuous.
Huh???

What does that have to do with requiring minds?
Think through.
Lol. In other words, it has nothing to do with what I asked you.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:12 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:18 am
Huh???

What does that have to do with requiring minds?
Think through.
Lol. In other words, it has nothing to do with what I asked you.
Why you are bothering. Are you interested?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:59 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:12 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:46 am
Think through.
Lol. In other words, it has nothing to do with what I asked you.
Why you are bothering. Are you interested?
I'd be interested if I could get a cogent response, and then I tend to be an "irrational optimist," which is why I keep bothering despite the repeated outcome.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:44 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:59 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:12 am
Lol. In other words, it has nothing to do with what I asked you.
Why you are bothering. Are you interested?
I'd be interested if I could get a cogent response, and then I tend to be an "irrational optimist," which is why I keep bothering despite the repeated outcome.
Don't you know that a continuous line can be divided without any limit?
Post Reply