Another proof of mind

[bahman]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

[Dontaskme]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

Truth needs no proof.

You need proof.

The 'you' needs proof, when there is a need for image. Kind of like a demand for knowledge.

The 'you' does this by looking in the mirror that is the external world appearing within you. A world that reflects the image of you in whatever concept comes to mind. The mind takes the shape of the reflection... as both the 'looker' and the 'looked upon' are absolutely identical..


The mind is empty fullness. I'ts a fictional idea.


In reality, reality does not demand proof....

Beautifully illustrated here > ''The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection The water has no mind to receive their image.''

[bahman]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

Truth needs no proof.

You need proof.

The 'you' needs proof, when there is a need for image. Kind of like a demand for knowledge.

The 'you' does this by looking in the mirror that is the external world appearing within you. A world that reflects the image of you in whatever concept comes to mind. The mind takes the shape of the reflection... as both the 'looker' and the 'looked upon' are absolutely identical..


The mind is empty fullness. I'ts a fictional idea.


In reality, reality does not demand proof....

Beautifully illustrated here > ''The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection The water has no mind to receive their image.''

The mind is not fictional.

[Dontaskme]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

Truth needs no proof.

You need proof.

The 'you' needs proof, when there is a need for image. Kind of like a demand for knowledge.

The 'you' does this by looking in the mirror that is the external world appearing within you. A world that reflects the image of you in whatever concept comes to mind. The mind takes the shape of the reflection... as both the 'looker' and the 'looked upon' are absolutely identical..


The mind is empty fullness. I'ts a fictional idea.


In reality, reality does not demand proof....

Beautifully illustrated here > ''The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection The water has no mind to receive their image.''

The mind is not fictional.

Mind is a real fiction.

[Dimebag]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

I think the second term should be changed to

“Nothing can move or change itself without a cause, either internal or external”

But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.

What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?

[bahman]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

I think the second term should be changed to

“Nothing can move or change itself without a cause, either internal or external”

But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.

What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?

The argument uses the fact that there are things that are subject to change (perhaps one should use "there are things in this world that are moving or changing" instead of saying that "everything is changing"). God/mind is not subjected to change so the argument does not beg the question.

[Dontaskme]

Truth needs no proof.

[Dimebag]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

I think the second term should be changed to

“Nothing can move or change itself without a cause, either internal or external”

But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.

What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?

The argument uses the fact that there are things that are subject to change (perhaps one should use "there are things in this world that are moving or changing" instead of saying that "everything is changing"). God/mind is not subjected to change so the argument does not beg the question.

If god is not subject to change, yet this is all the mind of god, that is logically inconsistent.

If god is, the universal mind containing all things and minds, then, on the relative level, god changes, but on the absolute, god is the changeless thingless principle.

[Belinda]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

The prime mover is not within any causal chain, such as the chain of events that we inhabit, but is cause of itself.

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.

[bahman]

I think the second term should be changed to

“Nothing can move or change itself without a cause, either internal or external”

But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.

What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?

The argument uses the fact that there are things that are subject to change (perhaps one should use "there are things in this world that are moving or changing" instead of saying that "everything is changing"). God/mind is not subjected to change so the argument does not beg the question.

If god is not subject to change, yet this is all the mind of god, that is logically inconsistent.

What do you mean by "this" (bold part)?

If god is, the universal mind containing all things and minds, then, on the relative level, god changes, but on the absolute, god is the changeless thingless principle.

God does not contain all things.

[bahman]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself
P3 There cannot be an infinite regress of things changing other things
C1 There must be a first changer (a Prime Mover)
C2 The Prime Mover is God (mind in my opinion)

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.

The prime mover is not within any causal chain, such as the chain of events that we inhabit, but is cause of itself.

This applies to the mind too.

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.

[Dontaskme]

This I know. But this obviously wrong since we are also causes of some events too.

That which caused the big bang (assumed beginning) is causing you.

There is no ''we'' causing anything. The ''we'' is caused, (past tense/ ending) the ''we'' is not the causer.

In reality, there is no known beginning nor end to anything. Except in this artificial conception, via mental division of opposites, namely, concept.

In other words, the mind that divides reality into two...cannot itself make two one...

The mind is an appearance within an appearance within an appearance ...add infintum.....

Each appearance, and disappearance is what is known as the beginning and end, of which there are an infinite number of.

.

[Walker]

Truth needs no proof.

Truth sometimes gets poofed-up for comfort. Same goes for proofed.

Any man, beast, ilk, (or sting of adjectives) that doesn't need comfort is indeed a hard case, although a spoonful of sugar does make the medicine go down. Same goes for string.

[Dontaskme]

Truth needs no proof.

Truth sometimes gets poofed-up for comfort. Same goes for proofed.

Any man, beast, ilk, (or sting of adjectives) that doesn't need comfort is indeed a hard case, although a spoonful of sugar does make the medicine go down. Same goes for string.

As usual, I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are going on about.

But, staying on topic, getting BACK to the actual point...which is of the MIND.

All images are projections of what is fundamentally imageless.. Truth is always relative to the absolute truth, as a mirror image, any distinction between the relative and the absolute is fundamentally indistinguishable, except in this illusory conception.


Mind cannot prove it exists, no more than a machine can know it's maker. If you think a machine can know it's maker, then prove it, and do so in 6 words.

[Dontaskme]

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.