To Immanuel Can

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:52 pm How does karma is calculated and applied to life of people?
That's a big question, and again, it's part of the "whole worldview" that is necessary to Hinduism and Buddhism. It has to do with the idea of a division between the spirtual and the material, and "the God," i.e. their ultimate cosmic "oneness" or "mind" reckoning things. But it's one heck of a big question to try to answer in full here.
Okay. I remember that I asked this question in a Buddhist forum but they didn't have any answer for it.
Really? Very interesting.

I know how their "big thinkers" tend to think about it. But perhaps the "lay" Buddhists don't.

It has to do with the idea of cosmic oneness, and the necessity of the Great Unitary Being breaking itself into two entities in order to be able to exist and to be able to contemplate itself. But that's far too weird an explanation for most folks.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
So the mind changes!

Sort of. In their view, it doesn't change positionally or materially. So there's no "movement" and no "distance" being involved.

I guess you could think of it this way: when you say, "My mind is rambling," your body may remain sitting. We might say that in your ideas, you "move," but not in any physical dimension.

So no, that doesn't let us get into "substances" and "causes" from there.
So if mind changes then it is contingent, and needs a sustainer.
No, they wouldn't think that. They wouldn't say that the great Mind is contingent. They'd say it's eternal. Ironically, they also have to insist that the material world is also eternal; because without the two, nothing exists, in their theory.
I think they are dealing with a paradox: a changeless thing that changes.
It depends what one means by "changes." It changes nothing in terms of essence or existence. And the things that appear to change in the physical world are just maya, and don't actually change.

But you're right to say there's something deeply incoherent about their view. And worse still, for them, we now know for certain that the universe, the material world, is not eternal. So the problem of existence for the great Mind isn't solved by reference to it.
But the janitor has the capacity to think and understand certain things.
He can only think things at a relatively simple level.
You are mixing the ability to think with intelligence.
Not at all. I'm speaking of IQ. Do you know what IQ measures, and how it does? If you're not sure, you should check it out. It's not dependent on particular information, but on things like ability to abstract or skill at logical prediction, and so on. These are universal abilities, not mere experiential or informational ones. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-th ... calculated
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Intelligence however is the result of many minds working with each other.
Not at all.

Einstein will still have an IQ of around 160, which is the maximum for a human being. The janitor's IQ is at the level of a little less than 10% of the world's population. No amount of anything will produce a 160 out of a 90 mind.

And even if he were alone all his life, Einstein's IQ would still be what it was, and so would the janitor's, even if he were surrounded by brilliant others.

IQ is not a function of experience, but of capacity.
And how IQ of different people is different? I mean they all have brains which are consist of neurons.
Not all neurons are the same. And not all neural pathways are the same, nor are all neurochemicals. Brain physiology differs.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I mean stroke.
Yes, I've seen a person who has had a stroke.
So you know that intelligence, emotion, etc. could be impaired by stroke? Does your mind change when you have a stroke? How about when you are in a coma? Does your mind disappear when you die?
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "mind," before I could answer; because people use that word many ways. Sometimes, they mean "intelligence," but sometimes just "consciousness" or "self-awareness," or just general "thinking," or "problem-solving," or "soul," or "the locus of personal identity."

Mind can be all of these things: and if somebody has a stroke, some will change more than others.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I believe in absolute truth and suffering.
Then you can't, in consistency, believe in reincarnation, or that truth is relative, or that suffering is something you've chosen and isn't evil.
There was a voice that told me that I will find the Absolute Truth.
And you say you remember this? And you have some reason to think this "voice" was telling you the truth?
I am telling you the truth.
I didn't ask. I wasn't expressing doubt as to your own truthfulness.

All I was asking is how YOU know this "voice" was telling YOU the truth. That's all.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Bad is different from evil.
Is evil bad?
No, evil is a state of mind.

Then imagine something different, and it goes away?
Bad is an action/choice prohibited.
"Prohibited" by whom?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
you recognize evil but you cannot justify it from a God who is Good.
Actually, there are very good explanations for the existence of evil, granted a good God. We were working on some of those earlier, but you moved to other topics. We can go back to that question when you wish.
How about opening another thread and discussing it there?
When you wish.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 9:48 pm
I didn't ask for anything.
You chose it, you say.

You got what you chose. It's hard to feel any sympathy for somebody who's chosen to cause his/her own suffering.
Accepting things unconditionally is different from choosing things.
I don't see how. The "voice" gave you a choice to go or not. You said, "Go."

You got what you asked for. Why complain about "suffering" now? You weren't promised not to suffer, if your deal was "unconditional," as you say.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:47 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
That's a big question, and again, it's part of the "whole worldview" that is necessary to Hinduism and Buddhism. It has to do with the idea of a division between the spirtual and the material, and "the God," i.e. their ultimate cosmic "oneness" or "mind" reckoning things. But it's one heck of a big question to try to answer in full here.
Okay. I remember that I asked this question in a Buddhist forum but they didn't have any answer for it.
Really? Very interesting.

I know how their "big thinkers" tend to think about it. But perhaps the "lay" Buddhists don't.
Yes, they asked me to meditate on the question myself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm It has to do with the idea of cosmic oneness, and the necessity of the Great Unitary Being breaking itself into two entities in order to be able to exist and to be able to contemplate itself. But that's far too weird an explanation for most folks.
You don't need to break yourself into two entities in order to exist and contemplate yourself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Sort of. In their view, it doesn't change positionally or materially. So there's no "movement" and no "distance" being involved.

I guess you could think of it this way: when you say, "My mind is rambling," your body may remain sitting. We might say that in your ideas, you "move," but not in any physical dimension.

So no, that doesn't let us get into "substances" and "causes" from there.
So if mind changes then it is contingent, and needs a sustainer.
No, they wouldn't think that. They wouldn't say that the great Mind is contingent. They'd say it's eternal. Ironically, they also have to insist that the material world is also eternal; because without the two, nothing exists, in their theory.
But nothing could exist eternally in past. There should be no suffering if the material world if it is also eternal.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
But the janitor has the capacity to think and understand certain things.
He can only think things at a relatively simple level.
Yes, that is what I mean. IQ however depends on how minds are connected to each other. That is true since the reality is simply made of minds and qualia.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
You are mixing the ability to think with intelligence.
Not at all. I'm speaking of IQ. Do you know what IQ measures, and how it does? If you're not sure, you should check it out. It's not dependent on particular information, but on things like ability to abstract or skill at logical prediction, and so on. These are universal abilities, not mere experiential or informational ones. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-th ... calculated
I know all these.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Not at all.

Einstein will still have an IQ of around 160, which is the maximum for a human being. The janitor's IQ is at the level of a little less than 10% of the world's population. No amount of anything will produce a 160 out of a 90 mind.

And even if he were alone all his life, Einstein's IQ would still be what it was, and so would the janitor's, even if he were surrounded by brilliant others.

IQ is not a function of experience, but of capacity.
And how IQ of different people is different? I mean they all have brains which are consist of neurons.
Not all neurons are the same. And not all neural pathways are the same, nor are all neurochemicals. Brain physiology differs.
That is what I mean. Minds are connected with each other in different manners depending on the individual.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Yes, I've seen a person who has had a stroke.
So you know that intelligence, emotion, etc. could be impaired by stroke? Does your mind change when you have a stroke? How about when you are in a coma? Does your mind disappear when you die?
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "mind," before I could answer; because people use that word many ways. Sometimes, they mean "intelligence," but sometimes just "consciousness" or "self-awareness," or just general "thinking," or "problem-solving," or "soul," or "the locus of personal identity."

Mind can be all of these things: and if somebody has a stroke, some will change more than others.
And what is mind to you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Then you can't, in consistency, believe in reincarnation, or that truth is relative, or that suffering is something you've chosen and isn't evil.

And you say you remember this? And you have some reason to think this "voice" was telling you the truth?
I am telling you the truth.
I didn't ask. I wasn't expressing doubt as to your own truthfulness.

All I was asking is how YOU know this "voice" was telling YOU the truth. That's all.
It seems that what She said is coming true.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Is evil bad?
No, evil is a state of mind.

Then imagine something different, and it goes away?
You can. But sometimes Devils play with your mind.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Bad is an action/choice prohibited.
"Prohibited" by whom?
By any intellectual who is dealing with a situation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Actually, there are very good explanations for the existence of evil, granted a good God. We were working on some of those earlier, but you moved to other topics. We can go back to that question when you wish.
How about opening another thread and discussing it there?
When you wish.
Ok, I will open it shortly.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 9:48 pm You chose it, you say.

You got what you chose. It's hard to feel any sympathy for somebody who's chosen to cause his/her own suffering.
Accepting things unconditionally is different from choosing things.
I don't see how. The "voice" gave you a choice to go or not. You said, "Go."

You got what you asked for. Why complain about "suffering" now? You weren't promised not to suffer, if your deal was "unconditional," as you say.
I complain about your system of belief when it comes to suffering.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:47 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:09 pm
Okay. I remember that I asked this question in a Buddhist forum but they didn't have any answer for it.
Really? Very interesting.

I know how their "big thinkers" tend to think about it. But perhaps the "lay" Buddhists don't.
Yes, they asked me to meditate on the question myself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm It has to do with the idea of cosmic oneness, and the necessity of the Great Unitary Being breaking itself into two entities in order to be able to exist and to be able to contemplate itself. But that's far too weird an explanation for most folks.
You don't need to break yourself into two entities in order to exist and contemplate yourself.
I can tell you how the reasoning goes.

Picture it like this: imagine that everything was just one substance. Like, imagine that everything was made of nothing but pure oxygen, or let's say, of water. The atmosphere is of water, your body is water, your mind is water...everything of one substance. Not even a membrane is different, so everything is completely of one thing.

If that were the case, nothing would exist. Because not one thing would be distinct from anything else. If all is one, then nothing is anything different or special in any way. Nothing is a "thing," in that sense. All is water. Everything flows. And there is nothing real. Even "water" stops being a thing, because "water" can only be said "exist" inasmuch as it remains distinct from things like "land" or "dry." So if there's only one substance, nothing exists.

So for the Eastern philosopher, their have to be two different substances of things: let's call one "spiritual" and one "physical." Both have to be eternal, because without at least two different things, nothing would exist. So "the god" or "the divine principle," if you prefer, divides into these to things, so as that existence is possible, and "the god" has an object to contemplate or locate as distinct.

I'm not at all saying that's right: I'm saying that's a rough representation of the logic behind the belief.
But nothing could exist eternally in past.

You're right...at least, no entity with an origin or cause could. They're all contingent.
There should be no suffering if the material world if it is also eternal.
This is their reasoning for the whole "wheel of samsara" thing. It's their way of accounting for the fact that there is suffering...because we can see that there is. It's their way of trying to explain its meaning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
But the janitor has the capacity to think and understand certain things.
He can only think things at a relatively simple level.
Yes, that is what I mean. IQ however depends on how minds are connected to each other.
No, it does not.

Einstein would still have an IQ Of 160, even if he were living on a desert island by himself. And the janitor would still have an IQ of 90, even if he worked at the university among scholars. Their minds can't fix his, or raise his IQ.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
You are mixing the ability to think with intelligence.
Not at all. I'm speaking of IQ. Do you know what IQ measures, and how it does? If you're not sure, you should check it out. It's not dependent on particular information, but on things like ability to abstract or skill at logical prediction, and so on. These are universal abilities, not mere experiential or informational ones. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-th ... calculated
I know all these.
Then you know that IQ is not measured by "other minds."
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
And how IQ of different people is different? I mean they all have brains which are consist of neurons.
Not all neurons are the same. And not all neural pathways are the same, nor are all neurochemicals. Brain physiology differs.
That is what I mean.

No, it's the opposite of what you said, not the same.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
So you know that intelligence, emotion, etc. could be impaired by stroke? Does your mind change when you have a stroke? How about when you are in a coma? Does your mind disappear when you die?
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "mind," before I could answer; because people use that word many ways. Sometimes, they mean "intelligence," but sometimes just "consciousness" or "self-awareness," or just general "thinking," or "problem-solving," or "soul," or "the locus of personal identity."

Mind can be all of these things: and if somebody has a stroke, some will change more than others.
And what is mind to you?
It depends on the context. But since you're the one who's raising the word, maybe you should tell me what you want me to understand from your use of the word.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm

I am telling you the truth.
I didn't ask. I wasn't expressing doubt as to your own truthfulness.

All I was asking is how YOU know this "voice" was telling YOU the truth. That's all.
It seems that what She said is coming true.
You think this voice is female? What makes you think so?
...sometimes Devils play with your mind.
So you believe in devils?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Bad is an action/choice prohibited.
"Prohibited" by whom?
By any intellectual who is dealing with a situation.
But intellectuals can be evil. Some criminals are very smart.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Accepting things unconditionally is different from choosing things.
I don't see how. The "voice" gave you a choice to go or not. You said, "Go."

You got what you asked for. Why complain about "suffering" now? You weren't promised not to suffer, if your deal was "unconditional," as you say.
I complain about your system of belief when it comes to suffering.
How can you, in your belief system, even detect that there is such a thing as suffering, so as to raise the question? Because according to what you say you believe, you agreed to be here "unconditionally." So nothing here is not something you agreed to accept, and nothing is suffering. Moreover, you can't raise a criticism of anybody else's belief system, because whatever anybody believes is simply part of the "unconditional" terms you say you accepted at birth. You were never promised that people would not believe different things from you, were you?

But you do raise the question: so does that mean you don't really believe your own belief system? :shock:
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

By the way, I created another thread about the problem of evil. You are welcome to join.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 2:12 am
bahman wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:47 pm
Really? Very interesting.

I know how their "big thinkers" tend to think about it. But perhaps the "lay" Buddhists don't.
Yes, they asked me to meditate on the question myself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm It has to do with the idea of cosmic oneness, and the necessity of the Great Unitary Being breaking itself into two entities in order to be able to exist and to be able to contemplate itself. But that's far too weird an explanation for most folks.
You don't need to break yourself into two entities in order to exist and contemplate yourself.
I can tell you how the reasoning goes.

Picture it like this: imagine that everything was just one substance. Like, imagine that everything was made of nothing but pure oxygen, or let's say, of water. The atmosphere is of water, your body is water, your mind is water...everything of one substance. Not even a membrane is different, so everything is completely of one thing.

If that were the case, nothing would exist. Because not one thing would be distinct from anything else. If all is one, then nothing is anything different or special in any way. Nothing is a "thing," in that sense. All is water. Everything flows. And there is nothing real. Even "water" stops being a thing, because "water" can only be said "exist" inasmuch as it remains distinct from things like "land" or "dry." So if there's only one substance, nothing exists.

So for the Eastern philosopher, their have to be two different substances of things: let's call one "spiritual" and one "physical." Both have to be eternal, because without at least two different things, nothing would exist. So "the god" or "the divine principle," if you prefer, divides into these to things, so as that existence is possible, and "the god" has an object to contemplate or locate as distinct.

I'm not at all saying that's right: I'm saying that's a rough representation of the logic behind the belief.

Ok, I see.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:47 pm
But nothing could exist eternally in past.

You're right...at least, no entity with an origin or cause could. They're all contingent.

Time itself is contingent. So a non-contingent thing cannot depend on time so it cannot exist eternally in past.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
He can only think things at a relatively simple level.
Yes, that is what I mean. IQ however depends on how minds are connected to each other.
No, it does not.

Einstein would still have an IQ Of 160, even if he were living on a desert island by himself. And the janitor would still have an IQ of 90, even if he worked at the university among scholars. Their minds can't fix his, or raise his IQ.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Not at all. I'm speaking of IQ. Do you know what IQ measures, and how it does? If you're not sure, you should check it out. It's not dependent on particular information, but on things like ability to abstract or skill at logical prediction, and so on. These are universal abilities, not mere experiential or informational ones. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-th ... calculated
I know all these.
Then you know that IQ is not measured by "other minds."
Reality to me is composed of minds and qualia. Each person is made of many minds they are connected with each other by qualia. The way minds in a person are connected defines his/her IQ.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "mind," before I could answer; because people use that word many ways. Sometimes, they mean "intelligence," but sometimes just "consciousness" or "self-awareness," or just general "thinking," or "problem-solving," or "soul," or "the locus of personal identity."

Mind can be all of these things: and if somebody has a stroke, some will change more than others.
And what is mind to you?
It depends on the context. But since you're the one who's raising the word, maybe you should tell me what you want me to understand from your use of the word.
To me, mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, freely decide, and cause qualia.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I didn't ask. I wasn't expressing doubt as to your own truthfulness.

All I was asking is how YOU know this "voice" was telling YOU the truth. That's all.
It seems that what She said is coming true.
You think this voice is female? What makes you think so?
Because it sounds like the voice of a woman. It took me long time to trust and know who is who.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
...sometimes Devils play with your mind.
So you believe in devils?
Sure yeah. They play with my mind all the time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
"Prohibited" by whom?
By any intellectual who is dealing with a situation.
But intellectuals can be evil. Some criminals are very smart.
Of course, we need education too.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I don't see how. The "voice" gave you a choice to go or not. You said, "Go."

You got what you asked for. Why complain about "suffering" now? You weren't promised not to suffer, if your deal was "unconditional," as you say.
I complain about your system of belief when it comes to suffering.
How can you, in your belief system, even detect that there is such a thing as suffering, so as to raise the question? Because according to what you say you believe, you agreed to be here "unconditionally." So nothing here is not something you agreed to accept, and nothing is suffering. Moreover, you can't raise a criticism of anybody else's belief system, because whatever anybody believes is simply part of the "unconditional" terms you say you accepted at birth. You were never promised that people would not believe different things from you, were you?

But you do raise the question: so does that mean you don't really believe your own belief system? :shock:
Sure I believe in my own belief. I was questioning your system of belief when I was complaining about suffering.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:50 pm Time itself is contingent. So a non-contingent thing cannot depend on time so it cannot exist eternally in past.
The Easterner is going to say that time is eternal. Remember that they think that both the material and the spiritual have to exist forever, or neither can exist at all. And their reasoning concludes, "Well, something does exist, therefore it's all eternal."
Each person is made of many minds

No, I'm not. I can't speak for you.
The way minds in a person are connected defines his/her IQ.
No, actually, it doesn't. That is a misunderstanding of what IQ measures.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
And what is mind to you?
It depends on the context. But since you're the one who's raising the word, maybe you should tell me what you want me to understand from your use of the word.
To me, mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, freely decide, and cause qualia.
But you also seem to think it's "many minds." I can't make sense out of the two, so far.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
...sometimes Devils play with your mind.
So you believe in devils?
Sure yeah. They play with my mind all the time.
Interesting. "My name is 'Legion,' for we are many."
I was questioning your system of belief when I was complaining about suffering.
But you can't. :shock: From your system, from all that you can see, you can't even say that "suffering" exists! :shock: So you have access to no empirical observation to back the allegation that "suffering" is real, therefore no accusation of problems attaching to anybody else's worldview, including mine. :shock:
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:50 pm Time itself is contingent. So a non-contingent thing cannot depend on time so it cannot exist eternally in past.
The Easterner is going to say that time is eternal. Remember that they think that both the material and the spiritual have to exist forever, or neither can exist at all. And their reasoning concludes, "Well, something does exist, therefore it's all eternal."
But time is changing and anything which is changing is contingent.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
Each person is made of many minds

No, I'm not. I can't speak for you.
Each mind can do one thing at any given time. Have you ever asked yourself how you could do two things at the same time, like deriving and listening to music?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
It depends on the context. But since you're the one who's raising the word, maybe you should tell me what you want me to understand from your use of the word.
To me, mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, freely decide, and cause qualia.
But you also seem to think it's "many minds." I can't make sense out of the two, so far.
Do you mean that there are only two minds?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I was questioning your system of belief when I was complaining about suffering.
But you can't. :shock: From your system, from all that you can see, you can't even say that "suffering" exists! :shock: So you have access to no empirical observation to back the allegation that "suffering" is real, therefore no accusation of problems attaching to anybody else's worldview, including mine. :shock:
Of course, suffering is real. I have never said otherwise.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:50 pm Time itself is contingent. So a non-contingent thing cannot depend on time so it cannot exist eternally in past.
The Easterner is going to say that time is eternal. Remember that they think that both the material and the spiritual have to exist forever, or neither can exist at all. And their reasoning concludes, "Well, something does exist, therefore it's all eternal."
But time is changing and anything which is changing is contingent.
What do you mean "time is changing"? Do you mean that you think time itself is changing, or that other things are changing over the passage of time?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
Each person is made of many minds

No, I'm not. I can't speak for you.
Each mind can do one thing at any given time.
No, psychology shows that a person can hold up to eight different ideas as present in consciousness at one time, but after that, it becomes a case of overload.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
To me, mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, freely decide, and cause qualia.
But you also seem to think it's "many minds." I can't make sense out of the two, so far.
Do you mean that there are only two minds?
I'm trying to ask how you can say that "mind" (singular) is an irreducible substance, but that there are many "minds"(plural, not a single substance).

The first contradicts the second, and the second contradicts the first. So I'm not seeing how you can think that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I was questioning your system of belief when I was complaining about suffering.
But you can't. :shock: From your system, from all that you can see, you can't even say that "suffering" exists! :shock: So you have access to no empirical observation to back the allegation that "suffering" is real, therefore no accusation of problems attaching to anybody else's worldview, including mine. :shock:
Of course, suffering is real. I have never said otherwise.
It can't really be "suffering" if you made an unconditional pact to accept whatever came. In such a case, it's not a "suffering," because "suffering" implies some injustice, some sense of being victimized, some implication of unwarranted pain. But you agreed to whatever would come; so nothing that happens fails to be just, according to your deal, and you aren't a victim of anything...you're a partner in it, and all pain is warranted by the deal you made.

So then, there is no "suffering." It simply doesn't exist as a bad thing. It exists only as the natural and appropriate terms of your deal.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
The Easterner is going to say that time is eternal. Remember that they think that both the material and the spiritual have to exist forever, or neither can exist at all. And their reasoning concludes, "Well, something does exist, therefore it's all eternal."
But time is changing and anything which is changing is contingent.
What do you mean "time is changing"? Do you mean that you think time itself is changing, or that other things are changing over the passage of time?
Yes, time itself is subject to change.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
No, I'm not. I can't speak for you.
Each mind can do one thing at any given time.
No, psychology shows that a person can hold up to eight different ideas as present in consciousness at one time, but after that, it becomes a case of overload.
You are talking about working memory. I am talking about the fact that each mind can do one task at any given time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
But you also seem to think it's "many minds." I can't make sense out of the two, so far.
Do you mean that there are only two minds?
I'm trying to ask how you can say that "mind" (singular) is an irreducible substance, but that there are many "minds"(plural, not a single substance).

The first contradicts the second, and the second contradicts the first. So I'm not seeing how you can think that.
I used singular when I defined mind in general. I used plural to emphasize that there might be many.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:16 pm
But you can't. :shock: From your system, from all that you can see, you can't even say that "suffering" exists! :shock: So you have access to no empirical observation to back the allegation that "suffering" is real, therefore no accusation of problems attaching to anybody else's worldview, including mine. :shock:
Of course, suffering is real. I have never said otherwise.
It can't really be "suffering" if you made an unconditional pact to accept whatever came. In such a case, it's not a "suffering," because "suffering" implies some injustice, some sense of being victimized, some implication of unwarranted pain. But you agreed to whatever would come; so nothing that happens fails to be just, according to your deal, and you aren't a victim of anything...you're a partner in it, and all pain is warranted by the deal you made.

So then, there is no "suffering." It simply doesn't exist as a bad thing. It exists only as the natural and appropriate terms of your deal.
No. Definition of suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. It has nothing to do with the fact that I accepted to live in this reality unconditionally.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:06 pm
But time is changing and anything which is changing is contingent.
What do you mean "time is changing"? Do you mean that you think time itself is changing, or that other things are changing over the passage of time?
Yes, time itself is subject to change.
That doesn't seem easy to show.

After all, the way we know "time" in the first place is not because it exists as a thing "out there" that we can identify apart from objects and spaces, but because it's the interval between two points (be they geographic points or "points" between two states or conditions). Assessing "time" without things is like trying to perform mathematics without numbers or symbols. And just as mathematics itself never changes, though its operations and applications be ever so many, time itself is not easy to identify as having "changed."
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
Each mind can do one thing at any given time.
No, psychology shows that a person can hold up to eight different ideas as present in consciousness at one time, but after that, it becomes a case of overload.
You are talking about working memory. I am talking about the fact that each mind can do one task at any given time.
I doubt that even that is the case. One can, for example, chew gum and walk at the same time, and be aware of both.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Do you mean that there are only two minds?
I'm trying to ask how you can say that "mind" (singular) is an irreducible substance, but that there are many "minds"(plural, not a single substance).

The first contradicts the second, and the second contradicts the first. So I'm not seeing how you can think that.
I used singular when I defined mind in general. I used plural to emphasize that there might be many.
What is "mind in general"?

I get the Hindu idea -- that there is only one actual "Mind" of which all seemingly particular minds are mere slivers.

I get the liberal idea -- that minds belong to particular people, and there are many of them, not one.

I don't get what you're saying.
Definition of suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
No, that won't do, for the very simple reason that people often undergo pain, distress and hardship voluntarily. So we can't say that the athlete work ing out in the gym is "suffering," even though his muscles hurt and he's sweating profusely...he has decided it's worth it...he asked for it, he got it...no complaints are possible.

But a person who has entered this reality "unconditionally" has, by definition, signed on for whatever comes. So if you did that, then you have lost all right of complaint, and have no accusations you can justly raise against any "suffering" that happens. You accepted it might. You were fine with the deal. No complaints are possible.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
What do you mean "time is changing"? Do you mean that you think time itself is changing, or that other things are changing over the passage of time?
Yes, time itself is subject to change.
That doesn't seem easy to show.

After all, the way we know "time" in the first place is not because it exists as a thing "out there" that we can identify apart from objects and spaces, but because it's the interval between two points (be they geographic points or "points" between two states or conditions). Assessing "time" without things is like trying to perform mathematics without numbers or symbols. And just as mathematics itself never changes, though its operations and applications be ever so many, time itself is not easy to identify as having "changed."
Well, if time does not change then all events coincide on the same point, they would be simultaneous.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:02 pm
No, psychology shows that a person can hold up to eight different ideas as present in consciousness at one time, but after that, it becomes a case of overload.
You are talking about working memory. I am talking about the fact that each mind can do one task at any given time.
I doubt that even that is the case. One can, for example, chew gum and walk at the same time, and be aware of both.
Try to focus on both tasks to see that you cannot focus on and do them both.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
I'm trying to ask how you can say that "mind" (singular) is an irreducible substance, but that there are many "minds"(plural, not a single substance).

The first contradicts the second, and the second contradicts the first. So I'm not seeing how you can think that.
I used singular when I defined mind in general. I used plural to emphasize that there might be many.
What is "mind in general"?

I get the Hindu idea -- that there is only one actual "Mind" of which all seemingly particular minds are mere slivers.

I get the liberal idea -- that minds belong to particular people, and there are many of them, not one.

I don't get what you're saying.
By min in general I mean not a specific mind.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Definition of suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
No, that won't do, for the very simple reason that people often undergo pain, distress and hardship voluntarily. So we can't say that the athlete work ing out in the gym is "suffering," even though his muscles hurt and he's sweating profusely...he has decided it's worth it...he asked for it, he got it...no complaints are possible.

But a person who has entered this reality "unconditionally" has, by definition, signed on for whatever comes. So if you did that, then you have lost all right of complaint, and have no accusations you can justly raise against any "suffering" that happens. You accepted it might. You were fine with the deal. No complaints are possible.
Again, I was trying to make an argument against your system of belief when I asked about the problem of evil.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Yes, time itself is subject to change.
That doesn't seem easy to show.

After all, the way we know "time" in the first place is not because it exists as a thing "out there" that we can identify apart from objects and spaces, but because it's the interval between two points (be they geographic points or "points" between two states or conditions). Assessing "time" without things is like trying to perform mathematics without numbers or symbols. And just as mathematics itself never changes, though its operations and applications be ever so many, time itself is not easy to identify as having "changed."
Well, if time does not change then all events coincide on the same point, they would be simultaneous.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm

You are talking about working memory. I am talking about the fact that each mind can do one task at any given time.
I doubt that even that is the case. One can, for example, chew gum and walk at the same time, and be aware of both.
Try to focus on both tasks to see that you cannot focus on and do them both.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
I used singular when I defined mind in general. I used plural to emphasize that there might be many.
What is "mind in general"?

I get the Hindu idea -- that there is only one actual "Mind" of which all seemingly particular minds are mere slivers.

I get the liberal idea -- that minds belong to particular people, and there are many of them, not one.

I don't get what you're saying.
By min in general I mean not a specific mind.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Definition of suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
No, that won't do, for the very simple reason that people often undergo pain, distress and hardship voluntarily. So we can't say that the athlete work ing out in the gym is "suffering," even though his muscles hurt and he's sweating profusely...he has decided it's worth it...he asked for it, he got it...no complaints are possible.

But a person who has entered this reality "unconditionally" has, by definition, signed on for whatever comes. So if you did that, then you have lost all right of complaint, and have no accusations you can justly raise against any "suffering" that happens. You accepted it might. You were fine with the deal. No complaints are possible.
Again, I was trying to make an argument against your system of belief when I asked about the problem of evil.
So, according to "Immanuel can" here, NO child has absolutely ANY 'right' AT ALL to complain when they are being ABUSED by adults.

The Falsehood here speaks for ITSELF.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:59 pm
Yes, time itself is subject to change.
That doesn't seem easy to show.

After all, the way we know "time" in the first place is not because it exists as a thing "out there" that we can identify apart from objects and spaces, but because it's the interval between two points (be they geographic points or "points" between two states or conditions). Assessing "time" without things is like trying to perform mathematics without numbers or symbols. And just as mathematics itself never changes, though its operations and applications be ever so many, time itself is not easy to identify as having "changed."
Well, if time does not change then all events coincide on the same point, they would be simultaneous.
Well that would be true if things stop changing. But it would not suggest that time itself changes...or even that time itself really actually exists, since we know time only from the changes in things, and things are maya.

In fact, in Eastern thought, the idea is to realize that all of the material world is maya, including its appearance of time. And, they would say, you can tell precisely because things don't seem to last, and change. So they aren't the final, ultimate, deep reality, but rather just a phony appearance of reality, from which the "enlightened" person has learned to detach and no longer to desire.

That's how they're going to get away from the conclusion to which you'd like to direct them, anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm

You are talking about working memory. I am talking about the fact that each mind can do one task at any given time.
I doubt that even that is the case. One can, for example, chew gum and walk at the same time, and be aware of both.
Try to focus on both tasks to see that you cannot focus on and do them both.
Yes, you can. You can a) walk, b) chew gum, and even c) hold a philosophical discussion all at the same time, while doing all that those three activities require.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
I used singular when I defined mind in general. I used plural to emphasize that there might be many.
What is "mind in general"?

I get the Hindu idea -- that there is only one actual "Mind" of which all seemingly particular minds are mere slivers.

I get the liberal idea -- that minds belong to particular people, and there are many of them, not one.

I don't get what you're saying.
By min in general I mean not a specific mind.
Are you saying you believe there is one ultimate "Mind," or that every person has his or her own "mind"?

But if you're saying the latter, then your claim that all minds are "connected" makes no sense. They're clearly not.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
Definition of suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
No, that won't do, for the very simple reason that people often undergo pain, distress and hardship voluntarily. So we can't say that the athlete work ing out in the gym is "suffering," even though his muscles hurt and he's sweating profusely...he has decided it's worth it...he asked for it, he got it...no complaints are possible.

But a person who has entered this reality "unconditionally" has, by definition, signed on for whatever comes. So if you did that, then you have lost all right of complaint, and have no accusations you can justly raise against any "suffering" that happens. You accepted it might. You were fine with the deal. No complaints are possible.
Again, I was trying to make an argument against your system of belief when I asked about the problem of evil.
I got that. But you aren't yet seeing the problem.

Given that you believe you chose to be here, you can't believe in real suffering. So you can't accuse another belief system of failing to deal with suffering, anymore than you can indict them for not having enough unicorns. But if you say that suffering is real, and is a problem my belief system fails to address to your satisfaction, then you don't believe in your own belief system...because in it, suffering is just part of the "unconditional." :shock:
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 7:34 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:55 pm
That doesn't seem easy to show.

After all, the way we know "time" in the first place is not because it exists as a thing "out there" that we can identify apart from objects and spaces, but because it's the interval between two points (be they geographic points or "points" between two states or conditions). Assessing "time" without things is like trying to perform mathematics without numbers or symbols. And just as mathematics itself never changes, though its operations and applications be ever so many, time itself is not easy to identify as having "changed."
Well, if time does not change then all events coincide on the same point, they would be simultaneous.
Well that would be true if things stop changing. But it would not suggest that time itself changes...or even that time itself really actually exists, since we know time only from the changes in things, and things are maya.

In fact, in Eastern thought, the idea is to realize that all of the material world is maya, including its appearance of time. And, they would say, you can tell precisely because things don't seem to last, and change. So they aren't the final, ultimate, deep reality, but rather just a phony appearance of reality, from which the "enlightened" person has learned to detach and no longer to desire.

That's how they're going to get away from the conclusion to which you'd like to direct them, anyway.
Of course, one needs to believe in change in the material world to show that time changes as well. Do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging? Anyway, we have been through this once.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
I doubt that even that is the case. One can, for example, chew gum and walk at the same time, and be aware of both.
Try to focus on both tasks to see that you cannot focus on and do them both.
Yes, you can. You can a) walk, b) chew gum, and even c) hold a philosophical discussion all at the same time, while doing all that those three activities require.
I cannot focus on a few things and do them simultaneously.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
What is "mind in general"?

I get the Hindu idea -- that there is only one actual "Mind" of which all seemingly particular minds are mere slivers.

I get the liberal idea -- that minds belong to particular people, and there are many of them, not one.

I don't get what you're saying.
By min in general I mean not a specific mind.
Are you saying you believe there is one ultimate "Mind," or that every person has his or her own "mind"?

But if you're saying the latter, then your claim that all minds are "connected" makes no sense. They're clearly not.
No, all minds are the same to me. Every person to me has several minds.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:11 pm
No, that won't do, for the very simple reason that people often undergo pain, distress and hardship voluntarily. So we can't say that the athlete work ing out in the gym is "suffering," even though his muscles hurt and he's sweating profusely...he has decided it's worth it...he asked for it, he got it...no complaints are possible.

But a person who has entered this reality "unconditionally" has, by definition, signed on for whatever comes. So if you did that, then you have lost all right of complaint, and have no accusations you can justly raise against any "suffering" that happens. You accepted it might. You were fine with the deal. No complaints are possible.
Again, I was trying to make an argument against your system of belief when I asked about the problem of evil.
I got that. But you aren't yet seeing the problem.

Given that you believe you chose to be here, you can't believe in real suffering. So you can't accuse another belief system of failing to deal with suffering, anymore than you can indict them for not having enough unicorns. But if you say that suffering is real, and is a problem my belief system fails to address to your satisfaction, then you don't believe in your own belief system...because in it, suffering is just part of the "unconditional." :shock:
Of course, I am in pain/suffering sometimes. Do you want me to deny that?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 7:49 pm Do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging?
They see the material world, maya, as appearing to change. But it's just an appearance.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:19 pm
Try to focus on both tasks to see that you cannot focus on and do them both.
Yes, you can. You can a) walk, b) chew gum, and even c) hold a philosophical discussion all at the same time, while doing all that those three activities require.
I cannot focus on a few things and do them simultaneously.
I can.
No, all minds are the same to me. Every person to me has several minds.
So all minds are...? What do you mean by "the same"? You can't mean that they are the same Mind, parts of one big mind. And every person, you say, has several minds, not one?

Well, I don't. But even if others did, that would only make it more unlikely that you could say any minds are "the same."

Of course, I am in pain/suffering sometimes. Do you want me to deny that?
Of course not...but it means that you didn't choose to be born, and didn't do so "unconditionally." You either had no choice about being born, and so are a victim that way, or you did not do so "unconditionally," because you now resent pain and call it "suffering."

So what I'm trying to get you to explain to me is how your comment even makes sense, if what you believe is what you say you believe. I can't see how it does.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 8:01 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 7:49 pm Do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging?
They see the material world, maya, as appearing to change. But it's just an appearance.
Again, do the people who get enlightened see the world unchanging? To see that something appears to change one needs to see that it is not changing first and also see that appears to change.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 8:01 pm
No, all minds are the same to me. Every person to me has several minds.
So all minds are...? What do you mean by "the same"? You can't mean that they are the same Mind, parts of one big mind. And every person, you say, has several minds, not one?

Well, I don't. But even if others did, that would only make it more unlikely that you could say any minds are "the same."
By the same I mean they have the same properties.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 8:01 pm
Of course, I am in pain/suffering sometimes. Do you want me to deny that?
Of course not...but it means that you didn't choose to be born, and didn't do so "unconditionally." You either had no choice about being born, and so are a victim that way, or you did not do so "unconditionally," because you now resent pain and call it "suffering."

So what I'm trying to get you to explain to me is how your comment even makes sense, if what you believe is what you say you believe. I can't see how it does.
No, I chose to come to this world and I sometimes suffer. What is the problem with that? There is no problem of evil whatsoever in my worldview.
Post Reply