bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
I agree. But that is mind which allows me to experience thoughts and emotions
I agree with this, but not in the same way you do.
I already have a defined conclusion for what 'mind' is, what 'me' is, and how the 'mind' allows 'me' to experience thoughts and emotions in your sentence here. Now can you define the 'mind', the 'me', and how that that 'mind' allows 'me' to experience thoughts and emotions?
Mind to me is essence of any being or thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause.
Who or what is the being or thing that mind is the essence of?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pm Experiencing is an ability of mind therefore we cannot understand how mind experience certain things.
But I can UNDERSTAND and already KNOW how Mind experiences ALL things.
How do 'you' experience, certain, things?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmThe same is true for decision and causation.
When, and if, you KNOW what/who 'Mind' IS, then you KNOW, and UNDERSTAND these things also.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
That is mind which allows me to cause different things.
What is the 'mind' and how is 'it' in relation to the 'me' here?
Also, are you able to answer who/what 'me' actually is?
Mind is essence of 'me'. 'Me' is being/thing.
Tell me if I have any of this wrong. From your perspective;
'me' is being/thing.
Every being/thing has a mind. And,
'mind' is essence of 'me'.
To me this does not follow. How can the ESSENCE OF 'me' be 'mind', but also me HAS a mind? (But maybe you have changed your view, and 'me' does NOT 'have' a mind, now?)
But firstly, who/what is 'being/thing'?
Imagine if some one explained to you that a 'tree' is being/thing. What would you make of that? To me, this does not say much at all.
At the moment, are you able to be better define what 'me' is, first?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
So here is the argument: Consider a change in a system, X->Y.
P1. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X must vanish before Y takes place.
P2. Y however cannot comes of nothingness.
C. Therefore there should exist a mind which experiences X (is aware of X) and causes Y.
I hope it is okay with you what I did here? If not, just let me know.
That is all good.
Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
P1. I agree.
Great.
Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
P2. That is just an assumption. Although I agree wholeheartedly with it, I have yet to see HOW any thing could come from nothing, but I also will not yet say Y CAN NOT come from nothing, until I see actual evidence that Y CAN NOT come from nothing. For all I KNOW the whole Universe may just have come from no thing at all.
Ok, let me argue it this way: We always see correlation between X and Y. Nothingness is however indifferent. Therefore we cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness. So I change P2 to "one cannot expect to get specific Y from nothingness".
If, and when, you are speaking of, and FOR, '
we', then you have to be VERY, VERY careful. One would HAVE TO have absolute and ALL KNOWLEDGE of EVERY thing to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR 'we'. Unless of course the size of the group of 'we' is smaller than the group of EVERY thing, but if this is the case one NEEDS to still be VERY careful because they would still HAVE TO have absolute and ALL knowledge of EVERY one, in that group, to be able to accurately and truly speak FOR that 'we'.
In saying that, however, I can accept that 'you', bahman, always see correlation between X and Y, and, 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness. And, that P2 could change to 'you', bahman, can not expect to get specific Y from nothingness.
What I would say here, however, and would write is: I have always seen correlation between X and Y, and therefore I have not yet seen Y from nothingness. So, then I would change P2. As far as I have observed, hitherto, no thing has come from nothingness. (The Truth is I can only talk about from what I have observed only, and NEVER from what "others" may or may not have observed. In other words, I can NEVER speak FOR another. Unless of course they have clearly clarified what they, themselves, have observed also.)
Also, as I have suggested, but may not have made fully clear yet, I do NOT 'expect' any thing at all, (if I did, then I might feel somewhat disappointed at times, when the UNexpected arises or arrives). I just always remain OPEN, instead. If I was 'expecting' some thing, then I am NOT fully OPEN. If I am NOT fully OPEN, then I am NOT at my best to be able to learn more nor better.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
Although I remain OPEN to EVERY thing and can NOT yet see how any thing can come from no thing, what I can and do very easily see is just how EVERY thing came into existence.
C. I do not, yet, see how you arrived at YOUR conclusion.
If X and Y can not coexist and X must vanish before Y takes place, then how and why does that mean that 'there should exist a mind'?
The problem is if X vanishes therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
I am NOT sure what the word 'problem' means, to you. But, to me, 'problem' means
just a question posed for a solution. Therefore, if you do not pose an actual 'problem', (that is; a question to be answered/solved), then there, really, is no problem at all.
Besides that, (and while I await your question, posed for a solution/answer), IF X does vanish, then WHY does that supposedly mean that there is NO witness in order to have Y after all? You did write;
If X vanishes, therefore we do not have any witness in order to have Y after all.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmThis means that there should exist a mind who witnesses X and can cause Y when X is gone.
If that is just what you want to argue for, then that can be easily done, and in a much quicker and simpler way, or form.
Also, Y is not caused when X IS GONE. Y is caused/created WITH THE DISAPPEARANCE of X.
You also say 'mind' should exist who witnesses X and can cause Y ... .
You also insist that there are many 'minds'. Are you then suggesting that with absolutely EVERY X disappearing and/or going causing Y, then there is ANOTHER mind?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
You might have to explain what the definition of the word 'mind' is that are you seeing this from here?
Mind is essence of any being or thing with ability to experience, decide and cause.
Does the inter-action of EVERY particle, and/or EVERY sub-particle, of matter, bouncing off of each other, have the; essence of mind, or which is mind, and thus having the ability to experience, decide, and cause?
Or, is 'being' or 'thing' not the actual matter but some thing else?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
If you seeing this 'mind' as being very deep down, at the most fundamental level of Creation, Itself, then I can see where you are coming from. But i just want to clarify first, to make sure.
I know that we agree on the fact is the most fundamental thing in reality but I want to reach to a point that we agree that mind exists and necessary for any change.
But this is WHAT I already SEE, and have SEEN for some time now, and also what I wholeheartedly agree with anyway.
What we do not agree on is the number. Either there is one Mind only, or many minds.
I KNOW what I can SEE, and what makes sense to me, but I am in NO position yet to say that what I SEE is correct, nor even remotely correct.
Maybe there are MANY 'minds', which I do NOT yet see, and SO I just wait patiently for you to SHOW me if there are. I will continue to ask clarifying questions to you that will help you SHOW the Truth of things here.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
Here we show two things, the necessity of existence of mind and the fact that causality involved in any change.
If an intelligent species has evolved that is capable of becoming truly Self-aware, then I do NOT dispute the necessity of existence of Mind at all.
Nor, do I dispute the fact that causality is involved in any change.
For, to me, it is a very fact that Creation nor Evolution could NOT exist without causality.
Creation AND Evolution co-exist together as One.
Therefore, there IS causality.
That is interesting too.
Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
No. I just have shown in my argument that a variable, time, is need to allows the change. I start with a change in a system and show that change is not possible without time.
If I have this correct;
Your definition of 'time' is
the variable between two points.
My definition of 'time' is
'the measured' duration between two points.
Obviously, there has to be some sort of distance, (variable/duration) which, in itself, makes two things. Otherwise, there would only be one, unchangeable, thing, always.
Well, I first showed that two points are necessary otherwise the state of system become ill-defined.
Compartmentalizing and breaking things down into smaller and smaller DIFFERENT and SEPARATE things is how human being are much better ABLE to make sense of the "world" in which they live. So, using two different and separate points is necessary to explain things, but If I recall correctly I did say some thing earlier in relation to that when THINGS are defined accurately and properly, then ALL things, discussed within 'philosophical' discussion, will become clearly and easily UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN.
A huge part of the very reason WHY human beings are STILL, when this is written, searching answers IS because of how the use language. That is; the way that words are ILL-DEFINED is the reason WHY there still appears to still be some mysteries in Life left and WHY human beings are still so CONFUSED about some things.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmThese two points belong to a variable. I then show that there is a duration between two points otherwise the change never occurs.
It seems to me that we both agree with existence of duration. In my case the duration is fundamental since change cannot happen without it. In your case the duration is measured thing.[/quote]
To me, change can NOT happen without duration, so 'duration' is fundamental to change. So, we are in total agreement here.
However, and on a much deeper level, other things NEED to be explained and understood so that I can then explain how the 'duration' is only a perceived thing and not an actual real thing.
And, by the way, 'duration' is a measured thing, is it not?
Do we agree that 'duration' is a measured thing, taken between two points?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
What other option do we have?
What about the option of; There is a Mind, and, the 'beginning' and appearance of stuff lay at the same point?
I see what do you mean. I have only one argument against that now which I presented it in another thread. So let's see how our discussion follows in another thread.
Just to be clear for me, and the readers, what is the name of that other thread?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:20 pmAge wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:01 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:36 pm
Ok. Let me ask you this question that how that is possible that we can have different experience in different locations? To be honest the model with more minds doesn't resolve the issue.
How 'we',
different people, can have different experiences in different locations IS because how could 'we' NOT have. EVERY human body experiences different things. Through some or all of the five senses of each and every different human body different experiences are seen, felt, heard, smelt, and tasted. ALL bodies are in different locations. There are NO two bodies that can co-exist the exact same location. Even siamese twins, who share the exact same body, do NOT share the exact same experiences. One set of eyes might be looking in a different direction, thus having a different perspective and experiences, from a different location, and also forming different thinking/thoughts. These different experiences is thus the very reason WHY all people are different.
To me, 'people' are unique and different beings, with each one being within a different human head. Whereas, there is another Being, on a deeper level, that is even within each unique and different person(al) being.
How 'we',
the one and only Being, can have different experiences in different locations, is by LOOKING AT ALL things through human being's different perspectives. The one and only Being is just the collective sharing of ALL the person/beings. That is; What it is that is agreed upon by ALL is how the one and only Being is omniscient, and able to KNOW.
'We',
the one Being, is just a collective of 'we',
the different experienced and located human beings.
I see what you are trying to say. But how do you relate one Mind to many bodies? Again, this we can discuss it in another thread.
I think the other thread is mind or minds, is this correct? If so, then I will see you there to explain and show how thee one Mind relates with and to the many bodies, and thus the many brains.