Mind and physical

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm

I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things: (1) Mind is separate from physical and (2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind). But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused. Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing). Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y. It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.

Impenitent
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by Impenitent » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:32 pm

Once again, if mind was separate from physical, lobotomies wouldn't work.

-Imp

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:59 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:32 pm
Once again, if mind was separate from physical, lobotomies wouldn't work.

-Imp
You cannot make a motion in physical without mind. Try to imagine it and let me know.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:59 pm
You cannot make a motion in physical without mind. Try to imagine it and let me know.
These guys disagree: https://www.bostondynamics.com/robots

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mind and physical

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm
I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things:
(1) Mind is separate from physical and
(2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind).

But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing).
Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y.
It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
Originally is Whereof one cannot speak
  • Wittgenstein
    Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.

Both the mind and Whereof one cannot speak are self-referential where each contain the other as in the Tao symbol where Yang contain Yin inherently and Yin also contain Yang, note below, the white has an inherent black dot and vice-versa;

Image

Note David Bohr relied on the complementarity principles of the Tao to resolve the dilemmas of duality arising from Quantum Physics. This is why the symbol of the Tao is included in his Coat of Arms as below.

Image

Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.

The mind and the physical co-exists and for whatever is beyond that it is a transcendental idea where one has to remain silent. If one is itchy for something more [illusory] then the solution is to deal with the associated psychology [existential crisis] that trigger that "itchiness" for the illusory.

This "itchiness" has malignant potentials in the long run and thus should be weaned off psychologically so that the living being can maintain optimal well being as individual and for the collective.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3145
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind and physical

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:37 am

bahman wrote:
Consider a change in a system X to Y . X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanish before Y is caused . Y however cannot be caused
from nothing ( remember that X is vanished so we have nothing ) Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y
Quantum fluctuations come from absolute nothing because vacuum states can only exist for an infinitesimal period
And at the classical level the law of cause and effect applies and so no mind is required for transition in either case

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:35 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:06 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:59 pm
You cannot make a motion in physical without mind. Try to imagine it and let me know.
These guys disagree: https://www.bostondynamics.com/robots
Mind is involved in any motion unless you show that something is wrong with my argument.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm
I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things:
(1) Mind is separate from physical and
(2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind).

But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing).
Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y.
It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
Originally is Whereof one cannot speak
  • Wittgenstein
    Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
Mind cannot be emergent. Something which is emergent cannot experience, decide and cause.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Both the mind and Whereof one cannot speak are self-referential where each contain the other as in the Tao symbol where Yang contain Yin inherently and Yin also contain Yang, note below, the white has an inherent black dot and vice-versa;

Image

Note David Bohr relied on the complementarity principles of the Tao to resolve the dilemmas of duality arising from Quantum Physics. This is why the symbol of the Tao is included in his Coat of Arms as below.

Image
Your model of reality is incomplete if there is a whereof that you can not speak.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
What is wrong with my argument?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
The mind and the physical co-exists and for whatever is beyond that it is a transcendental idea where one has to remain silent. If one is itchy for something more [illusory] then the solution is to deal with the associated psychology [existential crisis] that trigger that "itchiness" for the illusory.

This "itchiness" has malignant potentials in the long run and thus should be weaned off psychologically so that the living being can maintain optimal well being as individual and for the collective.
This is duty of physicist to understand the consciousness, decision and causation.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:20 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:37 am
bahman wrote:
Consider a change in a system X to Y . X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanish before Y is caused . Y however cannot be caused
from nothing ( remember that X is vanished so we have nothing ) Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y
Quantum fluctuations come from absolute nothing because vacuum states can only exist for an infinitesimal period
And at the classical level the law of cause and effect applies and so no mind is required for transition in either case
So you believe that nothing has causal power?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:58 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:35 pm
Mind is involved in any motion unless you show that something is wrong with my argument.
Suppose that mind isn't involved in any motion. What do you predict would be different in this universe?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:03 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:58 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:35 pm
Mind is involved in any motion unless you show that something is wrong with my argument.
Suppose that mind isn't involved in any motion. What do you predict would be different in this universe?
Physical vanishes. Unless you could prove a better model of reality.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:04 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:03 pm
Physical vanishes. Unless you could prove a better model of reality.
Lots of minds disappear as people die. The physical remains.

Is there one particular mind you have in mind?

Also. What utility does it add to the current model to add mind?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:27 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:04 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:03 pm
Physical vanishes. Unless you could prove a better model of reality.
Lots of minds disappear as people die. The physical remains.
Mind doesn't disappear. What is lost is our controls over physical bodies. There are sustainers of physical though, God, Satan, etc.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:04 pm
Is there one particular mind you have in mind?
There are minds in charge of sustaining physical. We cause thoughts for example. Growing further. So we also contribute.
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:04 pm
Also. What utility does it add to the current model to add mind?
It resolves the free will problem. There is free will because we can resolve the conflict when the situation is marginal. We all faced marginal situation, when options are equally liked. The decision cannot be reduced to physical since physical obey the laws of nature, a deterministic system halts when it is faced by marginal situation. Therefore that is mind which is free. We have no other choice since there are only mind and physical in this model. You can also argue that that is mind which experiences and causes. That is mind which is the experiencer since it has to be aware of situation to decide. Awareness cannot be assigned to only physical since otherwise mind cannot decide. You can argue in the same manner that that is mind which is in charge of causation too. Matter cannot be in charge of causation.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mind and physical

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:12 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm
I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things:
(1) Mind is separate from physical and
(2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind).

But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing).
Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y.
It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
Originally is Whereof one cannot speak
  • Wittgenstein
    Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
Mind cannot be emergent. Something which is emergent cannot experience, decide and cause.
From where did you arrive at the above conclusion?

The human body is made up of specific physical elements.
The fact that such a combination of body parts can culminate in thinking, planning, experiencing, making decision imply there is an emergent. That emergent is conveniently label as mind. We can even switch it [mind] off to some extent with anesthetic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Both the mind and Whereof one cannot speak are self-referential where each contain the other as in the Tao symbol where Yang contain Yin inherently and Yin also contain Yang, note below, the white has an inherent black dot and vice-versa;

Image

Note David Bohr relied on the complementarity principles of the Tao to resolve the dilemmas of duality arising from Quantum Physics. This is why the symbol of the Tao is included in his Coat of Arms as below.

Image
Your model of reality is incomplete if there is a whereof that you can not speak.
Note there is no "a" re "whereof that you can not speak" and rightly there is no 'where' as well.
In such a case one just must shut up or naturally be indifferent to it.
The point that one must speak of it, that is due to one's terrible psychology, not because there is something pre-existing to be spoken of.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
What is wrong with my argument?
At this specific refine level, your argument is corrupted with duality and monism.
You insist there is "that" something [out there, absolute] when in reality there is nothing to speak of.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
The mind and the physical co-exists and for whatever is beyond that it is a transcendental idea where one has to remain silent. If one is itchy for something more [illusory] then the solution is to deal with the associated psychology [existential crisis] that trigger that "itchiness" for the illusory.

This "itchiness" has malignant potentials in the long run and thus should be weaned off psychologically so that the living being can maintain optimal well being as individual and for the collective.
This is duty of physicist to understand the consciousness, decision and causation.
Nope!
Nah! The duty of the physicist to understand whatever is physical.

The subject of consciousness, decision making and causation involves too many variable that is beyond physics, e.g. biology, neurosciences, neuro-psychology genomics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, etc. etc.
The responsibility of understanding consciousness and other refine issues can only be resolved by philosophy-proper with its whole range of tools. [note 'proper' not academic philosophy].

Note how Hume destroyed the older foundation of Science prior his counter, re the 'Problem of Induction' and 'Causation' [due to customs, habits, constant conjunctions and psychology].

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind and physical

Post by bahman » Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:12 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am


Originally is Whereof one cannot speak
  • Wittgenstein
    Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
Mind cannot be emergent. Something which is emergent cannot experience, decide and cause.
From where did you arrive at the above conclusion?
Mind is a physical state if it is due to physical activity. A physical state simply cannot experience another physical state, taste of salt.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
The human body is made up of specific physical elements.
The fact that such a combination of body parts can culminate in thinking, planning, experiencing, making decision imply there is an emergent. That emergent is conveniently label as mind. We can even switch it [mind] off to some extent with anesthetic.
That, anesthetic, is not a proof for mind being emergent.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
What is wrong with my argument?
At this specific refine level, your argument is corrupted with duality and monism.
There is nothing wrong with dualism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
You insist there is "that" something [out there, absolute] when in reality there is nothing to speak of.
Physical of course is an illusion. Mind in your view is an illusion since it is emergent. Therefore everything is illusion. Illusion however cannot persist. Therefore your model of reality is wrong. There is of course something out there.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests