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;
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.
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].