Anything which cannot be created cannot be annihilated too

[Age]

Neither is visible with the physical eye alone. You also need a visual cortex

You need a brain to see a brain.

You also need to be alive.

You need an alive brain to see a brain. But like the 'visual cortex' this did not really need stating either. You asked a clarifying question, so I just answered it, with clarity.

And I clarified to you that "seeing" doesn't happen in your eyes.

Seeing happens in the thing you can't see.

Yes I can SEE that, and had already SEEN that. And, that is WHY I said what I did, which you are obviously yet to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

Contrary to what you assumed I was saying and meaning, I was actually NOT. You even had to add the 'alone' word into your sentence to "justify" the assumption you made.

I used the words 'physical eye' for a specific purpose, which had nothing to do with what you were assuming. But being honest, on reflection I forgot to add the 'working' word as well.

[Sculptor]

Mind is attached to matter in all its form.

False. Prove it!

Human body is one form of matter. But there is mind who decides.

False. Prove it!

True. That is not the subject of the thread.

Therefore, you have human, mind and body.

False dichotomy. Prove it!

No. This is not the subject of this thread.

Matter is determistic object and cannot possibly ends up in a state which can freely decide.

What do you mean "free"?

Free of external constraint. For example, we can decide freely.

Mind is wholly determined by the brain that generates it.

There is no emergence. Minds obviously are not determined by matter. They can freely decide.

Your brain is faulty; therefore you mind is confused.
One day you will die and your mind will die too.

These are off topics.

In other words your premise and conclusion are off topic.
LOL

[AlexW]

No, mind is the essence o f any being with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

So you say... but have you actually ever experienced this essence called "mind"?
Have you seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched it? Or have you only thought about it?
Tell me, what exactly is the difference between "mind" and "unicorn"?
To me, both seem to be the same - both are ideas only, neither can be directly experienced - both are made up, yet you believe in the existence of one but not the other...

I said mind is real.

Please define "real".

Of course, we do. there are at least two of us who intellectually discuss with each other.

This is no proof - this is only a conceptual interpretation.
In a dream there also seem to be "at least two of us who discuss with each other" - does this make any of the dream-characters real? Does it prove they have their own mind? Of course not...

No there is direct experience of another mind. I deduce it.

A deduction is NOT a direct experience - it is a conclusion based on the conceptual knowledge that you have learned, not a direct experience.
Pinch your arm - feel this? This is a direct experience.

If we call everything that we experience as ideas, then we have to accept that we there are internal and external ideas. Matter and thoughts are those ideas

No, you misunderstand - you never experience an idea.
The *pinch* (of arm) is not an idea - but the concepts "matter" and "mind" are ideas and, as a result, can never be directly experienced.
Yes, you can experience a thought, but you cannot experience the concept - the idea - that it conveys - is this so hard to understand?

The reality, of course, needs an explanation.

Why?
Do you really think "reality" cares about your explanation?

[bahman]

False. Prove it!

False. Prove it!

True. That is not the subject of the thread.

False dichotomy. Prove it!

No. This is not the subject of this thread.

What do you mean "free"?

Free of external constraint. For example, we can decide freely.

Mind is wholly determined by the brain that generates it.

There is no emergence. Minds obviously are not determined by matter. They can freely decide.

Your brain is faulty; therefore you mind is confused.
One day you will die and your mind will die too.

These are off topics.

In other words your premise and conclusion are off topic.
LOL

No. I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created. You can find it in this thread. In here, we, however, discuss another thing, the subject of the thread. Could we please focus on the subject of this thread. You are free to attack my other argument in another thread.

[Sculptor]

True. That is not the subject of the thread.


No. This is not the subject of this thread.


Free of external constraint. For example, we can decide freely.


There is no emergence. Minds obviously are not determined by matter. They can freely decide.


These are off topics.

In other words your premise and conclusion are off topic.
LOL

No. I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created. You can find it in this thread. In here, we, however, discuss another thing, the subject of the thread. Could we please focus on the subject of this thread. You are free to attack my other argument in another thread.

Life is far too short to waste my time on you, despite lockdown.

[bahman]

No, mind is the essence o f any being with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

So you say... but have you actually ever experienced this essence called "mind"?

I once apprehend and experience the self. It is not easy to put it in the word. Here I deduce the mind. Matter is deterministic, the free decision is not deterministic, therefore there is another entity that makes the free decision, so-called mind.

Have you seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched it? Or have you only thought about it?

I once experience it.

Tell me, what exactly is the difference between "mind" and "unicorn"?

Mind makes ideas.

To me, both seem to be the same - both are ideas only, neither can be directly experienced - both are made up, yet you believe in the existence of one but not the other...

They are different as it is illustrated in the previous comment.

I said mind is real.

Please define "real".

Real: Actually existing as a thing.

Of course, we do. there are at least two of us who intellectually discuss with each other.

This is no proof - this is only a conceptual interpretation.

So I am no one. Please don't tell this to me.

In a dream there also seem to be "at least two of us who discuss with each other" - does this make any of the dream-characters real? Does it prove they have their own mind? Of course not...

Dream are made of spiritual beings. I interact with them intellectually all the time.

No there is direct experience of another mind. I deduce it.

A deduction is NOT a direct experience - it is a conclusion based on the conceptual knowledge that you have learned, not a direct experience.
Pinch your arm - feel this? This is a direct experience.

I know.

If we call everything that we experience as ideas, then we have to accept that we there are internal and external ideas. Matter and thoughts are those ideas

No, you misunderstand - you never experience an idea.
The *pinch* (of arm) is not an idea - but the concepts "matter" and "mind" are ideas and, as a result, can never be directly experienced.
Yes, you can experience a thought, but you cannot experience the concept - the idea - that it conveys - is this so hard to understand?

I call everything that is percieved by mind as matter.

The reality, of course, needs an explanation.

Why?
Do you really think "reality" cares about your explanation?

Persons care. They are part of reality.

[bahman]

In other words your premise and conclusion are off topic.
LOL

No. I have another proof for mind which shows it cannot be created. You can find it in this thread. In here, we, however, discuss another thing, the subject of the thread. Could we please focus on the subject of this thread. You are free to attack my other argument in another thread.

Life is far too short to waste my time on you, despite lockdown.

Hah, so you gave up in spite of my challenge? It is a waste of life to live and don't know what you are.

[bahman]

That's what conservation laws in physics are.

They follow from Noether's theorem

I agree with that. But that is about matter. Here I am talking about mind.

When did you exclude everything other than mind from being anything?

I have a separate argument about the fact that mind cannot be created in another thread.

[AlexW]

Here I deduce the mind. Matter is deterministic, the free decision is not deterministic, therefore there is another entity that makes the free decision, so-called mind.

As you say, the above is a deduction - not an experience.

All I am saying is that all deduction, all ideas, all interpretations are not reality - you can feel the *pinch* (of arm), but no matter how "precise" the description, it will never be reality.

Thus, stating that something is deterministic or non deterministic is - while it might be (seemingly) valuable for our relativistic interpretation of the universe - ultimately an exercise in futility. Why? Because you are trying to explain "something" (reality) that is not a thing and thus neither deterministic nor not deterministic - it is beyond all interpretations. If you "once apprehended and experienced the self", as you said, then you would know and understand this to be true - you would see that the self is nothing but reality...

Anyway, yes, sure, you can build a conceptual model of this (your) world and label parts as deterministic and other part as non deterministic, but this is just a model - not reality...

Mind makes ideas.

Mind is itself an idea... An idea making ideas - why not

Real: Actually existing as a thing.

But reality is not a thing.
If it were a thing there would have to be multiple realities - as I stated before: if there is only one thing (aka reality) then this thing is not actually a thing (as all relativity is lost if there is only one "thing").

So I am no one. Please don't tell this to me.

It depends how you define yourself.
There is this collection of thoughts (people tend to call it "mind") which makes up the "ego", the individual person - but... are you this ego?
If so, what are you when all thoughts are gone? Do you still exist?
I would say, yes, you still exist, maybe not as the person you believe yourself to be, but hey ... you still are, right?
So... what is left once the "mind" (the person) is gone?
Maybe that's what you really are...

Persons care. They are part of reality.

Sure, persons might care (or not), but are they part of reality...?
To me, reality is that which is left once you stop interpreting, once you stop applying concepts to direct experience.
The person vanishes together with conceptual thought - as such, it cannot be real (but only thought up).
Reality is not personal at all - it is not divided into individuals - there is no personal point of view, no judgement at all...

[Dontaskme]

Persons care. They are part of reality.

Sure, persons might care (or not), but are they part of reality...?
To me, reality is that which is left once you stop interpreting, once you stop applying concepts to direct experience.
The person vanishes together with conceptual thought - as such, it cannot be real (but only thought up).
Reality is not personal at all - it is not divided into individuals - there is no personal point of view, no judgement at all...

I really like that reply, so lucid, transparent and clear, well said Alex.

.

[AlexW]

I really like that reply

Thank you DAM

[bahman]

Here I deduce the mind. Matter is deterministic, the free decision is not deterministic, therefore there is another entity that makes the free decision, so-called mind.

As you say, the above is a deduction - not an experience.

All I am saying is that all deduction, all ideas, all interpretations are not reality - you can feel the *pinch* (of arm), but no matter how "precise" the description, it will never be reality.

Thus, stating that something is deterministic or non deterministic is - while it might be (seemingly) valuable for our relativistic interpretation of the universe - ultimately an exercise in futility. Why? Because you are trying to explain "something" (reality) that is not a thing and thus neither deterministic nor not deterministic - it is beyond all interpretations. If you "once apprehended and experienced the self", as you said, then you would know and understand this to be true - you would see that the self is nothing but reality...

Anyway, yes, sure, you can build a conceptual model of this (your) world and label parts as deterministic and other part as non deterministic, but this is just a model - not reality...

Free will is irreducible. The decision is due to one thing that is irreducible. The decision of something which has structure when there is a conflict of interest is also due to one component which components should be irreducible too. Matter is reducible since it eventually vanishes. We know this by fact, an electron has a life-time.

Mind makes ideas.

Mind is itself an idea... An idea making ideas - why not

Ahan, so you believe that you are an stream of ideas. Why this stream of ideas is consistent? I mean think of a random stream instead of a consistent one. I mean if the both streams are possible why not your reality is not consistent one day and inconsistent another day?

Real: Actually existing as a thing.

But reality is not a thing.
If it were a thing there would have to be multiple realities - as I stated before: if there is only one thing (aka reality) then this thing is not actually a thing (as all relativity is lost if there is only one "thing").

You are not making any sense here.

So I am no one. Please don't tell this to me.

It depends how you define yourself.
There is this collection of thoughts (people tend to call it "mind") which makes up the "ego", the individual person - but... are you this ego?
If so, what are you when all thoughts are gone? Do you still exist?
I would say, yes, you still exist, maybe not as the person you believe yourself to be, but hey ... you still are, right?
So... what is left once the "mind" (the person) is gone?
Maybe that's what you really are...

By me I mean an agent that is irreducible, can experience, can decide, and can cause.

Persons care. They are part of reality.

Sure, persons might care (or not), but are they part of reality...?
To me, reality is that which is left once you stop interpreting, once you stop applying concepts to direct experience.
The person vanishes together with conceptual thought - as such, it cannot be real (but only thought up).
Reality is not personal at all - it is not divided into individuals - there is no personal point of view, no judgement at all...

I can imagine an incoherent reality without persons.

[AlexW]

Free will is irreducible. The decision is due to one thing that is irreducible. The decision of something which has structure when there is a conflict of interest is also due to one component which components should be irreducible too. Matter is reducible since it eventually vanishes. We know this by fact, an electron has a life-time.

Whatever is an idea is "reducible" (as you like to call it) - what is real is irreducible.
*Pinch* (of arm) is irreducible - you can't have half a *pinch* (of arm) - its all or nothing.

Ahan, so you believe that you are an stream of ideas.

No - I know that I am the "one" who observes this "stream of ideas" (which shouldn't imply that there is a separate "one" - there is no separate entity at all)

Also: The above shouldn't imply that there are no conditioned/acquired patterns of thought arising (which could be put into a box labelled "Alex") - the person is in this box, but it is not a real, separate entity - it is only a collection of thoughts/memories (no memories - no person).

Why this stream of ideas is consistent?

Consistency as well as its opposite are only ideas - reality is neither consistent nor inconsistent.
Consistency only depends on conditioned thought patters (memory) - no memory, no consistency.

You are not making any sense here.

Why? What don't you understand in:
But reality is not a thing.
If it (reality) were a thing there would have to be multiple realities - as I stated before: if there is only one thing (aka reality) then this thing is not actually a thing (as all relativity is lost if there is only one "thing").

By me I mean an agent that is irreducible, can experience, can decide, and can cause.

What is an "agent"?

I can imagine an incoherent reality without persons.

I can also imagine many things - imagining doesn't make them real though...

[bahman]

Free will is irreducible. The decision is due to one thing that is irreducible. The decision of something which has structure when there is a conflict of interest is also due to one component which components should be irreducible too. Matter is reducible since it eventually vanishes. We know this by fact, an electron has a life-time.

Whatever is an idea is "reducible" (as you like to call it) - what is real is irreducible.
*Pinch* (of arm) is irreducible - you can't have half a *pinch* (of arm) - its all or nothing.

So you agree with me?

Ahan, so you believe that you are an stream of ideas.

No - I know that I am the "one" who observes this "stream of ideas" (which shouldn't imply that there is a separate "one" - there is no separate entity at all)

Also: The above shouldn't imply that there are no conditioned/acquired patterns of thought arising (which could be put into a box labelled "Alex") - the person is in this box, but it is not a real, separate entity - it is only a collection of thoughts/memories (no memories - no person).

If you are the observer of the idea and not idea then it follows that you are separate from the idea.

Why this stream of ideas is consistent?

Consistency as well as its opposite are only ideas - reality is neither consistent nor inconsistent.

So your cup of tea does come to you after you approach it and pull it toward yourself?

Consistency only depends on conditioned thought patters (memory) - no memory, no consistency.

Memory is located inside mind.

You are not making any sense here.

Why? What don't you understand in:
But reality is not a thing.
If it (reality) were a thing there would have to be multiple realities - as I stated before: if there is only one thing (aka reality) then this thing is not actually a thing (as all relativity is lost if there is only one "thing").

Why the bold part is correct?

By me I mean an agent that is irreducible, can experience, can decide, and can cause.

What is an "agent"?

Me, you.

I can imagine an incoherent reality without persons.

I can also imagine many things - imagining doesn't make them real though...

THe point is to deduce which imagination fits with the reality that we observe.

[AlexW]

So you agree with me?

No, because "free will" is only an idea - not real.

If you are the observer of the idea and not idea then it follows that you are separate from the idea.

This only follows if you believe reality to be objective/relativistic (which it is not).
Direct experience reveals that the observer and the observed are one in the observing.

So your cup of tea does come to you after you approach it and pull it toward yourself?

Sure, this how we interpret it objectively ... but in reality, nothing is moving (because there are no separate things)

Memory is located inside mind.

Have you ever seen/experienced this "container" labelled "mind"?
I have not - and I am pretty sure nobody has... look at how thoughts arise... if you are completely honest you will find that they simply arise - they come from "nowhere" - they are not emerging from another thing that could be known - they do not crawl out and emerge from a thing called "mind"

Why the bold part is correct?
If it (reality) were a thing there would have to be multiple realities

It is correct because you cannot have just one thing - there are either multiple things or no things at all. You need at least two things - the observer and the observed - to state "this over there is a thing".
If there is only one thing it is impossible to do this - but then again... we still do it... how??? By believing in the idea that there are multiple things/objects and that we are the separate subject. We forget that this is an interpretation only, not reality, not truth - in reality there are no things, not even one.

THe point is to deduce which imagination fits with the reality that we observe.

Sure, thats what we (thoughts) do - it allows us to navigate and make sense of this world in a very special way, but it also provides the disadvantage of making us blind to the underlying, undivided reality (in this case: with "us", I refer to thought).