We are living in simulating reality

[Age]

What is the problem?


Yes, all mind must be like me if they cause motion.

BUT you are IN a SIMULATION, CORRECT?

THEREFORE, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing you SAY and CLAIM could be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, and Incorrect. This is because you could have been SIMULATED to SAY and CLAIM only 'that' which is False, Wrong, and Incorrect, correct?

Or, has your SIMULATED Creator MADE 'you' to ONLY SEE the opposite here?

Could your Creator MADE you to BELIEVE that whatever you SAY and CLAIM is ACTUALLY True, right, and correct?

Not everything is false. For example, I know that I experience.

BUT you are living in a simulation right, according to you, so you do NOT KNOW ANY thing. You were just CREATED to BELIEVE and SAY that you KNOW you experience.

See, the CREATOR, which you BELIEVE CREATED you, has just MADE you to SAY such things.

[Age]

I just want to prove that mind exists since change exists.

Here we have a PRIME example of one SEEKING for absolutely ANY thing that might be able to prove true what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

We have been through this several times. You believe in regress which is absurd so I cannot help you with that.

You are being BEYOND RIDICULOUS here "bahman".

I do NOT believe ANY such thing. NEVER HAVE and NEVER WILL. So, what you BELIEVE and CLAIM here is just absolute ABSURDITY.

ALSO, what you SAID and CLAIMED here just now had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and SHOWED.

[bahman]

BUT you are IN a SIMULATION, CORRECT?

THEREFORE, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing you SAY and CLAIM could be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, and Incorrect. This is because you could have been SIMULATED to SAY and CLAIM only 'that' which is False, Wrong, and Incorrect, correct?

Or, has your SIMULATED Creator MADE 'you' to ONLY SEE the opposite here?

Could your Creator MADE you to BELIEVE that whatever you SAY and CLAIM is ACTUALLY True, right, and correct?

Not everything is false. For example, I know that I experience.

BUT you are living in a simulation right, according to you, so you do NOT KNOW ANY thing. You were just CREATED to BELIEVE and SAY that you KNOW you experience.

See, the CREATOR, which you BELIEVE CREATED you, has just MADE you to SAY such things.

Come on, try to be a little positive sometimes. I can say that experience exists. From experience, I can say that change exists. And from that, I can say that mind exists. So the only thing that I can tell for sure is that I experience.

[bahman]

Here we have a PRIME example of one SEEKING for absolutely ANY thing that might be able to prove true what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

We have been through this several times. You believe in regress which is absurd so I cannot help you with that.

You are being BEYOND RIDICULOUS here "bahman".

I do NOT believe ANY such thing. NEVER HAVE and NEVER WILL. So, what you BELIEVE and CLAIM here is just absolute ABSURDITY.

ALSO, what you SAID and CLAIMED here just now had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and SHOWED.

Ok, you think that regress is right. But you are wrong.

[Age]

Again: It is a matter of fact. If there is a motion that is not due to my mind then it is due to another mind. There are motions that they are not due to me so there is at least one mind more. How a motion could be due to my conscious mind and I am not aware of it?

How could ANY thing cause motion when it has NO direct contact with it?

Mind has direct contact with qualia when it experience qualia.

BUT you CLAIM some 'mind' thing CREATED the qualia in the first place, which would mean that the 'direct contact's HAPPENED BEFORE the quali even came INTO existence.

[bahman]

How could ANY thing cause motion when it has NO direct contact with it?

Mind has direct contact with qualia when it experience qualia.

BUT you CLAIM some 'mind' thing CREATED the qualia in the first place, which would mean that the 'direct contact's HAPPENED BEFORE the quali even came INTO existence.

Of course, there is another mind that creates qualia so the other mind can experience it. It is give and take, like our conversation.

[Age]

We have been through this several times. You believe in regress which is absurd so I cannot help you with that.

You are being BEYOND RIDICULOUS here "bahman".

I do NOT believe ANY such thing. NEVER HAVE and NEVER WILL. So, what you BELIEVE and CLAIM here is just absolute ABSURDITY.

ALSO, what you SAID and CLAIMED here just now had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and SHOWED.

Ok, you think that regress is right. But you are wrong.

Do you MEAN to act like an IDIOT or can you NOT help it?

I NEVER said ABSOLUTELY ANY thing about regress here. So, WHY are you talking about regress here now?

I was ONLY talking about how we have here now a PRIME example of you 'TRYING' your HARDEST to LOOK FOR absolutely ANY thing in the hope that you could find SOME thing that would or even could back up and support your currently HELD BELIEF.

[Age]

Mind has direct contact with qualia when it experience qualia.

BUT you CLAIM some 'mind' thing CREATED the qualia in the first place, which would mean that the 'direct contact's HAPPENED BEFORE the quali even came INTO existence.

Of course, there is another mind that creates qualia so the other mind can experience it. It is give and take, like our conversation.

SO, which 'mind' came first?

And, who or what created that first 'mind'?

[bahman]

You are being BEYOND RIDICULOUS here "bahman".

I do NOT believe ANY such thing. NEVER HAVE and NEVER WILL. So, what you BELIEVE and CLAIM here is just absolute ABSURDITY.

ALSO, what you SAID and CLAIMED here just now had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I POINTED OUT and SHOWED.

Ok, you think that regress is right. But you are wrong.

Do you MEAN to act like an IDIOT or can you NOT help it?

I NEVER said ABSOLUTELY ANY thing about regress here. So, WHY are you talking about regress here now?

I was ONLY talking about how we have here now a PRIME example of you 'TRYING' your HARDEST to LOOK FOR absolutely ANY thing in the hope that you could find SOME thing that would or even could back up and support your currently HELD BELIEF.

You seem to forget that you commented on my post about mind and change. You think that continuum is possible and I showed that it leads to regress. The change to me is discrete. Experience, decision, and causation.

[bahman]

BUT you CLAIM some 'mind' thing CREATED the qualia in the first place, which would mean that the 'direct contact's HAPPENED BEFORE the quali even came INTO existence.

Of course, there is another mind that creates qualia so the other mind can experience it. It is give and take, like our conversation.

SO, which 'mind' came first?

Minds have existed since the beginning of time. So there is no first mind or lasat mind.

And, who or what created that first 'mind'?

Mind cannot be created or destroyed.

[Dimebag]

Yes, everything is minds and qualia. Minds being primary and qualia are due to minds.


It is a matter of fact. If there is a motion that is not due to my mind then it is due to another mind. There are motions that they are not due to me so there is at least one mind more.

What if instead if conceding to you that for any change to happen in an object a mind causes it, I say for any change in an object to be perceived, a mind must first perceive that object and any changes which the object goes through.

You want to say that a mind must CAUSE the change. I agree that for change to be observed, a mind must be present. But I don’t believe the mind caused that change. For change to be perceived, we have several interdependent criteria:

We need,

1. A mind independent object (otherwise it’s just a hallucination, that only you see).

Yes, that is qualia.

2. The mind independent object needs to have some EXTERNAL FORCE applied to it, I.e. Newton’s law.

What is an object and what is force?

3. The mind must have the ability to perceive that object, in this case, visually. The mind therefore needs eyes, and a functioning brain which interprets those sensory signals.

Mind does not need a sensory system in order to experience and cause change. In the case of humans, mind perceives what is constructed by brain.

4. The object needs to be illuminated by an external light source, for the eyes to detect the light from the object, I.e. the medium in which the eyes detect the object.

That is again for mind in the case of humans by which I mean the mind that perceives qualia that are caused by the brain.

Without all of these criteria, a change in an object cannot be perceived.

Now, we could ask, how does the perceptual system detect changes in that object, and represent them to the consciousness. This is where the mind becomes a key player, in the construction of the perception of change.

Mind directly experiences qualia and causes a change in it.

You think the mind CAUSES the change in the object. That means, you think mind is solely responsible for the changing of that object. In your view, is there any other existence to the object beyond the qualia which the mind perceives?

Do you think the mind directly receives the qualia which is the object itself, or do you think light bounces off something external to the mind, the eyes receive light and convert that into a representation of the thing “out there” which we then call “an object”.

Unless you think that there is nothing “out there” which the mind is representing, no actual object, but rather all there is is the map, no territory, then that cannot be the case. What you would be proposing is a kind of solipsism. But we also know you have already admitted there is more than one mind.

What I will admit to you is, it IS possible to have a completely idealist view even of an “external world”, but, that view seems to deny some obvious assumptions, such as:
* you are not the only mind
* there is a world external to you, from which you and your mind was formed
* something existed prior to any mind

What I will also admit is, the terminology “exist” is also dependent on witnessing minds, so the idea of a mind independent reality is difficult to discuss, BUT, we CAN extrapolate that one MUST have been the case for us to exist, i.e. minds emerging from non mind through evolution.

[bahman]

What if instead if conceding to you that for any change to happen in an object a mind causes it, I say for any change in an object to be perceived, a mind must first perceive that object and any changes which the object goes through.

You want to say that a mind must CAUSE the change. I agree that for change to be observed, a mind must be present. But I don’t believe the mind caused that change. For change to be perceived, we have several interdependent criteria:

We need,

1. A mind independent object (otherwise it’s just a hallucination, that only you see).

Yes, that is qualia.

2. The mind independent object needs to have some EXTERNAL FORCE applied to it, I.e. Newton’s law.

What is an object and what is force?

3. The mind must have the ability to perceive that object, in this case, visually. The mind therefore needs eyes, and a functioning brain which interprets those sensory signals.

Mind does not need a sensory system in order to experience and cause change. In the case of humans, mind perceives what is constructed by brain.

4. The object needs to be illuminated by an external light source, for the eyes to detect the light from the object, I.e. the medium in which the eyes detect the object.

That is again for mind in the case of humans by which I mean the mind that perceives qualia that are caused by the brain.

Without all of these criteria, a change in an object cannot be perceived.

Now, we could ask, how does the perceptual system detect changes in that object, and represent them to the consciousness. This is where the mind becomes a key player, in the construction of the perception of change.

Mind directly experiences qualia and causes a change in it.

You think the mind CAUSES the change in the object. That means, you think mind is solely responsible for the changing of that object. In your view, is there any other existence to the object beyond the qualia which the mind perceives?

To me, reality consists of minds and qualia. Minimally there are two minds one causes qualia that I perceive and another mind is mine. An object in my view can only exist if there are more minds that are responsible for moving qualia in reality. What is an object? An assembly of minds that exchange qualia with each other and form an entity.

Do you think the mind directly receives the qualia which is the object itself, or do you think light bounces off something external to the mind, the eyes receive light and convert that into a representation of the thing “out there” which we then call “an object”.

Mind only directly experiences and causes qualia. If objectivism (by objectivism I mean that objects exist as it is illustrated in the previous comment) is really true then my mind experiences the qualia that are created in my brain by other minds which this of course is the result of light reflecting from an object and interact with my sensory system, etc. There are minds exchanging information in this chain.

Unless you think that there is nothing “out there” which the mind is representing, no actual object, but rather all there is is the map, no territory, then that cannot be the case. What you would be proposing is a kind of solipsism. But we also know you have already admitted there is more than one mind.

There are at least two minds as I explained in my first comment so solipsism is not the case.

What I will admit to you is, it IS possible to have a completely idealist view even of an “external world”, but, that view seems to deny some obvious assumptions, such as:
* you are not the only mind

Of course, I am not denying that there are at least two minds. My view is, however, idealism by which I mean that mind is fundamental and qualia are due to mind.

* there is a world external to you, from which you and your mind was formed

I don't have any argument to support a reality that consists of more than two minds. Do you?

* something existed prior to any mind

No. Mind is fundamental.

What I will also admit is, the terminology “exist” is also dependent on witnessing minds, so the idea of a mind independent reality is difficult to discuss, BUT, we CAN extrapolate that one MUST have been the case for us to exist, i.e. minds emerging from non mind through evolution.

I don't think that is the case. I have an argument for mind. I have an argument against strong emergence that include the emergence of mind from something mindless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

hence the requirement of more than one witness
if Fred sees something it could be real or otherwise, if George sees something it could be real or otherwise. but if Fred and George see the same thing, then is it real?

saying something looks like something doesn't mean they know or believe or even suggest that what they see is a real thing. that's like saying a cloud looks like a bird means the person believes its a bird.

I was referring to your claim;
"but if Fred and George see the same thing, then is it real?"
It that is your claim, then you have to stick to it and not give excuses when it is questioned.
Point is you have been very shoddy and cheap-skate in your claims.

More accurately and realistically, what is real must be verified and justified upon a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], e.g. the scientific FSK as supporting what is most realistic.
Other lesser credible FSKs like the legal FSK establishes whether a murderer as accused has committed a real murder or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I just want to prove that mind exists since change exists.

just want to??

Whatever your feelings and intent, your argument must be valid and sound, but so far that is not the case.

[Age]

Ok, you think that regress is right. But you are wrong.

Do you MEAN to act like an IDIOT or can you NOT help it?

I NEVER said ABSOLUTELY ANY thing about regress here. So, WHY are you talking about regress here now?

I was ONLY talking about how we have here now a PRIME example of you 'TRYING' your HARDEST to LOOK FOR absolutely ANY thing in the hope that you could find SOME thing that would or even could back up and support your currently HELD BELIEF.

You seem to forget that you commented on my post about mind and change.

You seem to forget that I have ALREADY PROVED False AND Wrong your BELIEFS about mind and change.

You think that continuum is possible and I showed that it leads to regress. The change to me is discrete. Experience, decision, and causation.

You are just re-repeating what you BELIEVE is true.