I have an argument for that (argument from motion): Think of a change in an object, A to B. To be B the object must not be A. There is however nothing when there is no A and nothing cannot possibly cause B. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience A and cause B. It has to have the ability to experience since otherwise, it cannot cause B that is related to A. It has to have the ability to cause too since otherwise there would be no B.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 amYou mean 'mind' is an irreducible substance beyond a living human?bahman wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 2:41 pmTo me, mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia and cause qualia.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:34 am
Can you prove there are other minds other than human minds?
Note definition of what is mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
A human mind is supported by real empirical neurons in working order plus the whole human self.
If a human is dead, there is no human mind.
Can you prove there are other minds other than human minds?
What are such 'minds' supported by?
What are the empirical evidences to verify and justify your claim that such an external non-human mind is real?
We are living in simulating reality
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Re: We are living in simulating reality
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?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:50 amYes, I knew you believed that.
I wrote:What's the problem with not thinking everything is qualia and mind?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:12 pm You're making claims about all of reality when you are only in touch with yourself, by our own admission. You don't know if the same ontology holds everywhere.And again. I ask you how you can know things that are beyond your mind and you repeat your position. I know that is your position.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.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: We are living in simulating reality
And generally people focus on color when making this kind of argument. It is not that we don't have direct access to the color of an object but rather the color we see is a quale. The object need not 'have' a color.
But why do we focus on color when making the simulation argument?
Because it is much harder to make this argument with mass, volume, shape. formation, depth. These are nothing like color.
If I run through a field with gulleys, bumps, holes, clumps of nettles, rocks, I can generally do this, even at high speed, without falling down. How do I manage that if i don't have some clear access to reality?
My mind or brain is not making up shapes, depths, widths, contours etc. AND I will do vastly better at this than a blind person.
Color may well be a quale that has nothing to do with the ding an sich. But these other tactile qualities, also visible to me, are still there in scientific measurement of the objects.
Why can't the blind person run through the field as well as me, if it's all just quale and mind?
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Have you ever burnt your fingers? If yes, you notice the pain in your finger. But your finger just sent signals to your brain. This means that the feeling of pain is simulated in your brain such that you experience the pain located at your finger. The reality is that there is no pain in the location of the finger. The same rule applies to feeling gravity, sharp edge, etc.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:00 pmAnd generally people focus on color when making this kind of argument. It is not that we don't have direct access to the color of an object but rather the color we see is a quale. The object need not 'have' a color.
But why do we focus on color when making the simulation argument?
Because it is much harder to make this argument with mass, volume, shape. formation, depth. These are nothing like color.
If I run through a field with gulleys, bumps, holes, clumps of nettles, rocks, I can generally do this, even at high speed, without falling down. How do I manage that if i don't have some clear access to reality?
My mind or brain is not making up shapes, depths, widths, contours etc. AND I will do vastly better at this than a blind person.
Color may well be a quale that has nothing to do with the ding an sich. But these other tactile qualities, also visible to me, are still there in scientific measurement of the objects.
Why can't the blind person run through the field as well as me, if it's all just quale and mind?
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Bahman, I find that you do two things, rather often, and they are not mutually exclusive. Instead of adressing points I make, you reassert your position AND/OR you bring up something new, in our dialogue, that is not directly related to what I wrote.bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:20 pmHave you ever burnt your fingers? If yes, you notice the pain in your finger. But your finger just sent signals to your brain. This means that the feeling of pain is simulated in your brain such that you experience the pain located at your finger. The reality is that there is no pain in the location of the finger. The same rule applies to feeling gravity, sharp edge, etc.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:00 pmAnd generally people focus on color when making this kind of argument. It is not that we don't have direct access to the color of an object but rather the color we see is a quale. The object need not 'have' a color.
But why do we focus on color when making the simulation argument?
Because it is much harder to make this argument with mass, volume, shape. formation, depth. These are nothing like color.
If I run through a field with gulleys, bumps, holes, clumps of nettles, rocks, I can generally do this, even at high speed, without falling down. How do I manage that if i don't have some clear access to reality?
My mind or brain is not making up shapes, depths, widths, contours etc. AND I will do vastly better at this than a blind person.
Color may well be a quale that has nothing to do with the ding an sich. But these other tactile qualities, also visible to me, are still there in scientific measurement of the objects.
Why can't the blind person run through the field as well as me, if it's all just quale and mind?
It's tiring. I feel like I have to run around, find quotes from ten steps back in our dialogue to show you the contradiction I orginally responded to but got no response then. Or I have to try, again and again, to get a direct response. If you can actually show the connection, directly to what I wrote, ah, how unfortunately rare. But the way you do it, you don't actually show the steps in the argument, which is also a call for me to chase you round the horse stalls. It's facile and disingenous, though likely not intentional. I assume you think you are responding to me, But, regardless, I am going to take a break from communicating with you and I suspect this will be a relief to you, but for the wrong reasons. Take care.
-
- Posts: 12617
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: We are living in simulating reality
When you say 'think' in [1 ] you are invoking the human mind which is very limited and fallible. Thus what that follows is fallible.bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 4:15 pmI have an argument for that (argument from motion):Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 amYou mean 'mind' is an irreducible substance beyond a living human?
A human mind is supported by real empirical neurons in working order plus the whole human self.
If a human is dead, there is no human mind.
Can you prove there are other minds other than human minds?
What are such 'minds' supported by?
What are the empirical evidences to verify and justify your claim that such an external non-human mind is real?
1. Think of a change in an object, A to B.
2. To be B the object must not be A.
3. There is however nothing when there is no A and nothing cannot possibly cause B.
4. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience A and cause B.
5. It has to have the ability to experience since otherwise, it cannot cause B that is related to A.
6. It has to have the ability to cause too since otherwise there would be no B.
Your 3 is basically claiming a first cause or prime mover pre-existed. This is fallible and heavily refuted as illusory and impossible to be real.
Your 4 is an equivocation fallacy.
You are concluding something that is empirical [mind that experience and cause things] from reasoning [bad reasoning anyway] but without any empirical verifications and justifications at all.
Thus your whole argument 1-5 is in shambles and the conclusion do not follow is based on a deception via equivocation.
If you are so sure of your conclusion, you must verify and justify an empirical claim via empirical evidences plus rational philosophical reasonings.
If your 'mind' [within acceptable definition] exists surely it can be empirically verified, justified and tested.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
I am so sorry for your frustration. I just wanted to keep your attention that whatever that we experience is simulated in our brain.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 9:30 pmBahman, I find that you do two things, rather often, and they are not mutually exclusive. Instead of adressing points I make, you reassert your position AND/OR you bring up something new, in our dialogue, that is not directly related to what I wrote.bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:20 pmHave you ever burnt your fingers? If yes, you notice the pain in your finger. But your finger just sent signals to your brain. This means that the feeling of pain is simulated in your brain such that you experience the pain located at your finger. The reality is that there is no pain in the location of the finger. The same rule applies to feeling gravity, sharp edge, etc.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:00 pm And generally people focus on color when making this kind of argument. It is not that we don't have direct access to the color of an object but rather the color we see is a quale. The object need not 'have' a color.
But why do we focus on color when making the simulation argument?
Because it is much harder to make this argument with mass, volume, shape. formation, depth. These are nothing like color.
If I run through a field with gulleys, bumps, holes, clumps of nettles, rocks, I can generally do this, even at high speed, without falling down. How do I manage that if i don't have some clear access to reality?
My mind or brain is not making up shapes, depths, widths, contours etc. AND I will do vastly better at this than a blind person.
Color may well be a quale that has nothing to do with the ding an sich. But these other tactile qualities, also visible to me, are still there in scientific measurement of the objects.
Why can't the blind person run through the field as well as me, if it's all just quale and mind?
It's tiring. I feel like I have to run around, find quotes from ten steps back in our dialogue to show you the contradiction I orginally responded to but got no response then. Or I have to try, again and again, to get a direct response. If you can actually show the connection, directly to what I wrote, ah, how unfortunately rare. But the way you do it, you don't actually show the steps in the argument, which is also a call for me to chase you round the horse stalls. It's facile and disingenous, though likely not intentional. I assume you think you are responding to me, But, regardless, I am going to take a break from communicating with you and I suspect this will be a relief to you, but for the wrong reasons. Take care.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
I replace think with imagine. Problem solved?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 5:37 amWhen you say 'think' in [1 ] you are invoking the human mind which is very limited and fallible. Thus what that follows is fallible.bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 4:15 pmI have an argument for that (argument from motion):Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am
You mean 'mind' is an irreducible substance beyond a living human?
A human mind is supported by real empirical neurons in working order plus the whole human self.
If a human is dead, there is no human mind.
Can you prove there are other minds other than human minds?
What are such 'minds' supported by?
What are the empirical evidences to verify and justify your claim that such an external non-human mind is real?
1. Think of a change in an object, A to B.
2. To be B the object must not be A.
3. There is however nothing when there is no A and nothing cannot possibly cause B.
4. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience A and cause B.
5. It has to have the ability to experience since otherwise, it cannot cause B that is related to A.
6. It has to have the ability to cause too since otherwise there would be no B.
No, actually I can assume that something can come out of nothing and show that we are dealing with a problem. Interested to see that line of argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am Your 3 is basically claiming a first cause or prime mover pre-existed. This is fallible and heavily refuted as illusory and impossible to be real.
No, if B exists and nothing cannot cause it then something else must cause it since something cannot cause itself. One can show that that thing must be mind otherwise we are dealing with regress.
All thing that I need to start my argument is that change exists.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am You are concluding something that is empirical [mind that experience and cause things] from reasoning [bad reasoning anyway] but without any empirical verifications and justifications at all.
You cannot empirically observe mind but you can see its trace, motion.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am Thus your whole argument 1-5 is in shambles and the conclusion do not follow is based on a deception via equivocation.
If you are so sure of your conclusion, you must verify and justify an empirical claim via empirical evidences plus rational philosophical reasonings.
If your 'mind' [within acceptable definition] exists surely it can be empirically verified, justified and tested.
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: We are living in simulating reality
By that I mean "something which is less real".bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:05 pmWhat do you mean by "something which is less than reality"?mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:01 pm Your conclusion doesn't follow. We have no access to reality. It follows that we experience and are conscious of something which is less than reality. But that "something less" isn't a simulation of the complete reality.
Hope that helps!
Re: We are living in simulating reality
No, it doesn't.mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 4:29 pmBy that I mean "something which is less real".bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:05 pmWhat do you mean by "something which is less than reality"?mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:01 pm Your conclusion doesn't follow. We have no access to reality. It follows that we experience and are conscious of something which is less than reality. But that "something less" isn't a simulation of the complete reality.
Hope that helps!
-
- Posts: 12617
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Unfortunately, nope!bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 4:00 pmI replace think with imagine. Problem solved?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 5:37 amWhen you say 'think' in [1 ] you are invoking the human mind which is very limited and fallible. Thus what that follows is fallible.bahman wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 4:15 pm
I have an argument for that (argument from motion):
1. Think of a change in an object, A to B.
2. To be B the object must not be A.
3. There is however nothing when there is no A and nothing cannot possibly cause B.
4. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience A and cause B.
5. It has to have the ability to experience since otherwise, it cannot cause B that is related to A.
6. It has to have the ability to cause too since otherwise there would be no B.
When you use the term 'imagine' that is with reference to the empirical where the ultimate is you must provide empirical evidence to verify and justify your conclusion.
Assume is not valid for a proper argument of reality.No, actually I can assume that something can come out of nothing and show that we are dealing with a problem. Interested to see that line of argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am Your 3 is basically claiming a first cause or prime mover pre-existed. This is fallible and heavily refuted as illusory and impossible to be real.
Since you have switched to 'imagine' i.e. intuition, sense and empirical, you have to be ready to provide empirical justifications for your conclusion.
If you are switching to 'imaging' [intuition and experiential] then there is no equivocation with merely 'thinking'. In this case you have to prove the empirical justification like how we can prove the moon exist conventionally and empirically.No, if B exists and nothing cannot cause it then something else must cause it since something cannot cause itself. One can show that that thing must be mind otherwise we are dealing with regress.
When you switch to imagine there is no question of 'regress'.
It is 'turtle all the way' whichever 'turtle' you imagine, just bring the empirical evidence and justification to demonstrate it is a real thing.
If change exists empirically, you still have to demonstrate the mind beyond humans or anything also exists empirically.All thing that I need to start my argument is that change exists.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am You are concluding something that is empirical [mind that experience and cause things] from reasoning [bad reasoning anyway] but without any empirical verifications and justifications at all.
Yes one cannot observe a mind, .e.g. a human mind.You cannot empirically observe mind but you can see its trace, motion.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am Thus your whole argument 1-5 is in shambles and the conclusion do not follow is based on a deception via equivocation.
If you are so sure of your conclusion, you must verify and justify an empirical claim via empirical evidences plus rational philosophical reasonings.
If your 'mind' [within acceptable definition] exists surely it can be empirically verified, justified and tested.
But at least whatever mind is real it must be verifiable, justifiable and testable empirically which we can easily do with a basic human mind.
Your claim of a 'mind' beyond human minds is like the cosmological argument, i.e.You cannot empirically observe mind but you can see its trace, motion.
that there are creations, then there must be a creator,
that creations are so complex, then there must the greatest creator, i.e. God.
In your case, you only see trace, motions, etc. but it is totally false to jump into the conclusion there is a mind beyond human minds and all things.
That theists and you jumping to hasty conclusion is driven by a psychological impulse arising from an existential crisis - it is psychological soothing to jump to conclusion. You need to reflect on this alternative view.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
All I want to say is that there is a motion then there is mind. How would you start an argument like that?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 7:35 amUnfortunately, nope!bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 4:00 pmI replace think with imagine. Problem solved?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 5:37 am
When you say 'think' in [1 ] you are invoking the human mind which is very limited and fallible. Thus what that follows is fallible.
When you use the term 'imagine' that is with reference to the empirical where the ultimate is you must provide empirical evidence to verify and justify your conclusion.
Assume is not valid for a proper argument of reality.No, actually I can assume that something can come out of nothing and show that we are dealing with a problem. Interested to see that line of argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am Your 3 is basically claiming a first cause or prime mover pre-existed. This is fallible and heavily refuted as illusory and impossible to be real.
Since you have switched to 'imagine' i.e. intuition, sense and empirical, you have to be ready to provide empirical justifications for your conclusion.
If you are switching to 'imaging' [intuition and experiential] then there is no equivocation with merely 'thinking'. In this case you have to prove the empirical justification like how we can prove the moon exist conventionally and empirically.No, if B exists and nothing cannot cause it then something else must cause it since something cannot cause itself. One can show that that thing must be mind otherwise we are dealing with regress.
When you switch to imagine there is no question of 'regress'.
It is 'turtle all the way' whichever 'turtle' you imagine, just bring the empirical evidence and justification to demonstrate it is a real thing.
If change exists empirically, you still have to demonstrate the mind beyond humans or anything also exists empirically.All thing that I need to start my argument is that change exists.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am You are concluding something that is empirical [mind that experience and cause things] from reasoning [bad reasoning anyway] but without any empirical verifications and justifications at all.
Yes one cannot observe a mind, .e.g. a human mind.You cannot empirically observe mind but you can see its trace, motion.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:14 am Thus your whole argument 1-5 is in shambles and the conclusion do not follow is based on a deception via equivocation.
If you are so sure of your conclusion, you must verify and justify an empirical claim via empirical evidences plus rational philosophical reasonings.
If your 'mind' [within acceptable definition] exists surely it can be empirically verified, justified and tested.
But at least whatever mind is real it must be verifiable, justifiable and testable empirically which we can easily do with a basic human mind.
Your claim of a 'mind' beyond human minds is like the cosmological argument, i.e.You cannot empirically observe mind but you can see its trace, motion.
that there are creations, then there must be a creator,
that creations are so complex, then there must the greatest creator, i.e. God.
In your case, you only see trace, motions, etc. but it is totally false to jump into the conclusion there is a mind beyond human minds and all things.
That theists and you jumping to hasty conclusion is driven by a psychological impulse arising from an existential crisis - it is psychological soothing to jump to conclusion. You need to reflect on this alternative view.
-
- Posts: 12617
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: We are living in simulating reality
It just does not follow.
From your original intention, it is a problem of equivocation, i.e.
There is motion [empirical], then there is mind [pure reason].
if you correct it then it would be,
There is motion [empirical], then there is mind [empirical].
if the above is the argument, then bring the empirical evidence to justify such 'empirical based mind' exist.
Here is one way out for you on this;How would you start an argument like that?
There is motion [empirical], then there is a human-like mind [empirical].
The above is an empirical possibility, because we have evidence of existing human minds [empirical].
You can speculate there is a human-like-Mind [or minds] in a location 100 light years away in the universe generating reality for humans on Earth [like the Matrix].
Then you can confirm the above is real by bringing the empirical evidences to justify it is real.
The above is an empirical possibility because all the [bolded] relevant variables are empirically-based.
So the question is to bring the empirical evidence for verification, justification and testing.
It is an empirical possibility for the above empirical speculation to be real, but the possibility [based on current knowledge] is very low i.e. 0.00000001% possible.
So your original intention, i.e.
There is motion [empirical], then there is mind [pure reason].
it is a problem of equivocation, thus a non-starter.
also consider the alternative explanation,
That theists and you jumping to hasty conclusion is driven by a psychological impulse arising from an existential crisis - it is psychological soothing to jump to conclusion. You need to reflect on this alternative view.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
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?
Re: We are living in simulating reality
No, the second line of argument does not follow.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 2:14 amIt just does not follow.
From your original intention, it is a problem of equivocation, i.e.
There is motion [empirical], then there is mind [pure reason].
if you correct it then it would be,
There is motion [empirical], then there is mind [empirical].
if the above is the argument, then bring the empirical evidence to justify such 'empirical based mind' exist.
Look, you don't want to say that the time of the big bang and the appearance of humans is the same!?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 2:14 amHere is one way out for you on this;How would you start an argument like that?
There is motion [empirical], then there is a human-like mind [empirical].
The above is an empirical possibility, because we have evidence of existing human minds [empirical].
You can speculate there is a human-like-Mind [or minds] in a location 100 light years away in the universe generating reality for humans on Earth [like the Matrix].
Then you can confirm the above is real by bringing the empirical evidences to justify it is real.
The above is an empirical possibility because all the [bolded] relevant variables are empirically-based.
So the question is to bring the empirical evidence for verification, justification and testing.
It is an empirical possibility for the above empirical speculation to be real, but the possibility [based on current knowledge] is very low i.e. 0.00000001% possible.
So your original intention, i.e.
There is motion [empirical], then there is mind [pure reason].
it is a problem of equivocation, thus a non-starter.
also consider the alternative explanation,
That theists and you jumping to hasty conclusion is driven by a psychological impulse arising from an existential crisis - it is psychological soothing to jump to conclusion. You need to reflect on this alternative view.