bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:55 pm
Could you please tell everybody my argument for mind and its irreducibility?
You will NOT repeat your arguments for me but you EXPECT me to repeat your arguments for you, right?
Also, as I said, your argument is NOT sound and valid, and therefore NOT worth repeating.
WHEN you formulate a sound and valid argument, then get back to us. We ALL would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING 'that'.
Actually, there are two arguments here:
I do NOT care if there are two arguments here, two hundred arguments here, two million arguments here, or two trillion arguments here, and this is because if ANY argument is NOT sound AND valid, then, as I keep reminding you, those arguments are NOT worth repeating.
And, as I also keep reminding 'you', "bahman", your arguments, as they stand, are NOT sound AND valid.
Or, do 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that your OWN arguments are sound AND valid?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
(A) Argument for the necessity of mind and (B) Mind is an irreducible substance.
1. 'Trying to' argue FOR the necessity of some 'thing', like God or mind for example, is just 'trying to' argue FOR 'that', which one ALREADY BELIEVES exists, but which they have NO ACTUAL PROOF of NOR for.
2. 'Trying to' argue FOR A 'thing' as being a so-called 'irreducible substance' but which also there is an infinite amount of, besides being just plain old ABSURD, is just Truly ILLOGICAL as there would NOT ANY room for absolutely ANY thing ELSE.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise, everything is simultaneous instead of temporal therefore there is a gap between X and Y. In reality, X has to vanish in order to leave room for Y to take place. The gap however does not allow X turns into Y since there is no X between the gap.
But there is NO so-called 'gap'. you only BELIEVE there is because you are NOT looking at the WHOLE Picture. you are ONLY looking at the Picture from a narrowed or limited perspective. Thus you are only seeing individual pixels, and NOT the WHOLE Picture. Or, in other words, you are just seeing the individual trees, and NOT the WHOLE Forest.
There are OTHER faults and flaws in your ATTEMPT here also, but I have said enough already to SHOW what I want here.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Therefore, there must be a mind that makes a connection between X and Y, namely experiencing X and causing Y.
This is your argument in SIMPLE FORM.
A child turns into an adult, but this HAS TO happen at DIFFERENT times, so there MUST BE a mind.
Or,
P1. X, a child, becomes Y, an adult.
P2. X, a child, has to vanish in order for Y, an adult, to become, exist, or to take place.
C. Therefore there must be a mind.
Will you EVER explain HOW this even LOGICALLY follows? HOW do you JUMP to this 'conclusion', besides, of course, you ALREADY BELIEVE 'there MUST BE a mind'?
Also, you CLAIM that 'everything' can NOT lay on the same point because otherwise 'everything' is simultaneous, and would NOT be of temporal. As I have ALREADY partly explained, 'Everything' IS simultaneous, and WITHOUT 'gap', whereas, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY 'thing' (besides thee Universe, Itself) IS 'separated', WITH 'gap', and of limited existence, temporally AND spatially.
But you can NOT YET SEE 'this', the Forest, because you are ONLY looking at, and thus can only SEE, individual 'things', trees.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
B: Consider X that is reducible which means the existence of X depends on something else.
I have ALREADY suggested numerous times ADDING in ACTUAL EXAMPLES, as this MIGHT HELP YOU. Now, do you PURPOSELY NOT ADD IN EXAMPLES, because you have NOT READ what I have been suggesting, or because you just do NOT want to do what I SUGGEST, or because if you ACTUALLY DID, then this would REFUTE your OWN CLAIMS and BELIEFS here, or do you NOT ADD IN EXAMPLES for some other reason?
Oh, and by the way, I CAN ACTUALLY PROVE, what you are so desperately 'trying to' prove here, but this can ONLY BE DONE IN and WITH ACTUAL sound AND valid arguments. And, as I keep reminding you, 'your arguments', as they stand, are NOT YET sound AND valid, AT ALL.
WHY do NOT just OPEN UP a bit, and MOVE ALONG, instead of just RE-REPEATING the EXACT SAME things that you have been, and which OBVIOUSLY are NOT working for you?
Oh, and by the way, NOT ALL X's are reducible. But, if you want to refer to reducible X's, then so be it.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
We are dealing with a regress if we accept that all entities in the vertical chain of causation (by vertical I mean that something creates something else or the existence of something depend on something else) are reducible. Regress is not acceptable.
LOL 'regress' is ONLY 'unacceptable' TO 'you', and this is because, TO 'you', "bahman", 'you' look AT 'regress' from ANOTHER LIMITED, DISTORTED, or NOT, REAL WAY.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Therefore, there must be something irreducible in the vertical chain of causality. This thing we call mind.
'you', "bahman", call this 'thing' 'mind'. WE do NOT call this 'thing' 'mind'. WE use the 'Mind' word to refer to ANOTHER 'Thing', is this UNDERSTOOD, BY 'you', "bahman".
REMEMBER it is 'you' who is here 'TRYING TO' form arguments and prove some 'thing', which 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLE TRUE.
'We', on the other hand, ALREADY KNOW what IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, and, as such, have NO NEED to 'TRY TO' prove ANY 'thing' here.
'We' are just WATCHING and OBSERVING what 'you', human beings, DO and DID Wrong, in the days when this IS and WAS being written.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
I know that you believe in nonsense regress and I cannot help you with this.
LOL Well CLEARLY what 'you' THINK 'you' KNOW is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, which helps EXPLAIN WHY 'you' are SO Wrong and have such CLEARLY SO DISTORTED views.
How about you now EXPLAIN what 'regress' IS EXACTLY, TO you, and WHY you BELIEVE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, that 'regress' is PURE NONSENSE?
THEN, you might like to EXPLAIN HOW absolutely EVERY 'thing' CAME from absolutely NO 'thing'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, IS PURE NONSENSE TO 'US'.
BUT, if you do NOT even TRY TO EXPLAIN this, then that is OKAY as 'we' ALREADY KNOW WHY you CAN NOT.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:55 pm
What is physical to you?
ONCE MORE, you make the CLAIM, I ask you to CLARIFY, you then DETRACT and/or DEFLECT.
If, to you, 'matter' is NOT 'physical', then
what IS 'matter'?
I will suggest, AGAIN, if one comes here, especially in a philosophy forum, making CLAIMS, then it would be best if they had the ACTUAL PROOF for their CLAIM BEFORE they make the CLAIM, itself.
What is 'physical', to me, is 'that', which can be smelt, felt, tasted, seen, or heard with the visible parts of the human body.
What does happen if there is no human? Would be there matter still?
I ask 'you', "bahman", What IS 'matter' if 'matter' is NOT 'physical', AND these two questions is the answer 'you' GIVE. Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE the ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS here?
'you' WANT TO CLAIM that 'matter' is NOT 'physical', SO STAND BY THIS CLAIM and inform 'us' of what 'matter' IS EXACTLY if NOT 'physical'.
As for your two CLARIFYING questions here, posed to me, what does happen if there is NO human IS 'what happens'. Just like WHEN there IS human, what does happen, IS 'what happens'.
And the answer to your question, 'Would there still be matter', if there were NO human, then the answer would be, OBVIOUSLY there would be ANY way for A human to KNOW, FOR SURE, but considering the Fact that there MUST OF BEEN 'matter' BEFORE human beings evolved into Existence, then the answer would HAVE TO BE a resounding, Yes.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:55 pm
I already explained what is matter.
you CLAIM that 'matter cannot be anything but a collection of minds that interact via Qualia'.
you have NOT actually EXPLAINED what 'matter', itself, IS, EXACTLY, other than, OF COURSE, that 'matter' is NOT 'physical'.
Maybe if you provide some examples of so-called 'non physical matter', then this might help your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.
Spiritual reality is not physical given your definition.
Have I even given MY definition?
If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY?
And, WHEN have I EVER used the term 'spiritual reality'?
Maybe if you just STOP 'trying to' DEFLECT and just FOCUS ON and STAY ON the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I pose TO 'you' then we could ACTUALLY get somewhere.
Now, you CLAIM that 'matter' can NOT be absolutely ANY 'thing' but 'a collection of minds that interact via Qualia', which INFERS that 'minds' exist ETERNALLY. Now, you ALSO CLAIM that 'matter' is NOT 'physical'. So,
1. What IS 'matter', EXACTLY, if NOT 'physical'?
2. What ARE 'minds', EXACTLY, which, supposedly, exist 'eternally'?
If you CAN NOT or WILL NOT CLARIFY these two questions, then WHY do you even bother coming into this forum CLAIMING 'things' here?