bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:13 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
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?
I think they are sound and valid.
Okay, but I KNOW they are NOT.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
O, now you don't know what you are talking about. Let me commont further.
Okay, we WILL wait.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
Now you are not making any sense.
Okay, but WHY, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
X and Y either lay on the same point there is a distance between them. Which one do you pick?
The words 'lay on the same point' does NOT really make that much sense when in relation to two DIFFERENT 'objects'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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'?
Because there is a gap between X and Y.
BUT considering the Fact that there is NO ACTUAL 'separation' in the WHOLE Universe, besides, OF COURSE, the separation/s made through 'conception' or 'conceptual thinking'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
There is a gap between when you experience something and when you cause something.
So, for example, when you 'experienced' your first year teacher telling you to 'sit down now', and, when you 'caused' the words above these ones, you are SAYING and CLAIMING that there is a so-called 'gap', right?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
This gap, however, is filled by background whatever you experience but it is not the subject of your focus.
I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'filled by background' means AT ALL.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
Now, this explains that you have major problems understanding everything.
So, from me writing just the above two sentences you now CLAIM that they EXPLAIN that 'I' have a MAJOR PROBLEM understanding absolutely EVERY thing in Life, including understanding 'Life', Itself.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
By simultaneous, I mean that X and Y lay at the same point or the distance between X and Y is absolutely zero. Temporal and simultaneous events are two different categories therefore they cannot be the same.
So, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'this' DIFFER from what I SAID and WROTE here?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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?
Example!? Anything that can experience now, like the chair that you are sitting on.
So now you are CLAIMING that 'chairs' can experience 'things', correct?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
What is your argument for the irreducibility of mind?
I have NO argument for ANY such thing as the so-called 'irreducibility of mind'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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?
My argument works fine.
For WHO, besides YOU?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
What is the definition of regress for you?
'Return to a former or less developed state', will suffice for now.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
To me, there are two categories of things, either the thing is reachable or not no matter how much you wait.
But the word 'you' refers to 'that', which is VERY, VERY limited. So, there are MANY, MANY 'things' that ARE 'unreachable', to 'you'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
The first category is a finite thing. The second category is infinity. Regress is endless so it is worst than infinity.
'Worst, (or even worse), than infinity', is NOT a LOGICAL term NOR phrase, in the english language.
And, it is GREAT to SEE that you DO RECOGNIZE the two categories of 'finite' and 'infinite'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
What are your argument for mind and its irreducibility?
As I said above, I have NO argument for 'mind and its so-called irreducibility'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
What is your definition of regress?
As above.
Your definition of 'regress' is 'endless', right?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
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 are chasing your tail when you say that matter is physical. What is physical? What matter is.
So, YOUR WAY out of 'this' was to just SAY and CLAIM that 'matter' is NOT 'physical', correct?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
'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.
What do you mean?
In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
So don't you agree that your definition of physical has problems?
Yes.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Spiritual reality is not physical given your definition.
Have I even given MY definition?
If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY?
You gave your definition of physicality, something that can be smelt, seen, etc.
AND what did that AT ALL have to do with some so-called 'thing' as 'spiritual reality'?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
And, WHEN have I EVER used the term 'spiritual reality'?
No, I used it.
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
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,
I asked what is physical to you.
AND I ANSWERED 'it'.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I didn't say that matter is not physical.
I asked 'you', "bahman", 'By the way 'matter' is just 'that', which is of 'physicality', yes or no?'
Which 'you' CLEARLY replied with 'No'.
So, now HOW, EXACTLY, does this ALIGN with your CLAIM here that you did NOT say that matter is not physical?
I asked you the question that I did, SPECIFICALLY in the WAY that I did, because of the OUTCOME that WOULD arise, and which HAS now ARISEN.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
1. What IS 'matter', EXACTLY, if NOT 'physical'?
What do you mean by physical?
As I SAID BEFORE, 'that', which can be felt by the five senses of the body.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
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?
I already explain what mind is in OP.
So, to you, 'mind' is 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause', and, which, OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR VERSION of 'things', existed BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE did, and which CAUSED absolutely EVERY 'thing' to come into existence, OUT OF and FROM absolutely NOTHING, other than from its OWN self, correct?