What is matter?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6679
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm That is needed to explain the interaction between two objects. An object cannot move another object if the Qualia that they exchange does not contain momentum.
Are objects mind or qualia. Because generally they are not considered that.
What do you mean?
Objects are not qualia. Objects are not mind. Objects are from an ontology other than yours. Dreamed objects are like qualia.
It is substance dualism since there are two underlying substances that make everything including matter, those two substances are mind and Qualia.
It sounds like three substances or 1. You mention qualia and mind as two substances. Is matter made of one or the other of these? Generally qualia are not considered matter. Nor mind.
Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality. We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
Then mind and substance are the only substances. There's no third thing 'matter' which in philosophy is considered a substance.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:30 pm I believe in a new version of substance dualism that reality is made of two substances, minds (I have an argument for mind and I can share it with you if you are interested), and Qualia. Mind is an irreducible substance (I have an argument for irreducibility of mind and I can share it with you if you are interested) with the ability to experience and cause. Qualia is a reducible substance and it is the subject of experience and causation. Given these, matter cannot be anything but a collection of minds that interact via Qualia. Here we are left to explain what force and mass are: Mass is nothing but a sort of Qualia that resists change in motion. Force is nothing but a sort of Qualia that carries momentum and energy. Two objects, therefore, interact with each other through the exchange of Qualia.
Why retain ideas that like momentum and energy in qualia?
That is needed to explain the interaction between two objects. An object cannot move another object if the Qualia that they exchange does not contain momentum.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm It would be more like a dream of momentum and energy than what we refer too, if incorrectly according to your model, as those things.
What do you mean?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm Matter=minds and qualia, it seems. But if these are both matter why is it a substance dualism?
It is substance dualism since there are two underlying substances that make everything including matter, those two substances are mind and Qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm What is the word matter adding to the two substances you have labelled q and m?
Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality.
So, to you, a 'brick', for example, is made up of 'Mind' and 'Qualia', correct?

If yes, then HOW MANY 'minds' or is there just One Mind 'per brick', and, what does the word 'Qualia' even mean or refer to, to you?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
On just about EVERY thread I follow of yours you appear to speak in MORE and MORE ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ways. This one here appears NO DIFFERENT.

you seem to make MORE SENSE in your first post, and then just make LESS SENSE as you are QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED along the way.

As I have INFORMED you a few times ALREADY your UNDERLYING premises are ACTUALLY just about ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct. BUT, and VERY SADLY, you ALLOW your OWN CURRENT BELIEFS to GET IN THE WAY and DISTORT FROM what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:13 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

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?
I think they are sound and valid.
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.
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. X and Y either lay on the same point there is a distance between them. Which one do you pick?
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. There is a gap between when you experience something and when you cause something. This gap, however, is filled by background whatever you experience but it is not the subject of your focus.
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. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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? To me, there are two categories of things, either the thing is reachable or not no matter how much you wait. The first category is a finite thing. The second category is infinity. Regress is endless so it is worst than infinity.
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?
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?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm

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 are chasing your tail when you say that matter is physical. What is physical? What matter is.
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? So don't you agree that your definition of physical has problems?
Age wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:11 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm

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?
You gave your definition of physicality, something that can be smelt, seen, etc.
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. I didn't say that matter is not physical.
Age wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm 1. What IS 'matter', EXACTLY, if NOT 'physical'?
What do you mean by physical?
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.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:56 am
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:42 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:24 pm

Okay. So there is no room for absolutely ANY thing else but these mind things correct?
Mind does not occupy any room.
I NEVER said, NOR even suggested, that 'mind' occupies ANY room.

In fact I said, AND meant, if 'minds' are infinite in amount, as you CLAIM they are, then there would NOT be ANY absolutely room, for absolutely ANY thing else.
Ok, then why did you ask if there infinite number of minds then there is no room for absolutely ANY thing else but these mind things correct?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:42 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
'Matter' exists, ALWAYS.
No, matter has existed since the beginning of time.
LOL
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm You believe in regress that by definition is unreachable but can be reached.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm That is nonsense.
YES. What you SAY and CLAIM here is PURE NONSENSE because there is absolutely NO truth AT ALL to it.
What is your definition of regress?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm Between ALL 'matter', or as some of you would say, between EVERY 'particle of matter' there is a 'space', or 'place', of NO 'matter'. 'Space' allows 'matter' to move FREELY, until 'matter' bumps into, or interacts, with 'itself', which is what causes, or creates, energy.
Any sort of matter has a lifetime which means that it would be destroyed given enough amount of time.
LOL
Why you don't try to educate yourself instead of laughing? Just google lifetime of electron for example.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm Matter does not bump into itself.
you SAY 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE 'matter' is NONE 'physical'. OF COURSE 'non physical' 'things' could NOT 'bump' into itself.
Now you are wasting my time.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm 'Matter' stays 'together', for a while, forming what are sometimes referred to, or called, 'objects', or 'physical objects' because of 'magnetism', itself.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm No, that shows that you don't understand anything.
Okay. To "bahman" 'I' do NOT understand absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.
Yes.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm Not all form of matter has magnetism, pi-meson has spin zero!
Is 'pi-meson' AN 'object'?
It is a particle. Matter is made of particles. Don't you know that?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm If no, then READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I wrote. I SAID 'matter' stays 'together' FORMING 'objects' BECAUSE OF 'magnetism', itself. I NEVER SAID, 'ALL forms of matter HAS 'magnetism'.

But if 'pi-meson' IS AN 'object', then what does the 'pi-meson object' look like, EXACTLY?
Pi-meson is a particle. Objects are made of particles. And magnetism is not the thing that keeps particles together. There are four forces that do that.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm ALL 'objects', however, are made up of BOTH 'physical matter' AND 'space'. Some 'objects' only last, or remain, for a finite 'time', while some last, or remain, eternally.
No, all objects are only made of physical matter.
WHAT?

you SAID and CLAIMED ABOVE that 'matter' is NOT of 'physicality'. Now you are SAYING and CLAIMING that ALL 'objects' are ONLY made of 'physicality'.

Are you AWARE of just HOW MANY TIMES you end up CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' in this forum "bahman"?

Also, and by the way, to you, absolutely EVERY 'object' IS ONLY made up of 'physical matter', right? Like 'tables' and 'watermelons' for example, right?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm Objects are embedded in space.
'Embedded' as in, FIXED FIRMLY and DEEPLY, right?
You are embedded in space for example. Don't you understand this?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm Now, if ANY one does NOT YET KNOW which 'object' is forever, and which 'objects' are not, then please let us, that is; IF you would like to become in-form-ed as well.
What you are talking about?
That was ONLY for those WITH ANY CURIOSITY, in regards to my CLAIM that SOME 'objects' ARE FOREVER while SOME 'objects' ARE FINITE. BUT, you, OBVIOUSLY, MISSED that part.
Objects cannot exist forever. They decay.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm That is needed to explain the interaction between two objects. An object cannot move another object if the Qualia that they exchange does not contain momentum.
Are objects mind or qualia. Because generally they are not considered that.
Objects are minds and Qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:44 pm
What do you mean?
Objects are not qualia. Objects are not mind. Objects are from an ontology other than yours. Dreamed objects are like qualia.
But we are talking about the real object.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:44 pm
It is substance dualism since there are two underlying substances that make everything including matter, those two substances are mind and Qualia.
It sounds like three substances or 1. You mention qualia and mind as two substances. Is matter made of one or the other of these? Generally qualia are not considered matter. Nor mind.
No, there are two fundamental things, mind and Qualia, so it is substance dualism.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:44 pm
Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality. We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
Then mind and substance are the only substances. There's no third thing 'matter' which in philosophy is considered a substance.
Matter is made of two fundamental substances so it is a substance but it is reducible to other substances namely minds and Qualia. That is why the question "what is matter?" is meaningful.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm
Why retain ideas that like momentum and energy in qualia?
That is needed to explain the interaction between two objects. An object cannot move another object if the Qualia that they exchange does not contain momentum.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm It would be more like a dream of momentum and energy than what we refer too, if incorrectly according to your model, as those things.
What do you mean?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm Matter=minds and qualia, it seems. But if these are both matter why is it a substance dualism?
It is substance dualism since there are two underlying substances that make everything including matter, those two substances are mind and Qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:59 pm What is the word matter adding to the two substances you have labelled q and m?
Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality.
So, to you, a 'brick', for example, is made up of 'Mind' and 'Qualia', correct?
Yes.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm If yes, then HOW MANY 'minds' or is there just One Mind 'per brick', and, what does the word 'Qualia' even mean or refer to, to you?
There are many minds per brick. I already defined what I mean by Qualia, the subject of experience and causation.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
On just about EVERY thread I follow of yours you appear to speak in MORE and MORE ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ways. This one here appears NO DIFFERENT.

you seem to make MORE SENSE in your first post, and then just make LESS SENSE as you are QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED along the way.

As I have INFORMED you a few times ALREADY your UNDERLYING premises are ACTUALLY just about ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct. BUT, and VERY SADLY, you ALLOW your OWN CURRENT BELIEFS to GET IN THE WAY and DISTORT FROM what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.
Which part of what I explained is right and which part is wrong?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6679
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:43 pm Objects are minds and Qualia.
So, a mixture of the two substances?
But we are talking about the real object.
You mean objects are not minds and qualia? What's the difference between real objects and objects? If you say that reality is made of two things - minds and qualia - neither of which are objects, at least as the terms are generally used, it sounds like a kind of phenomenalism or a kind of idealism. Qualia are generally counterpoised to the things out there, objects. They are facets of experience (only).
Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality. We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
So, the real chair that I am sitting on is made up of qualia, experienced sensations, and mind? That sounds like idealism and/or phenomenalism. Or? I don't know what 'real objects' means in this situation. As opposed to what other kind of objects? and if these objects are made up of qualia and mind, then they cannot be around me. They would be in me, happening in me.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:43 pm Objects are minds and Qualia.
So, a mixture of the two substances?
Yes.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm
But we are talking about the real object.
You mean objects are not minds and qualia?
Objects are made of minds and Qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm What's the difference between real objects and objects?
You mention the object that we see in the dream. I just wanted to mention that I mean the objects that you experience in your daily life, real objects, rather than dreamy objects.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm If you say that reality is made of two things - minds and qualia - neither of which are objects, at least as the terms are generally used, it sounds like a kind of phenomenalism or a kind of idealism.
I don't think idealism is feasible worldview. The subject of experience is real, Qualia, it is a substance. Qualia is however caused by mind. In another hand objects are real, so we are dealing with phenomenalism. But phenomenalism does not describe underlying reality. Everything is made of mind and Qualia, therefore we are dealing with substance dualism.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm Qualia are generally counterpoised to the things out there, objects. They are facets of experience (only).
Qualia to me is the subject of experience that exists. So it is a substance on its own.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm
Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality. We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
So, the real chair that I am sitting on is made up of qualia, experienced sensations, and mind?
Qualia is not "experienced sensations", but a substance on its own. The chair is made of minds and Qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm That sounds like idealism and/or phenomenalism. Or?
We are dealing with phenomenalism, but phenomenalism does not answer what is the underlying reality, what is an object for example?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm I don't know what 'real objects' means in this situation.
I mean what you see in your daily life rather than what you see in your dream.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm As opposed to what other kind of objects? and if these objects are made up of qualia and mind, then they cannot be around me.
They are around you.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm They would be in me, happening in me.
No. That is idealism. How could have any sort of experience if the subject of experience does not exist as a substance?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6679
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:04 pm You mention the object that we see in the dream. I just wanted to mention that I mean the objects that you experience in your daily life, real objects, rather than dreamy objects.
Sure, but dream objects and everyday objects would both be made of qualia and mind, or? Would they be ontologically different? Is their substance different?
I don't think idealism is feasible worldview. The subject of experience is real, Qualia, it is a substance.
The idealists consider the world real, just not matter. The
Qualia is however caused by mind. In another hand objects are real, so we are dealing with phenomenalism. But phenomenalism does not describe underlying reality. Everything is made of mind and Qualia, therefore we are dealing with substance dualism.
Yes, idealism tends not to be dualist. But then they would consider qualia part of minds. Which is generally how the term is used.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm Qualia are generally counterpoised to the things out there, objects. They are facets of experience (only).
Qualia to me is the subject of experience that exists. So it is a substance on its own.
Do we experience minds, then? or deduce their existence only?

Qualia is not "experienced sensations", but a substance on its own. The chair is made of minds and Qualia.
The chair is made up of minds (I am asking both if it is made up of mind and then also if it is plural). So, the chair is made up of a substance qualia AND minds. So, if I experience a chair it is partly my mind I am experiencing plus qualia. So, some of what I experience is not qualia? How do I experience what is not qualia?


I mean what you see in your daily life rather than what you see in your dream.
If dream objects are qualia and mind, how are they not real objects. If they are not qualia and mind, what are they made of?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm As opposed to what other kind of objects? and if these objects are made up of qualia and mind, then they cannot be around me.
They are around you.
So, there are qualia external to minds and qualia in minds?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:04 pm You mention the object that we see in the dream. I just wanted to mention that I mean the objects that you experience in your daily life, real objects, rather than dreamy objects.
Sure, but dream objects and everyday objects would both be made of qualia and mind, or?
Dream objects could be real if you have access to higher reality (I had dreams like that) otherwise what you experience is directly made by other minds. By the second case I mean that there are no objects but the subject of your experience is directly caused by other minds.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am Would they be ontologically different?
Yes, they could be different as I illustrated in the previous comment.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am Is their substance different?
The subject of experience is always Qualia but we experience different sorts of Qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm Qualia are generally counterpoised to the things out there, objects. They are facets of experience (only).
Qualia to me is the subject of experience that exists. So it is a substance on its own.
Do we experience minds, then? or deduce their existence only?
I experienced my mind once. It is a sort of weird experience. I have an argument for the existence of mind though.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am
Qualia is not "experienced sensations", but a substance on its own. The chair is made of minds and Qualia.
The chair is made up of minds (I am asking both if it is made up of mind and then also if it is plural). So, the chair is made up of a substance qualia AND minds. So, if I experience a chair it is partly my mind I am experiencing plus qualia. So, some of what I experience is not qualia? How do I experience what is not qualia?
What you experience is only Qualia. The point is that what is the source of the Qualia? Generally, we experience Qualia that are made by other minds. We however have a body which means that we are an object too. When you look at your monitor you experience something that is not the monitor but the Qualia that are made by your subconscious minds in your brain. The monitor emits photons that are nothing but Qualia. These photons are absorbed by the retina. Retina then sends a signal through your nervous system into the part of the brain which is responsible for vision. There is pattern recognition there that is done by subconscious minds. Then the conscious mind receives Qualia that is processed by subconscious minds.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am
I mean what you see in your daily life rather than what you see in your dream.
If dream objects are qualia and mind, how are they not real objects. If they are not qualia and mind, what are they made of?
We only directly have access to Qualia. The dream objects are two different categories. I discussed that earlier in this post.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:01 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:04 pm As opposed to what other kind of objects? and if these objects are made up of qualia and mind, then they cannot be around me.

They are around you.
So, there are qualia external to minds and qualia in minds?
Yes. The photon from your monitor is external to your mind. Once you perceive it then it becomes internal to your mind.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

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?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:13 pm

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.
Or, you just don't understand.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


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?
I know the whole picture.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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'.
I am talking about one system which is subject to change, a falling apple for example.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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'.
If there is no gap between X and Y then things would be simultaneous. Do you what is simultaneous? Do you know what is the difference between simultaneous and temporal?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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?
I am saying that there is a gap between asking you to do something and you doing something. For example, a teacher asks you to sit down and then you sit down.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
By the background, I mean whatever that you experience and it is not the subject of your focus. For example, now you are reading what I am writing. It takes you time that you read and then understand what I am writing. So there is a gap between reading and understanding too. You however experience all sorts of things, like your monitor and whatever is behind it. So we have two things in here: 1) Whatever is your subject of focus, like reading and then understanding my words, and 2) the background whatever you experience and it is not the subject of your focus, your monitor and whatever is behind it for example.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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?
What is simultaneous and temporal to you?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

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?
Sure it does. Your chair is made of wood which is a sort of matter. Matter is made of minds and Qualia.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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.
No, by regress I mean endless. For example when something depends on something else etc.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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'.
So you understand the difference between finite and infinite? Can you reach the infinite future for example if you could live forever?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

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?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

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?
No, I am saying that just saying that matter is physical does not resolve the issue. You have to explain what is physical.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm So don't you agree that your definition of physical has problems?
Yes.
But explain to you that it has a problem since it is human dependent.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:10 pm 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'?
Something that some people can experience and others not.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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'.
But your definition has a problem.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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?
Matter to me is made of minds and Qualia. By physicality, I mean something that exists on its own.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm 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.
But that definition has a problem as I showed you. It is human-dependent.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
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?
No, I am not talking about the beginning of time here. Minds have existed since the beginning of time since there is no such thing as before the beginning of time.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:10 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:56 am
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:42 pm
Mind does not occupy any room.
I NEVER said, NOR even suggested, that 'mind' occupies ANY room.

In fact I said, AND meant, if 'minds' are infinite in amount, as you CLAIM they are, then there would NOT be ANY absolutely room, for absolutely ANY thing else.
Ok, then why did you ask if there infinite number of minds then there is no room for absolutely ANY thing else but these mind things correct?
To find out and see what your answer would be.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:42 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
No, matter has existed since the beginning of time.
LOL
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm You believe in regress that by definition is unreachable but can be reached.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm That is nonsense.
YES. What you SAY and CLAIM here is PURE NONSENSE because there is absolutely NO truth AT ALL to it.
What is your definition of regress?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
Any sort of matter has a lifetime which means that it would be destroyed given enough amount of time.
LOL
Why you don't try to educate yourself instead of laughing? Just google lifetime of electron for example.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm Matter does not bump into itself.
you SAY 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE 'matter' is NONE 'physical'. OF COURSE 'non physical' 'things' could NOT 'bump' into itself.
Now you are wasting my time.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm 'Matter' stays 'together', for a while, forming what are sometimes referred to, or called, 'objects', or 'physical objects' because of 'magnetism', itself.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm No, that shows that you don't understand anything.
Okay. To "bahman" 'I' do NOT understand absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.
Yes.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm Not all form of matter has magnetism, pi-meson has spin zero!
Is 'pi-meson' AN 'object'?
It is a particle.
A particle of 'what', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm Matter is made of particles.
Matter is made up of particles of 'what', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm Don't you know that?
Let us SEE what you do and do NOT know here.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm If no, then READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I wrote. I SAID 'matter' stays 'together' FORMING 'objects' BECAUSE OF 'magnetism', itself. I NEVER SAID, 'ALL forms of matter HAS 'magnetism'.

But if 'pi-meson' IS AN 'object', then what does the 'pi-meson object' look like, EXACTLY?
Pi-meson is a particle. Objects are made of particles.
So, does this then MEAN that 'pi-meson' is an 'object'?

If no, then why NOT?

By the way do you even know what 'clarify' MEANS, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm And magnetism is not the thing that keeps particles together. There are four forces that do that.
Okay, and what is fundamental to those so-called 'forces'?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
No, all objects are only made of physical matter.
WHAT?

you SAID and CLAIMED ABOVE that 'matter' is NOT of 'physicality'. Now you are SAYING and CLAIMING that ALL 'objects' are ONLY made of 'physicality'.

Are you AWARE of just HOW MANY TIMES you end up CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' in this forum "bahman"?

Also, and by the way, to you, absolutely EVERY 'object' IS ONLY made up of 'physical matter', right? Like 'tables' and 'watermelons' for example, right?
Did you NOT respond to this BECAUSE it SHOWS and PROVES just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN you CONTRADICT what you SAY and WRITE here?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:42 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm Objects are embedded in space.
'Embedded' as in, FIXED FIRMLY and DEEPLY, right?
You are embedded in space for example. Don't you understand this?
WHY can you NOT just CLARIFY what you SAY and WRITE?

Do you NOT understand the questions posed and asked to you here?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:14 pm
What you are talking about?
That was ONLY for those WITH ANY CURIOSITY, in regards to my CLAIM that SOME 'objects' ARE FOREVER while SOME 'objects' ARE FINITE. BUT, you, OBVIOUSLY, MISSED that part.
Objects cannot exist forever. They decay.
Of course they ALL do, except, OF COURSE, for the one and ONLY 'Object', which exists FOREVER and ALWAYS.
Post Reply