My mind does not depend on something else. There are however many minds in my body that non of them depends on something else. There are however Qualia that depend on minds.
Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
How could you have doubt in a linear system, experience, and react?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:27 pm You are a multicellular organism; you do not doubt that I assume, but you have doubts about how to react to the complexities/circumstances of the world.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Explain further!bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:23 pmHow could you have doubt in a linear system, experience, and react?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:27 pm You are a multicellular organism; you do not doubt that I assume, but you have doubts about how to react to the complexities/circumstances of the world.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
You believe that humans only experience and react. This is a linear system in which there is no room for doubt. In other words, you experience and there is only one reaction possible for the experience.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:31 pmExplain further!bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:23 pmHow could you have doubt in a linear system, experience, and react?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:27 pm You are a multicellular organism; you do not doubt that I assume, but you have doubts about how to react to the complexities/circumstances of the world.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
No, I guess it is not linear then, we obviously are faced with a choice of reactions, but the one thing that is not conceivable is not reacting to one's environment, for even a considered lack of reaction is still a reaction to one's environment. The individual organism is not a closed system so it is dependent upon the world and its contents for its existence. Reaction is how an organism participates as a functioning part of the physical world, where the world is cause to all reactive organisms.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:44 pmYou believe that humans only experience and react. This is a linear system in which there is no room for doubt. In other words, you experience and there is only one reaction possible for the experience.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Aren't you a materialist?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:12 pmNo, I guess it is not linear then, we obviously are faced with a choice of reactions, but the one thing that is not conceivable is not reacting to one's environment, for even a considered lack of reaction is still a reaction to one's environment. The individual organism is not a closed system so it is dependent upon the world and its contents for its existence. Reaction is how an organism participates as a functioning part of the physical world, where the world is cause to all reactive organisms.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
No, I am not a materialist.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:17 pmAren't you a materialist?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:12 pmNo, I guess it is not linear then, we obviously are faced with a choice of reactions, but the one thing that is not conceivable is not reacting to one's environment, for even a considered lack of reaction is still a reaction to one's environment. The individual organism is not a closed system so it is dependent upon the world and its contents for its existence. Reaction is how an organism participates as a functioning part of the physical world, where the world is cause to all reactive organisms.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
What are you then?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:22 pmNo, I am not a materialist.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:17 pmAren't you a materialist?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:12 pm
No, I guess it is not linear then, we obviously are faced with a choice of reactions, but the one thing that is not conceivable is not reacting to one's environment, for even a considered lack of reaction is still a reaction to one's environment. The individual organism is not a closed system so it is dependent upon the world and its contents for its existence. Reaction is how an organism participates as a functioning part of the physical world, where the world is cause to all reactive organisms.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Well, I guess I am what they call an idealist, you tell me. I believe that biology creates its own apparent reality in the same way that Spinoza explained how it is we come to know the world of objects. That is, they make alterations to our biology as an effect and it is through our bodies that we are conscious of the physical world. I take it a step further, and state that it is the energies that surround us altering our biology and thus processed through biology we are presented with what is called apparent reality, the world as object/s.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Who or what does the 'my' word here refer to, EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has or possess this 'mind' 'thing'?
And, does the term 'my mind', in and of itself, REFUTE the CLAIM that that 'mind', which is owned or possessed by 'you', is ACTUALLY dependent on some 'thing' else, namely 'you'?
Could 'that mind' exist WITHOUT 'you'?
AGAIN, okay. If this is what 'you' WANT TO BELIEVE is true, then 'you' ARE absolutely FREE TO DO SO.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
I don't think that you are an idealist either.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:50 pmWell, I guess I am what they call an idealist, you tell me.
True. Our biology is very important.
What is the way he explained this?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:50 pm in the same way that Spinoza explained how it is we come to know the world of objects.
It is our minds that make us conscious.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:50 pm That is, they make alterations to our biology as an effect and it is through our bodies that we are conscious of the physical world.
It is the combination of minds and Qualia to be more precise energy being a sort of Qualia.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:50 pm I take it a step further, and state that it is the energies that surround us altering our biology and thus processed through biology we are presented with what is called apparent reality, the world as object/s.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
No, it doesn't.Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:42 pmWho or what does the 'my' word here refer to, EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has or possess this 'mind' 'thing'?
And, does the term 'my mind', in and of itself, REFUTE the CLAIM that that 'mind', which is owned or possessed by 'you', is ACTUALLY dependent on some 'thing' else, namely 'you'?
I am defined by my mind, I am my mind.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
WHY did you NOT answer the first question posed and asked to you?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:50 amNo, it doesn't.Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:42 pmWho or what does the 'my' word here refer to, EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has or possess this 'mind' 'thing'?
And, does the term 'my mind', in and of itself, REFUTE the CLAIM that that 'mind', which is owned or possessed by 'you', is ACTUALLY dependent on some 'thing' else, namely 'you'?
Are you REALLY Truly INCAPABLE of PROVIDING the ACTUAL ANSWER?
Therefore, to you, the 'human being' is 'the mind'.
Also, can you REALLY STILL NOT SEE that 'I' am 'my' 'mind' is a CONTRADICTION in and of itself?
That statement of yours here IS, literally, a PRIME EXAMPLE of a completely 'self-contradictory' term.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
Each human is a set of minds that they interact with Qualia. There is however a hierarchy in the minds existing in the body. Some do a simple jobs like digestion and others do more complex tasks like logical thinking.Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:41 pmWHY did you NOT answer the first question posed and asked to you?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:50 amNo, it doesn't.Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:42 pm
Who or what does the 'my' word here refer to, EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has or possess this 'mind' 'thing'?
And, does the term 'my mind', in and of itself, REFUTE the CLAIM that that 'mind', which is owned or possessed by 'you', is ACTUALLY dependent on some 'thing' else, namely 'you'?
Are you REALLY Truly INCAPABLE of PROVIDING the ACTUAL ANSWER?Therefore, to you, the 'human being' is 'the mind'.
Also, can you REALLY STILL NOT SEE that 'I' am 'my' 'mind' is a CONTRADICTION in and of itself?
That statement of yours here IS, literally, a PRIME EXAMPLE of a completely 'self-contradictory' term.
Re: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?
LOL If this is what you CONTINUALLY WANT TO BELIEVE is true, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and KEEP BELIEVING 'it'.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:55 pmEach human is a set of minds that they interact with Qualia.Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:41 pmWHY did you NOT answer the first question posed and asked to you?
Are you REALLY Truly INCAPABLE of PROVIDING the ACTUAL ANSWER?Therefore, to you, the 'human being' is 'the mind'.
Also, can you REALLY STILL NOT SEE that 'I' am 'my' 'mind' is a CONTRADICTION in and of itself?
That statement of yours here IS, literally, a PRIME EXAMPLE of a completely 'self-contradictory' term.
Also, HOW was the Universe, Itself, CREATED, and by WHO or WHAT was the so-called 'set of minds', which is what is NEEDED for ANY thing to HAPPEN or to be CREATED, as you PROPOSE here is the IRREFUTABLE truth of things?
Furthermore, HOW MANY 'minds' are there that A 'human being' is a 'set of', EXACTLY?
And WHICH ONES are the ONES that CAUSE and CREATE 'ILLOGICAL THINKING', as being SHOWN and PROVED here?