Mind or minds

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:10 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:48 am
Then that is what is : an infinite regress of never ending reptiles all the way to eternity and beyond
It is not for minds to question reality but rather to try and accept it as it is wherever this is possible
Unless, the reason reality APPEARS to be "turtless all the way down" is because we attempt to study it as a sum of parts instead of as a whole.

Which puts us in a precarious position.

Can reality be understood as a sum of parts? What if the answer to this question is "no"? Then we necessarily need to accept that the principle of locality is wrong.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:34 pm

LOGIK wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Then that is what is : an infinite regress of never ending reptiles all the way to eternity and beyond
It is not for minds to question reality but rather to try and accept it as it is wherever this is possible
Unless the reason reality APPEARS to be turtles all the way down is because we attempt to study it as a sum of parts instead of as a whole
Can reality be understood as a sum of parts ? What if the answer to this question is no ?
Studying something such as the Universe that is infinitely more complex than yourself can only be done in parts not in whole
So minds are limited in what they can learn and also the map is not the territory so one should not be confused for the other

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:26 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:34 pm
Studying something such as the Universe that is infinitely more complex than yourself can only be done in parts not in whole
Naturally. Such is the human condition.

All I am asking is this: What if studying the whole as parts is what causes infinite regress to appear?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:34 pm
So minds are limited in what they can learn and also the map is not the territory so one should not be confused for the other.
Since you draw a distinction between the map and the territory. Observe that the map is an imprecise copy of the territory.

So...we have a copy of the territory. Inside the territory. And I have a copy of you on my map.

So I have a copy of your map on my map. But you have a copy of my map in your map!

This is where the turtles come from. Self-similarity.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:27 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:46 am
AGE wrote:
I think it will be discovered that there is NO human mind

Try this for an experiment if you like catch when you say the mind or see and hear others use the word mind in relation to human mind and
just replace that word with the word thought as in human thought and see how many times that it can be replaced and still makes sense

I could very easily prove that there is one Mind but I do NOT know how I could prove that there is a human mind or even more than one mind

And no i will not now do it here in this forum not yet anyway because i have NOT yet obtained the capabilities to do this YET
There is NOT enough space in this forum for me anyway for the amount of words that i would currently need to use to prove this
to each and every one of you
I use the word mind to describe brain function and prefer it to the word thought and so I will carry on using it for that reason
But the word 'thought' does NOT describe 'brain function'. The word 'thought' is A RESULT of 'brain function'.

The words, I use, to describe 'brain function' IS 'brain function'.

If a brain is functioning, then that brain is functioning. I am just trying to work out, out aloud, how the word 'mind' could describe 'brain function'. If the brain functions, then it is 'mind', 'human mind'. Or, if the brain functions, then it is 'thinking'.

On further reflection, putting preference ahead of consideration, experimentation, study, and deep reflection with actual results appears to be a very strong trait among the human being species.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:46 am
But your point would be sound if there was actually no such thing as the human mind even though I do not actually know this
Have you known any one who has even seen the 'human mind'?

Also, is there such thing as the 'dog mind', for example when the brain inside a dog's body is functioning? Or, a 'dinosaur mind' when the brain inside a dinosaur's body is functioning?

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:39 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:07 am
AGE wrote:
What is the definition of absolute truth ?

What would happen if EVERY one claimed to know absolute truth and ALL where in agreement on that ?

Would a Mind [ not the same as a mind ] know what absolute truth is ?

That would depend on what YOUR definition of Mind and how that is related to YOUR definition of mind IS ?
Absolute truth is eternally true
Great point.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:07 am
Consciousness raising would happen were everyone to claim knowledge of absolute truth and there was agreement on this
Good observation.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:07 am
A Mind could know what absolute truth is if this was the definition of one but my definition of Mind is simply ALL THERE IS
So Mind is, also, made up of ALL visible to the human eye physicality then, am I right?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:07 am
And ALL THERE IS does not automatically know what absolute truth is because Mind simply exists rather than experiences
But if the human body experiences, and YOUR definition of 'Mind' is ALL-THERE-IS, and human bodies are a part of ALL-THERE-IS, then 'Mind' would also HAVE TO experience, at least to some extent, as well as exist.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:07 am
In exactly the same way that the Universe simply exists rather than experiences [ to me Mind and Universe are the same ]
But physical nerve endings experience, that is how physical things KNOW where to place themselves, and in what positions. Therefore, some might argue that it is because of EXPERIENCE that the Universe/Mind has placed Itself, in the place that It is existing in NOW, and in the position that It is existing in NOW.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:49 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:14 am
AGE wrote:
I really do have to question you now in regards to How can it be logically possible for OTHER Universes to be existing in the one and only Universe

By the way I do KNOW what is included in the definition of ALL THERE IS
Universe can mean either this Universe [ in part or in whole ] or all Universes [ in part or in whole ]
What is THIS Universe?

And, HOW could there be OTHER Universes?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:14 am
ALL THERE IS is very simply absolutely everything that has ever existed and is existing and will ever exist for ever more
ALL THERE IS is the eternal NOW which is eternally changing from each infinistemal NOW to the next infinitesimal NOW
By definition, the word 'Uni-verse' is equal to, or means, One ALL-THERE-IS.

So, if the Universe is the same as ALL-THERE-IS, then HOW can there be Universes with the Universe, or, ALL-THERE-IS's inside ALL-THERE-IS?

Even you have stated; I do not know if the Universe is infinite in all directions or never ending only that it is ALL THERE IS

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:07 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:29 am
AGE wrote:
The Universe may being changing in shape and form in all ways ALWAYS NOW
But the make up and structure of thee Universe is ALWAYS the same
Is there only one single NOW or are there many different NOWS all happening at different times that are NOW
There is only One constant-change, eternally-NOW.

That is because there could NOT be any separation, thus NO different NOWS.

Well I certainly can NOT see any distinct separation.

Could any distinct separation be pointed out and SHOWN?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:29 am
In what way EXACTLY is the make up and structure of the Universe always the same and also why is it like this
in what way EXACTLY the Universe IS, is in the EXACT SAME way that It always IS. That is; the make up of the Universe is two opposites, and, the structure of the Universe is, It is in Equilibrium. Always IS, EXACTLY like this eternally-NOW.

Why the Universe is like this IS, is because the Universe could NOT be in any other way then what It IS in eternally-NOW.

(By the way I corrected My quote in this post for spelling errors).

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:11 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:36 am
AGE wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
The most fundamental level to the Universe is quantum
Is that the MOST fundamental level
It is the most fundamental level that I actually know of at this particular point in time
Great point.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:36 am
But it is entirely possible that there may be another undiscovered one deeper than this
Why do human beings PRESUME that just because they have NOT yet been informed of some thing, then that means that it is "undiscovered".

There are actually some who do have some KNOWLEDGE that they have just NOT yet shared, and/or have NOT yet learned HOW to share/show/communicate it CORRECTLY yet.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Age » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:21 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:34 pm
LOGIK wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Then that is what is : an infinite regress of never ending reptiles all the way to eternity and beyond
It is not for minds to question reality but rather to try and accept it as it is wherever this is possible
Unless the reason reality APPEARS to be turtles all the way down is because we attempt to study it as a sum of parts instead of as a whole
Can reality be understood as a sum of parts ? What if the answer to this question is no ?
Studying something such as the Universe that is infinitely more complex than yourself can only be done in parts not in whole
I think it better to NOT PRE-ASSUME that some thing may, or may not, be complex, especially than of the self, until both the thing being considered, in this case the Universe, Itself, AND, one's self have both been FULLY UNDERSTOOD first.

For all you know, both might just be extremely SIMPLE as each other.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:34 pm
So minds are limited in what they can learn and also the map is not the territory so one should not be confused for the other
That is why I suggest NEVER look at the territory from the thinking brain, and form or make a "model" map from that perception. I much prefer to just LOOK AT what IS [the territory] from the Truly OPEN Mind instead. That way there is NOTHING distorting nor STOPPING Me from SEEING the actual and real Truth of things.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:32 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:49 pm
What is THIS Universe?

And, HOW could there be OTHER Universes?
It's just a conceptual tool we use when we are dealing with uncertainty and possibility.

There is conceptual universe A. It has 10 planets in the Solar system.
There is conceptual universe B. It has 20 planets in the Solar system.
There is conceptual universe C. It has 5 planets in the Solar system.

We are certain that we don't live in universe C, but we are uncertain whether we currently live in universe A or B.
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:49 pm
That is why I suggest NEVER look at the territory from the thinking brain
Do you have any other way to look at the territory except using your senses and your brain?
Do you have extra-sensory powers?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:29 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am

If there is a contradiction, (which, by the way, I do NOT see from my perspective), then, anyway, WHY is it that the 'universal set' does not have to exist? WHY is it NOT the case that the 'sub-set' is NOT necessarily bigger than the 'universal set'?

You and I must have a different comprehension and/or different definition of the word 'Universal'. The word 'Universal', to me, has or implies an ALL, or a NOTHING ELSE, connotation to It.

And, the word 'sub', to me, has a LESS THAN rather than a MORE THAN connotation to it. To me, by definition, a 'sub' set would be smaller than the Universal set. With numbers of course the 'SUB set' of numbers of 'A PARTICULAR set' of numbers may be longer in length, but that in no way, to me anyway, infers that 'THAT PARTICULAR set' of numbers is necessarily 'A Universal set' of numbers. The very fact that 'THAT SET' does NOT contain ALL numbers, to me, means that is NOT the actual 'Universal set'.

Whatever would you call 'A set' that contains absolutely EVERY thing? I would call this 'set' A 'Universal set'.
The sub-set has less elements than the set. The point is that there exist many sub-sets. For example, lets consider a set A={a,b}. It has two member so its size two. The set of all sub-sets however is B={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}} which clearly has size four. This applies to all set. Now if you consider that the A is a universal set
But why would any one CONSIDER the A is a 'universal set'?

That is the trouble with using words, sometimes. Words can APPEAR to be expressing a truth but, in Reality, they are NOT, really.

The trickery and deception is in the words being used. This is NOT to say that all participants are intentionally being tricky nor deceptive when using words, but that they, themselves, have been tricked and/or deceived into BELIEVING some thing that is NOT actually real and true anyway.

By definition, the word 'Universe' infers One whole set of absolutely EVERY thing. Therefore, to consider any thing as a 'Universal set', then that set MUST include absolutely EVERY thing. This EVERY thing would, obviously, also have to include absolutely EVERY sub set.
Give me a set which contain everything?
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
then it must be bigger than B which is not therefore it is contrary to assume that the universal set exist since the set of all its sub-sets is bigger than the universal set.
That is ONLY, as I just pointed out, if any one CONSIDERED a SMALLER set as a 'universal set'. And, WHY any one would consider any set other than the set of EVERY thing, which obviously would be the biggest and largest set, a 'Universal set' I do NOT know?
Think of music for example. Each piece of music is made of some notes which are limited yet the number of songs which could exist in principle is unlimited. We haven't yet produced unlimited songs though. That is only a potentiality.
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
So, you can SEE that there is another view point that there is only one, One and only Mind, correct?
I know of that model.
What do you mean by you know of THAT model?
The model with one Mind.
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 am
Is there only ONE model about a one and only Mind?
Yes. One Mind and physical.
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
I had a thread on the topic "why not only one Mind?" a long time ago. This model however has problems which we can discuss it if you wish.
To me a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution/answer. So, if YOUR model has problems and you would like the solution/answer to those problems, then if you like I can sort them out for you. If, however, you consider this "model" to being less flawed than YOUR at least two mind "model", and them even being close to what IS actually True and Right in Life, then we will have to wait and SEE.
I would like to first know what is your solution to one Mind model. But first we have to agree on definition of Mind. Could we agree on this definition: Mind is the essence of the Being with ability to experience, decide and cause/create?
Age wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Who cares what 'science' supposedly says.

Is science perfect? Has science ever "said" inaccurate things? Has what science "said", since science began, been always accurate and correct?

Also, this is a very narrow and small view that you are looking from here.
Ok. What is the other view?
A much larger and completely OPEN view of things, producing a much bigger, brighter, clearer, and Truer picture perfect view of things.
What is that picture?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am

What mixture is that? Is that the mixture of physical things together?
Yes. Mixture of egg and sperm.
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am

WHAT is 'mind', to you?
Mind to me is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is mind to you?
'Mind' is THE Being/Thing, which is completely OPEN to create absolutely any thing, other than Its Self, has the ability to transcend absolutely any thing, and thus also has the ability to observe, experience, decide, and again cause/create absolutely any thing other than Its Self.

If, to you, a 'mind' is the essence of any being, then what is THE 'being' in 'any being'?
Ok, I think I can agree with your definition.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
WHAT observes 'things' occurring/happening?
All sort of things.
What do you mean by 'all sort of things'? Can a 'shoe' observe 'things' occurring/happening? A shoe, after all, is a 'sort of thing'.
A shoe to me experiences certain things, it moves when you push it.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Me typing. Me drinking coffee. etc.
Who/what is 'me'?
Me is 'a mind' and 'a body'.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
What CAUSED you to type these words?
I decided to reply to your post. But there was this stimuli, your post, which I experienced.
Who/what is the 'I' which experienced?
My mind.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Are those words the result of you only, or the result of some thing that influenced you to type particular words in a particular order?
It is the result of all my experiences most importantly what you wrote.
How long is 'all of 'my' experiences'?
From my birth to now.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Were the previously typed words, which you read and are replying to, WHAT caused 'you' to do some thing?
I experienced them. I am however a free agent
Who/what is, supposedly, a free agent?
Free agent a a being with ability to decide.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
so I can decide to reply or reply not. I can decide how much thought I should put in my reply, etc.
Are you going to suggest that this 'free agent', which you are talking about now, was not created?
I just did it in the previous comment.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
In other words was I in charge and thus responsible for this whole change?
Yes, you influenced me.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could there possibly be just One who IS responsible for ALL of this change, which is observing/witnessing, deciding, and causing ALL of this change?
There are at least two who are in charge of the changes
Is this what you think is the case, or, what you BELIEVE is the case?
I think that is the case given the definition of mind.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
because I am replying to someone else otherwise I knew all I know and there was no communication.
Who/what you are, and, who/what you are replying to has to be KNOWN, before you will truly understand things.
I am Bahman. A person.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
And, if so could this One be doing ALL of this through different bodies, with some of these bodies being human beings?
The question is why that Mind is not aware of everything which is happening inside different bodies.
Who/what is the 'one' that is asking why the Mind is not aware of everything?
Me.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Why does that 'one' ASSUME such a ridiculous thing.
What is ridiculous? I don't see anything.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
The Mind IS aware of EVERY thing, which is happening inside different bodies.
Ok. Then what we are? We are aware of what is happening inside our bodies. I can agree that there are beings who are aware of what is going on inside our mind but we are aware of what is going on inside our mind too. So there are two categories of beings.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Some people, however, lie so much or so often that they even deceive their own self.
Ok.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
It is one mind in charge of all change, therefore that Mind should be aware of everything which is happening.
Which is EXACTLY what thee one and only Mind does.
And what are you?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
The Mind is aware of absolutely EVERY thing.
I can buy that but what is you?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could you and me be actually causing the change that is happening through our writings, but actually there being another One Being that is observing, deciding, and causing ALL of this to happen, without us even realizing this is happening?
What we are?
In this instance, 'we' are two people, existing within two human bodies.
Do we have mind?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
We experience, decide and cause. Don't we?
Yes, but in the scheme of things, 'we' only experience, decide, and cause a minuscule fraction of ALL-THERE-IS.
Great, therefore we have minds.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could the 'mind' in 'your mind', as you put it, actually just be One Mind?
I don't think so. As I know there are changes that I don't experience and cause.
Of course the 'you' does NOT experience and cause ALL change. But the 'you' is NOT the 'I'. The one and only 'I' IS the One that experiences and caused ALL change.

Who/what the 'you' actually IS, and how that thinking 'one' is related to the True KNOWING One that Who/What the 'I' actually IS, needs to be understood first.
If that is true then what we are? Moreover, there should be only one experience if there was only one Mind.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
These words that I am reading is your words not mine.
Yes there are two 'you' here. That is; 'me', being one person, and the other person being the other 'me', sometimes referred to as 'you'. 'We' are thinking human beings. We do NOT have a mind. 'We' are neither the Mind. The Mind is the 'I' within 'us', the 'me's' within ALL bodies.
How could we experience, decide and cause if we don't have any mind?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
So, although there are two 'me's' writing different words, and replying to each other, there is, on a much deeper level, a much BIGGER and TRUER 'Me', or what could also be referred to as the 'I', in the question Who/What am 'I'? Who this 'I' is, IS the one and only Mind, which is Truly always OPEN, in order to be able to Create absolutely any thing. What this 'I' is, IS the WHOLE physical Universe, Itself. The interaction of ALL physical things is how 'I' am the Creator of ALL-THERE-IS.
Why there are several personal experiences if there is only one Mind?
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
And these words that you read are mine not yours.
On the human being level agreed wholeheartedly. These words are coming through two different bodies, from two different people, from within those two different human bodies.
But I am experiencing things. You are also experiencing things. We are not experiencing the same things. Therefore there are two minds involved in this situation.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
So there are at least two minds.
If you have THE definition for 'mind' that when LOOKED AT, fits into THE BIG picture of Life (or ALL-THERE-IS) perfectly, and thus SHOWS a crystal clear image of WHAT IS TRUE AND RIGHT IN LIFE, of which there is NO distortions, NO ambiguity, and a JUST Truly FACTUAL representation that is NOT at all refutable, then great. Let us ALL SEE this definition. Until then, if 'I' was 'you' I would just remain OPEN to there might just be a more sufficient definition of and for 'Mind' then the one that you have now.
Ok, let's see what are your answers to my objection about one Mind model.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
But there is NOT more than ALL. By definition of ALL, how could there be more?

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?
Consider there are just two shapes, a and b, which is all that exist, set E={a,b}. We have four sub-sets which is the result of different combination of a and b which is N={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}}. N is bigger than E.
So then N is obviously the 'Universal set'. BUT, if there is a larger SET, then that SET is the 'Universal SET'.

If some thing could be bigger, larger, or more than ALL-THERE-IS, then please tell me HOW?
As I mentioned there is a difference between what actually is and what potentially is. The number of song which can be played is unlimited but the number of notes in each song is finite.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
That is what some would/could call the set of ALL things.
Do you call the 'set of ALL things' the 'universal set'?
Yes. All things is however unbound.
According to who?
I already explained what I mean with unbound when I discussed actuality and potentiality.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
If so, do you still insist that a 'Universal set' could NOT exist?
Yes. As soon as you say that the universal set exists then it means that it has a sub-sets which is bigger than the original set. So we are dealing with this contradiction.
Okay, if we want to and are going to keep looking at this, like this, then what happens if we do NOT call ALL-THERE-IS, EVERY thing, the Universe, a "set" at all? And, instead, just called them for what they REALLY ARE?
The number of songs which can be composed from a limited number of notes is unbound.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Are you talking about the explanation a fair way up this post?

If you are, then that "explanation" did NOT work in explaining how it is impossible to have a 'set of EVERY thing', did NOT work for me anyway.
I tried again. So let's see if this time things for for you.
If you do NOT accept that a 'set of EVERY thing' is possible, then do you at least accept that EVERY thing that exists is sometimes KNOWN as Everything?

If you can accept that, then can and/or do you accept that there exists an Everything?
No the set of everything is not possible. The set of possible songs, which is unlimited, is much larger than the number of songs which exists right now.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:39 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:19 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set.
I am not sure this is the case? The universal set (a.k.a The Universe) contains all quarks, bosons, gluons, leptons. 10^120 or thereabout particles and however many quantum fields.

And that's all that it contains. It doesn't contain any sub-sets.

In the late 19th century I would've said "The Universal set contains 10^82 atoms".
That is the extent to which I am willing to commit myself to an ontology. Till the next revolution.
No, that is the only set of everything which exist or in another word are actual right now. There are however huge number of things which are potential and could exists even if the universe is finite. There are things which will come to be and they are new.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:49 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:39 pm
No, that is the only set of everything which exist or in another word are actual right now. There are however huge number of things which are potential and could exists even if the universe is finite. There are things which will come to be and they are new.
Hence my comment re: ontology.

10^120 is an upper bound approximation given the current body of knowledge and resting on the assumption that quantum particles are fundamental and universal. Give or take 10% margin of error.

Until you reduce/decompose the currently-deemed "fundamental" particles into even more fundamental units; or until you discover new types of fundamental particles - I stand by my comment.

Your talk of potentially new things is itself potential until evidence.

Either way the conception of the universal Set doesn't change (all that exists. actual or potential). Only its contents.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by bahman » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:39 pm
No, that is the only set of everything which exist or in another word are actual right now. There are however huge number of things which are potential and could exists even if the universe is finite. There are things which will come to be and they are new.
Hence my comment re: ontology.

10^120 is an upper bound approximation given the current body of knowledge and resting on the assumption that quantum particles are fundamental and universal. Give or take 10% margin of error.

Until you reduce/decompose the currently-deemed "fundamental" particles into even more fundamental units; or until you discover new types of fundamental particles - I stand by my comment.

Your talk of potentially new things is itself potential until evidence.

Either way the conception of the universal Set doesn't change (all that exists. actual or potential). Only its contents.
Let's agree that the universe is bounded for sake of discussion. How many different combination of things you can make with 10^120 particles?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind or minds

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:17 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:14 pm
Let's agree that the universe is bounded for sake of discussion. How many different combination of things you can make with 10^120 particles?
Lets go with worst case: 10^120 factorial.

But you are making an error. Your universal set's contents hasn't changed. You still have and always will have 10^120 particles.

You are just arranging them in different formations/patterns. 10^120 factorial permutations to be exact.

At this point it's safe to go back to statistical mechanics. Micro vs macro states.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests