seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
Furthermore, other than the mind’s** control over the body’s musculature and thus its movements...
...whatever changes that are taking place with respect to the physical body are under the purview and guidance of the programming implicit within the body’s DNA structures and have nothing to do with the mind.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
For this we need to agree that a mind is needed for any change. Here is the argument:
Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Wrong. Y is simply a transformation of X into Y.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
We have nothing once X is vanished...
But X never actually vanished, it was merely transformed into what you are now calling Y.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
...and Y cannot be caused from nothing...
Y was not caused from nothing; Y is founded upon the pre-existence of what was once called X. In other words, without the pre-existence of X there could be no Y.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
...Therefore there must be a mind which is aware of X and causes Y.
This is first step so feel free to investigate and let me know what do you think.
Well, the first thing that I think is that your introduction of “mind” into the above argument is a brazen non-sequitur.
And the second thing that I think is that you need to provide us with some actual examples of the “systems” that you are calling X and Y.
In other words, what does a “system” that you are calling “X” consist of? Describe its literal features so that we can all have a better idea of exactly what it is you are referring to.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
Now that we established the first step, we need to show that there are at least two minds involved in changes. The first mind is you. You experience, decide and cause certain things. How about the rest of changes that you experience or not experiences but you are not in charge of them? We already argue that a mind is needed for any change and you know that there are changes that you are not in charge of them.
Instead of offering-up vague allusions to that which you are calling “changes,” please name and describe a
specific change that I am not in charge of?
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
**(make that the mind's self-aware “agent” doing the controlling.)
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
Not all the control. There are other changes that they are not under your control.
Again,
name and describe some specific changes that are not under my control?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
Mind in fact has no structure and exist.
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
Again, more nonsense.
The human mind is a highly structured phenomenon that is comprised of a central consciousness that is in possession of an infinitely malleable essence that the central consciousness (again, the abovementioned “agent”) can willfully shape into absolutely anything it can imagine.
In which case, how in the world can you claim that it has no structure?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
Could you please tell me that what mind is made of?
If I had to speculate...
(which, of course, is precisely what we are all doing here - speculating)
...then I would suggest that mind and matter are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental essence, with both working together in tandem to produce what we call “reality.”
In other words, mind and matter are an inseparable amalgam of whatever it is that Spinoza was attempting to describe in his
“oneness substance” theories, beyond which nothing else exists.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
1) Consciousness cannot emerge from something structured.
What are you talking about, bahman? Isn’t it obvious that consciousness can emerge from the highly structured context of a physical brain?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:59 pm
2) Something structured cannot be free.
3) Something which is structured cannot cause.
I have already debunked 2 and 3 in my earlier rebuttal, here:
seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:39 pm
Your argument is constructed to support your personal assumption of why a
“free agent cannot be created.”
However, I have given you a hypothetical scenario wherein God...
(a Being that you agreed is a “free agent” under the terms that I laid-out)
...is able to replicate itself, thus causing a new free agent (just like God) to come into existence.
In other words, with specific and structured knowledge (as is possessed by God), a free agent can indeed be created.
Therefore, your argument is thus refuted, period, full-stop.
You have simply chosen to ignore what I said because it refutes your assertions.
_______