Mind and physical
Mind and physical
I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things: (1) Mind is separate from physical and (2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind). But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused. Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing). Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y. It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
-
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Mind and physical
Once again, if mind was separate from physical, lobotomies wouldn't work.
-Imp
-Imp
Re: Mind and physical
You cannot make a motion in physical without mind. Try to imagine it and let me know.Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:32 pm Once again, if mind was separate from physical, lobotomies wouldn't work.
-Imp
Re: Mind and physical
These guys disagree: https://www.bostondynamics.com/robots
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Mind and physical
Originally is Whereof one cannot speakbahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things:
(1) Mind is separate from physical and
(2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind).
But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing).
Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y.
It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
- Wittgenstein
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
Both the mind and Whereof one cannot speak are self-referential where each contain the other as in the Tao symbol where Yang contain Yin inherently and Yin also contain Yang, note below, the white has an inherent black dot and vice-versa;
Note David Bohr relied on the complementarity principles of the Tao to resolve the dilemmas of duality arising from Quantum Physics. This is why the symbol of the Tao is included in his Coat of Arms as below.
Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
The mind and the physical co-exists and for whatever is beyond that it is a transcendental idea where one has to remain silent. If one is itchy for something more [illusory] then the solution is to deal with the associated psychology [existential crisis] that trigger that "itchiness" for the illusory.
This "itchiness" has malignant potentials in the long run and thus should be weaned off psychologically so that the living being can maintain optimal well being as individual and for the collective.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Mind and physical
Quantum fluctuations come from absolute nothing because vacuum states can only exist for an infinitesimal periodbahman wrote:
Consider a change in a system X to Y . X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanish before Y is caused . Y however cannot be caused
from nothing ( remember that X is vanished so we have nothing ) Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y
And at the classical level the law of cause and effect applies and so no mind is required for transition in either case
Re: Mind and physical
Mind is involved in any motion unless you show that something is wrong with my argument.
Re: Mind and physical
Mind cannot be emergent. Something which is emergent cannot experience, decide and cause.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 amOriginally is Whereof one cannot speakbahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things:
(1) Mind is separate from physical and
(2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind).
But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing).
Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y.
It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
- Wittgenstein
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
Your model of reality is incomplete if there is a whereof that you can not speak.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am Both the mind and Whereof one cannot speak are self-referential where each contain the other as in the Tao symbol where Yang contain Yin inherently and Yin also contain Yang, note below, the white has an inherent black dot and vice-versa;
Note David Bohr relied on the complementarity principles of the Tao to resolve the dilemmas of duality arising from Quantum Physics. This is why the symbol of the Tao is included in his Coat of Arms as below.
What is wrong with my argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
This is duty of physicist to understand the consciousness, decision and causation.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am The mind and the physical co-exists and for whatever is beyond that it is a transcendental idea where one has to remain silent. If one is itchy for something more [illusory] then the solution is to deal with the associated psychology [existential crisis] that trigger that "itchiness" for the illusory.
This "itchiness" has malignant potentials in the long run and thus should be weaned off psychologically so that the living being can maintain optimal well being as individual and for the collective.
Re: Mind and physical
So you believe that nothing has causal power?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:37 amQuantum fluctuations come from absolute nothing because vacuum states can only exist for an infinitesimal periodbahman wrote:
Consider a change in a system X to Y . X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanish before Y is caused . Y however cannot be caused
from nothing ( remember that X is vanished so we have nothing ) Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y
And at the classical level the law of cause and effect applies and so no mind is required for transition in either case
Re: Mind and physical
Physical vanishes. Unless you could prove a better model of reality.
Re: Mind and physical
Mind doesn't disappear. What is lost is our controls over physical bodies. There are sustainers of physical though, God, Satan, etc.
There are minds in charge of sustaining physical. We cause thoughts for example. Growing further. So we also contribute.
It resolves the free will problem. There is free will because we can resolve the conflict when the situation is marginal. We all faced marginal situation, when options are equally liked. The decision cannot be reduced to physical since physical obey the laws of nature, a deterministic system halts when it is faced by marginal situation. Therefore that is mind which is free. We have no other choice since there are only mind and physical in this model. You can also argue that that is mind which experiences and causes. That is mind which is the experiencer since it has to be aware of situation to decide. Awareness cannot be assigned to only physical since otherwise mind cannot decide. You can argue in the same manner that that is mind which is in charge of causation too. Matter cannot be in charge of causation.
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Mind and physical
From where did you arrive at the above conclusion?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pmMind cannot be emergent. Something which is emergent cannot experience, decide and cause.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 amOriginally is Whereof one cannot speakbahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm I think that some of you read my argument for existence of mind which I will repeat it in here. But before that I would like to mention the basic purpose of this thread which is two things:
(1) Mind is separate from physical and
(2) Mind is primary and physical is secondary (its existence depends on mind).
But first the argument which I promised which I call it (the proof of mind from motion): Consider a change in a system, X to Y.
X and Y cannot coexist therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
Y however cannot be caused from nothing (remember that X is vanished so we have nothing).
Therefore there must be a mind which experiences X and causes Y.
It is clear now that (1) and (2) are correct.
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
- Wittgenstein
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
The human body is made up of specific physical elements.
The fact that such a combination of body parts can culminate in thinking, planning, experiencing, making decision imply there is an emergent. That emergent is conveniently label as mind. We can even switch it [mind] off to some extent with anesthetic.
Note there is no "a" re "whereof that you can not speak" and rightly there is no 'where' as well.Your model of reality is incomplete if there is a whereof that you can not speak.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am Both the mind and Whereof one cannot speak are self-referential where each contain the other as in the Tao symbol where Yang contain Yin inherently and Yin also contain Yang, note below, the white has an inherent black dot and vice-versa;
Note David Bohr relied on the complementarity principles of the Tao to resolve the dilemmas of duality arising from Quantum Physics. This is why the symbol of the Tao is included in his Coat of Arms as below.
In such a case one just must shut up or naturally be indifferent to it.
The point that one must speak of it, that is due to one's terrible psychology, not because there is something pre-existing to be spoken of.
At this specific refine level, your argument is corrupted with duality and monism.What is wrong with my argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
You insist there is "that" something [out there, absolute] when in reality there is nothing to speak of.
Nope!This is duty of physicist to understand the consciousness, decision and causation.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am The mind and the physical co-exists and for whatever is beyond that it is a transcendental idea where one has to remain silent. If one is itchy for something more [illusory] then the solution is to deal with the associated psychology [existential crisis] that trigger that "itchiness" for the illusory.
This "itchiness" has malignant potentials in the long run and thus should be weaned off psychologically so that the living being can maintain optimal well being as individual and for the collective.
Nah! The duty of the physicist to understand whatever is physical.
The subject of consciousness, decision making and causation involves too many variable that is beyond physics, e.g. biology, neurosciences, neuro-psychology genomics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, etc. etc.
The responsibility of understanding consciousness and other refine issues can only be resolved by philosophy-proper with its whole range of tools. [note 'proper' not academic philosophy].
Note how Hume destroyed the older foundation of Science prior his counter, re the 'Problem of Induction' and 'Causation' [due to customs, habits, constant conjunctions and psychology].
Re: Mind and physical
Mind is a physical state if it is due to physical activity. A physical state simply cannot experience another physical state, taste of salt.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:12 amFrom where did you arrive at the above conclusion?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pmMind cannot be emergent. Something which is emergent cannot experience, decide and cause.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am
Originally is Whereof one cannot speak
Mind is an emergent spontaneously with Whereof one cannot speak.
- Wittgenstein
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Mind emerges with a hierarchy of a continuum of levels.
What is "physical" [defined within Physics] is a sub-emergent of the mind.
That, anesthetic, is not a proof for mind being emergent.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am The human body is made up of specific physical elements.
The fact that such a combination of body parts can culminate in thinking, planning, experiencing, making decision imply there is an emergent. That emergent is conveniently label as mind. We can even switch it [mind] off to some extent with anesthetic.
There is nothing wrong with dualism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 amAt this specific refine level, your argument is corrupted with duality and monism.What is wrong with my argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am Your approach is a crude narrow minded idea of duality which contributed to your unsound and unholistic inferences leading to infinite regression and potential sufferings, i.e. duality of happiness and inevitable sadness, black or white, 0 or 1, us versus them, good and evil, etc.
Physical of course is an illusion. Mind in your view is an illusion since it is emergent. Therefore everything is illusion. Illusion however cannot persist. Therefore your model of reality is wrong. There is of course something out there.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:14 am You insist there is "that" something [out there, absolute] when in reality there is nothing to speak of.