The first proof for existence of mind
The first proof for existence of mind
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
This is not proof that the mind exists. Some things can be caused by nothing. Some things can be caused by the rules of physics. Some things can be caused without the influence of a mind.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:20 pm Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
When sunlight vanishes there is darkness. Darkness is something, even if only the absence of light. If water evaporates there is vapor. When a symphony ends there is nothing. Nothing causes the silence.
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
Nothing to something is a possibility. But something (what comes after nothing) could be anything. There is however a fantastic correlation between X and Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:23 pmThis is not proof that the mind exists. Some things can be caused by nothing. Some things can be caused by the rules of physics. Some things can be caused without the influence of a mind.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:20 pm Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
When sunlight vanishes there is darkness. Darkness is something, even if only the absence of light. If water evaporates there is vapor. When a symphony ends there is nothing. Nothing causes the silence.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
By fantastic correlation do you mean such things as ice and water, fire and ashes, gunshot and bullet hole as opposed to ice and oil, for example?
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
Think of yourself in two different consecutive situations. For example, you are now reading my post and then reply to it. These are two states of affair, X and Y. If we accept that the process of nothing to something is possible then the state of Y could be anything, you could be on the moon for example. Instead, you find yourself sitting on your chair replying to my question. X and Y are somehow correlated.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:14 pm By fantastic correlation do you mean such things as ice and water, fire and ashes, gunshot and bullet hole as opposed to ice and oil, for example?
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
Got it. Thanks.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:14 pmThink of yourself in two different consecutive situations. For example, you are now reading my post and then reply to it. These are two states of affair, X and Y. If we accept that the process of nothing to something is possible then the state of Y could be anything, you could be on the moon for example. Instead, you find yourself sitting on your chair replying to my question. X and Y are somehow correlated.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:14 pm By fantastic correlation do you mean such things as ice and water, fire and ashes, gunshot and bullet hole as opposed to ice and oil, for example?
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
But correlation doesn’t mean causation, nor would causation be evidence of a mind’s existence as opposed to some unknown confounding factor’s existence.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:10 pmGot it. Thanks.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:14 pmThink of yourself in two different consecutive situations. For example, you are now reading my post and then reply to it. These are two states of affair, X and Y. If we accept that the process of nothing to something is possible then the state of Y could be anything, you could be on the moon for example. Instead, you find yourself sitting on your chair replying to my question. X and Y are somehow correlated.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:14 pm By fantastic correlation do you mean such things as ice and water, fire and ashes, gunshot and bullet hole as opposed to ice and oil, for example?
We’re still not quite there yet on proving the existence of other minds. And even though yours is the only mind that exists (ob “I” could be an advanced word program running on an OS in the Cloud), and even though your mind possesses causation, it doesn’t follow that it was necessarily your mind that caused X —> Y.
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
Y is either caused by nothing or mind. Once nothing is excluded because of the fantastic correlation between X and Y we are left with the mind.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:25 pmBut correlation doesn’t mean causation, nor would causation be evidence of a mind’s existence as opposed to some unknown confounding factor’s existence.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:10 pmGot it. Thanks.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:14 pm
Think of yourself in two different consecutive situations. For example, you are now reading my post and then reply to it. These are two states of affair, X and Y. If we accept that the process of nothing to something is possible then the state of Y could be anything, you could be on the moon for example. Instead, you find yourself sitting on your chair replying to my question. X and Y are somehow correlated.
This is an argument for the existence of one mind. It doesn't prove other minds or whether my mind cause X->Y.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:25 pm We’re still not quite there yet on proving the existence of other minds. And even though yours is the only mind that exists (ob “I” could be an advanced word program running on an OS in the Cloud), and even though your mind possesses causation, it doesn’t follow that it was necessarily your mind that caused X —> Y.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
Actually Y is caused by nothing or mind or something else. If we exclude just nothing, we’ve only excluded 1 of the 2 things we proposed, but there could be other things that could correlate X and Y. What we’re left with is mind or something else that hasn’t been excluded.
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
I simply call the thing that experiences X and causes Y as mind.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:59 amActually Y is caused by nothing or mind or something else. If we exclude just nothing, we’ve only excluded 1 of the 2 things we proposed, but there could be other things that could correlate X and Y. What we’re left with is mind or something else that hasn’t been excluded.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
Ah! That makes sense.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:06 amI simply call the thing that experiences X and causes Y as mind.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:59 amActually Y is caused by nothing or mind or something else. If we exclude just nothing, we’ve only excluded 1 of the 2 things we proposed, but there could be other things that could correlate X and Y. What we’re left with is mind or something else that hasn’t been excluded.
Re: The first proof for existence of mind
I am glad that someone understands me.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:04 pmAh! That makes sense.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:06 amI simply call the thing that experiences X and causes Y as mind.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:59 am
Actually Y is caused by nothing or mind or something else. If we exclude just nothing, we’ve only excluded 1 of the 2 things we proposed, but there could be other things that could correlate X and Y. What we’re left with is mind or something else that hasn’t been excluded.