When we see 'water' changes into 'ice', we study what is observable and infer from observations the relevant principles and mechanism involved.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:52 pmSo what does cause change?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 amI don't agree it is 'mind' [an independent entity] that causes change.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:29 pm
You face a regress if mind itself was subject to change. I think we can agree that that is mind that causes change. You need something else if mind itself is subject to change. Etc. That is a regress. The only way to avoid the regress is to accept that the is an ultimate thing so-called mind which is not subject to change and causes changes.
As such "what is the cause" should be confined to what is observed and inferences that can be explained, verified, justified and repeated.
In this case, the direct observable cause is obviously the change in temperature.
If it is is not observable by the senses, the inferred cause must be capable to explanation grounded on the empirical observations, reason, justifiable, and repeatable.
Why must you bring in
the 'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
The answer is due to some internal desperate psychology as Hume alluded to.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am Note I can and test changes empirically based on observations and experience and verify its credibility via philosophical critical thinking.
What has the above to do with your,Matter in motion is described by quantum field theory in which the quantum field is destroyed and created. It is through this, destruction and creation, that motion of particles is possible.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am When water changes to ice, I can explain that easily.
I can explain any changes which are empirically easily using Science and critical thinking.
There is no need to speculate the involvement of an independent mind as an entity is all the empirical evident changes.
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
You argument is based on X changes into Y, e.g. 'water' change to 'ice'.I am aware of that definition. It is just wrong. Mind is not an idea. It is an entity. I have an argument for that.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 am If ever the term 'mind' is used, it is with reference to this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
not the "mind" [independent entity] you have in mind [nb as per wiki's].
I think to avoid further confusion, you should counter why the "mind" as defined in wiki and accepted by all Scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists are WRONG.
Note the mind is;
As defined wrote:The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including the central nervous system).
-wiki
As explained above, in such changes or any changes of state, there is NO
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
the only mind involved is the mind as defined above [re wiki]
Nah, you have not done sufficient research on this are of 'altered states of consciousness'.There is just not a material explanation for that. The electro-chemical process in the brain cannot create a vision of where the eyes cannot possibly perceive.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 amI have had similar of such experiences.I once had out of body experience. My eyes were open but I could see things differently. I was as tall as always but I could see things such that I am as tall as several story building.
I thought I was special [with similar experience of some mystics] from the majority.
I did research on this and there is a medical name for it.
Some experience the opposite as small and short, etc.
It is an altered state of consciousness due to certain activities in the brain not because 'you' are an independent mind by itself.
Scientific tests has been done where one can 'switch' on and 'off' various altered states of consciousness.
Those who have had 'altered states of consciousness' without planning, had been cured with medicines and other procedures.
I have had various types of 'altered states of consciousness' but I don't have them all the time.
Since altered states of consciousness are easily explained by Science there is no room for YOUR,
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Philosophy depend on Science for the relevant knowledge to support their views.Aren't you a scientist or philosopher?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 amDo the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?This is an evidence in front of the scientific community including you. How do you interpret this?
So, do the research and show me the scientific paper to support that?
It would be very degrading if you simply make claims, its magic, without substantial evidence to support your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
The universe, for example, does not have any location but it exists. Mind also does exist and does not have any location.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 amIf not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.
Omnipresent means that it is present everywhere which is different from something which does not have any location.
The term 'universe' is merely a general placeholder as a reference ALL of the above without any specifics.The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the size of the observable universe, which is currently estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
Where the universe is specified, it is the observable universe which is measurable.
Where is your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Where can I observe and measure it?
Illustrated where?No, as it is illustrated.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 amIf not present and not located, then it is 'nothing' thus an illusion.
Again, you are concluding that something that has no location must be everywhere. Something that is omnipresent is different from something which has no location.
Where is your
'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?
Where can I observe and measure it?
I have countered this many times re 'water' changing to 'ice' etc.Meh. I repeat it again: 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 the ability to experience and cause.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:05 amWhere?I did provide my argument for existence of mind that you, unfortunately, didn't pay any attention to it.
Note my counter at the top of this post.
Do not bring this again except to counter my explanation above.