Mind is immortal II

[Terrapin Station]

That is proven in the link that is provided in OP.

I explained in that thread what's wrong with your "proof."

If x is a two particle system, all we need for x to change is for the relations of the particles to change.

I don't understand your point.

No $h|t. Hence why you're writing stuff like "Mind is necessary for change/motion."

[Sculptor]

To show that the mind is immortal I have to show that the mind is time-independent and it exists. The existence of the mind is discussed here. To show that the mind is time-independent we first assume that time is time dependent. This means that the mind is subject to change. Anything that is subject to change requires a mind. This leads to a regress. Therefore, the mind is time-independent. Therefore, the mind is immortal.

No it’s not immortal ..the mind is an appearance of the immortal…an appearance is any thing but immortal.

No, the mind is a substance. It is not appearance.

If the mind is a substance then where is it?
If the mind is a substance then what maintains and sustains it?
If the mind is a substance then how can it be immortal?

[bahman]

I explained in that thread what's wrong with your "proof."

If x is a two particle system, all we need for x to change is for the relations of the particles to change.

I don't understand your point.

No $h|t. Hence why you're writing stuff like "Mind is necessary for change/motion."

Yes, mind is needed for change. So what?

[bahman]

No it’s not immortal ..the mind is an appearance of the immortal…an appearance is any thing but immortal.

No, the mind is a substance. It is not appearance.

If the mind is a substance then where is it?

It depends on how it interacts with other things. It is local if it interacts locally with other things. Otherwise, it is nonlocal/omnipresent.

If the mind is a substance then what maintains and sustains it?

Nothing else but itself. To claim that mind is sustained by something else leads to regress.

IIf the mind is a substance then how can it be immortal?

I already discussed this in OP.

[Sculptor]

No, the mind is a substance. It is not appearance.

If the mind is a substance then where is it?

It depends on how it interacts with other things. It is local if it interacts locally with other things. Otherwise, it is
nonlocal/omnipresent.

That is no answer.

If the mind is a substance then what maintains and sustains it?

Nothing else but itself. To claim that mind is sustained by something else leads to regress.

Yet all substance changes and without sustainence and maintenance it loses it qualities.
So if their is a problem if regress then the problem is with your premise.

IIf the mind is a substance then how can it be immortal?

I already discussed this in OP.

That is no answer either.
There can be no substance without extension.
All you have here is a collection of contradictions.

[RCSaunders]

Mind is not an attribute given my definition.

There's the problem right there.

[bahman]

If the mind is a substance then where is it?

It depends on how it interacts with other things. It is local if it interacts locally with other things. Otherwise, it is
nonlocal/omnipresent.

That is no answer.

I mean if the interaction is local then the mind is in the place of interaction otherwise somewhere else.

If the mind is a substance then what maintains and sustains it?

Nothing else but itself. To claim that mind is sustained by something else leads to regress.

Yet all substance changes and without sustainence and maintenance it loses it qualities.
So if their is a problem if regress then the problem is with your premise.

No, to assume that the mind is sustained by something else leads to regress as I mentioned. Mind by definition is a changeless substance with specific properties.

IIf the mind is a substance then how can it be immortal?

I already discussed this in OP.

That is no answer either.
There can be no substance without extension.
All you have here is a collection of contradictions.

Mind is an irreducible substance as such it does not have any extension. You could divide the mind into different parts if it has an extension. one of the duties of the mind is to decide. There would be tension between decisions if each part makes a decision. This will leads to halt problem.

[bahman]

Mind is not an attribute given my definition.

There's the problem right there.

There is no problem in there. That is my definition. You have another definition. Let's call it mind prime.

[Sculptor]

It depends on how it interacts with other things. It is local if it interacts locally with other things. Otherwise, it is
nonlocal/omnipresent.

That is no answer.

I mean if the interaction is local then the mind is in the place of interaction otherwise somewhere else.

Nothing else but itself. To claim that mind is sustained by something else leads to regress.

Yet all substance changes and without sustainence and maintenance it loses it qualities.
So if their is a problem if regress then the problem is with your premise.

No, to assume that the mind is sustained by something else leads to regress as I mentioned. Mind by definition is a changeless substance with specific properties.

What sustains your argument??
Nothing.

I already discussed this in OP.

That is no answer either.
There can be no substance without extension.
All you have here is a collection of contradictions.

Mind is an irreducible substance as such it does not have any extension.

QED is is not a substance.
You don't know what you are talking about.

You could divide the mind into different parts if it has an extension. one of the duties of the mind is to decide. There would be tension between decisions if each part makes a decision. This will leads to halt problem.

No. The brain can be divided into fucntions. And if you lose or damage key areas you loses key fucntions. SO much is public knowledge.
The mind is a quality of the brain.

[bahman]

That is no answer.

I mean if the interaction is local then the mind is in the place of interaction otherwise somewhere else.

Yet all substance changes and without sustainence and maintenance it loses it qualities.
So if their is a problem if regress then the problem is with your premise.

No, to assume that the mind is sustained by something else leads to regress as I mentioned. Mind by definition is a changeless substance with specific properties.

What sustains your argument??
Nothing.

I already argue in favor of changeless mind in OP. The mind has properties, namely the ability to experience, decide and cause. This is discussed in the link in OP.

That is no answer either.
There can be no substance without extension.
All you have here is a collection of contradictions.

Mind is an irreducible substance as such it does not have any extension.

QED is is not a substance.
You don't know what you are talking about.

You could divide the mind into different parts if it has an extension. one of the duties of the mind is to decide. There would be tension between decisions if each part makes a decision. This will leads to halt problem.

No. The brain can be divided into fucntions. And if you lose or damage key areas you loses key fucntions. SO much is public knowledge.
The mind is a quality of the brain.

Well, as far as I know, the hard problem of consciousness is not resolved yet. So the brain functions like thinking require consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function unless you claim that you have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I would be happy to hear your solution.

[Sculptor]

I mean if the interaction is local then the mind is in the place of interaction otherwise somewhere else.

No, to assume that the mind is sustained by something else leads to regress as I mentioned. Mind by definition is a changeless substance with specific properties.

What sustains your argument??
Nothing.

I already argue in favor of changeless mind in OP. The mind has properties, namely the ability to experience, decide and cause. This is discussed in the link in OP.

A changeless mind CANNOT experience or learn.

Mind is an irreducible substance as such it does not have any extension.

QED is is not a substance.
You don't know what you are talking about.

You could divide the mind into different parts if it has an extension. one of the duties of the mind is to decide. There would be tension between decisions if each part makes a decision. This will leads to halt problem.

No. The brain can be divided into fucntions. And if you lose or damage key areas you loses key fucntions. SO much is public knowledge.
The mind is a quality of the brain.

Well, as far as I know, the hard problem of consciousness is not resolved yet. So the brain functions like thinking require consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function unless you claim that you have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I would be happy to hear your solution.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[bahman]

What sustains your argument??
Nothing.

I already argue in favor of changeless mind in OP. The mind has properties, namely the ability to experience, decide and cause. This is discussed in the link in OP.

A changeless mind CANNOT experience or learn.

It can if its content change.

QED is is not a substance.
You don't know what you are talking about.

No. The brain can be divided into fucntions. And if you lose or damage key areas you loses key fucntions. SO much is public knowledge.
The mind is a quality of the brain.

Well, as far as I know, the hard problem of consciousness is not resolved yet. So the brain functions like thinking require consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function unless you claim that you have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I would be happy to hear your solution.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about. By the way, what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

[Sculptor]

I already argue in favor of changeless mind in OP. The mind has properties, namely the ability to experience, decide and cause. This is discussed in the link in OP.

A changeless mind CANNOT experience or learn.

It can if its content change.

WT actual F are you babbling about??
Yes the contents have to change to learn and that is what is called CHANGE you dipship

Well, as far as I know, the hard problem of consciousness is not resolved yet. So the brain functions like thinking require consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function unless you claim that you have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I would be happy to hear your solution.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about. By the way, what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

BTW what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
Physicalism answers everything.

[bahman]

A changeless mind CANNOT experience or learn.

It can if its content change.

WT actual F are you babbling about??
Yes the contents have to change to learn and that is what is called CHANGE you dipship

I make the distinction between the mind and its content.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about. By the way, what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

BTW what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
Physicalism answers everything.

What is the answer of physicalism to the hard problem of consciousness?

[Sculptor]

It can if its content change.

WT actual F are you babbling about??
Yes the contents have to change to learn and that is what is called CHANGE you dipship

I make the distinction between the mind and its content.

And that is why you are stupid. A thing is different when its contents are different

I know what I am talking about. By the way, what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

BTW what is your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
Physicalism answers everything.

What is the answer of physicalism to the hard problem of consciousness?