A proof of mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:37 pm Well, we are dealing with a discrete process if there is a gap in time between events (let's assume that events happen at a point in space and we are observers who are at rest toward events).
There can also be gaps between continuous events, so that doesn't make sense to me.
I guess you mean that the events are point-like. But that still doesn't make sense to me. You are still thinking in two kinds of time? But there is only one. In which case the gap is unnoticable, so it looks like a continuous event.

Discrete vs continuous isn't about gaps at all. It's about whether we can zoom into infinite detail or we can't (whether there is infinite detail or finite detail). Gaps are a different issue I think. It doesn't make sense anyway imo to have 3 categories instead of 2 or 4.
A simultaneous process is a process in which there is no gap between events in time.
That doesn't make sense to me.

You know what, maybe we would need at least 8 categories.. finite vs infinite detail, pointlike events vs events with extension, gaps vs no gaps
Or maybe 16 if we add spacetime vs spacetime + absolute time
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 11804
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am I view "mind" [full capabilities] as exclusive to humans, i.e.
  • The mind (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena.[2][3][4]
    The mind is also associated with experiencing perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, and emotion. The mind can include conscious and non-conscious states as well as sensory and non-sensory experiences.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I believe that "the mind is roughly identical with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity" ibid.
If no humans, then no minds.
As such, there is only the human mind and no other. (1)

In your case, the mind exists regardless of whether there are no humans or not?
bahman wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:11 pm In here, I argued about different processes, namely discrete, continuous, and simultaneous.
Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.
This means that an event cannot possibly cause another event, because of the interval.
Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.
"Our reality ..."
I have argued,
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The real empirical- mind-related sense
2. The illusory absolutely-mind-independent sense

I believe your sense of 'reality' is that of 2 i.e. "The illusory absolutely-mind-independent sense".
As such your argument is a non-starter in consideration of reality.

Your "The illusory absolutely-mind-independent sense" leads to Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have also explained,
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167


Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.
In this case, you are using a human-mind [seems and experience] (1) to infer there is an interval caused by a 'Mind'.
Because you are relying upon a human mind to infer, its follow your 'Mind' is a resultant thought of the human-mind.(1).
Thus your 'Mind' [whatever that is] cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.
If you view your 'Mind' as a substance within Substance Theory, it is not tenable.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Criticisms of Substance Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

Besides you are also relying on the Principle of Causality.
Again causality is not tenable as realistic.
According to Hume, causation is grounded on the psychological, i.e. human acts.
The notion of causation is closely linked to the problem of induction. According to Hume, we reason inductively by associating constantly conjoined events. It is the mental act of association that is the basis of our concept of causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hum ... _causation
Because of All the above criticisms and obstructions your claim 'Mind exists' cannot be realistic.
You are wrong in thinking that reality is the construct of the human mind.
Your view is self-refuting since the mind in your view depends on the brain
and the brain, a part of reality, depends on the mind.
The above is a strawman, where term 'depend' is problematic.

My argument is this;
P1. Humans [including brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of the whole of reality.
P2. Whatever is intricately part and parcel of reality of a whole cannot be absolutely independent of that whole.
C1 Therefore, the human brain and mind CANNOT be absolutely independent of the whole of reality.

The above refutes the philosophical realists' claim there is an absolutely human mind-independent reality.

In contrast, I have demonstrated the whole of reality [including humans therein] is an emergence [including consciousness] which is realized by humans, thereafter is perceived, known, believed and described by humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
Moreover, my view is subjective idealism.
  • Subjective idealism, a philosophy based on the premise that nothing exists except minds and spirits and their perceptions or ideas. A person experiences material things, but their existence is not independent of the perceiving mind; material things are thus mere perceptions. The reality of the outside world is contingent on a knower. The 18th-century Anglo-Irish philosopher George Berkeley succinctly formulated his fundamental proposition thus: Esse est percipi (“To be is to be perceived”). In its more extreme forms, subjective idealism tends toward solipsism, which holds that I alone exist.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/subjective-idealism
I don't think your belief is exclusively subjective idealism
It is more likely to be Absolute Idealism
  • Absolute Idealism, a philosophical theory that posits reality as a manifestation of a singular, underlying spiritual or ideal essence, forms the cornerstone of a profound intellectual tradition. - WIKI
In your case, there is a MIND [not human mind] that is absolutely independent of the human mind/brain.
This is substance dualism.
  • Substance dualism, or Cartesian dualism, most famously defended by René Descartes, argues that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and physical.[8] This philosophy states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think. Substance dualism is important historically for having given rise to much thought regarding the famous mind–body problem.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%8 ... an_dualism
I suppose you believe this independent MIND creates the whole of reality which is independent of itself? this is problematic and is self-refuting.

So what is your exact belief relating to 'Mind exists'.
I cannot deny that I am a realist too, in the sense that reality is not a construct of the human mind.
I already argued that based on the fossil record there was a period when humans did not exist but reality existed. I thought you believed in evolution. It seems not. Or you are contradiction yourself and cannot see it.
In GENERAL a realist can be an idealist and vice-versa but one has to identify the specifics.

In your case, you are a philosophical realist on one hand, while being an empirical idealist [also absolute idealism] on the other.
I have argued as linked above, Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Show me proofs that reality and things can be absolutely human-mind-independent.

You have not countered this argument of mine;

Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.
In this case, you are using a human-mind [seems and experience] (1) to infer there is an interval caused by a 'Mind'.
Because you are relying upon a human mind to infer, its follow your 'Mind' is a resultant thought of the human-mind.(1).
Thus your 'Mind' [whatever that is] cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

Prove you "Mind" [re OP] is absolutely independent of the human mind?

In addition, you have not deal with the Hume's problem of causation when you claim your mind as a substance 'causes' effects.
Also you have not dealt with the untenability of your substance within the criticisms Substance Theory.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:09 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:37 pm Well, we are dealing with a discrete process if there is a gap in time between events (let's assume that events happen at a point in space and we are observers who are at rest toward events).
There can also be gaps between continuous events, so that doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, there are gaps between continuous events as well. The gap is constant in the discrete case whereas in the continuous case, it is arbitrarily small.
Atla wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:09 pm I guess you mean that the events are point-like. But that still doesn't make sense to me. You are still thinking in two kinds of time? But there is only one. In which case the gap is unnoticable, so it looks like a continuous event.

Discrete vs continuous isn't about gaps at all. It's about whether we can zoom into infinite detail or we can't (whether there is infinite detail or finite detail). Gaps are a different issue I think. It doesn't make sense anyway imo to have 3 categories instead of 2 or 4.
Discrete versus continuous is about the type of gap as I illustrated in the previous comment.
Atla wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:09 pm
A simultaneous process is a process in which there is no gap between events in time.
That doesn't make sense to me.

You know what, maybe we would need at least 8 categories.. finite vs infinite detail, pointlike events vs events with extension, gaps vs no gaps
Or maybe 16 if we add spacetime vs spacetime + absolute time
No, there are just three types of process.
Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

w/e
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:23 am
bahman wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am I view "mind" [full capabilities] as exclusive to humans, i.e.
  • The mind (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena.[2][3][4]
    The mind is also associated with experiencing perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, and emotion. The mind can include conscious and non-conscious states as well as sensory and non-sensory experiences.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I believe that "the mind is roughly identical with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity" ibid.
If no humans, then no minds.
As such, there is only the human mind and no other. (1)

In your case, the mind exists regardless of whether there are no humans or not?

"Our reality ..."
I have argued,
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The real empirical- mind-related sense
2. The illusory absolutely-mind-independent sense

I believe your sense of 'reality' is that of 2 i.e. "The illusory absolutely-mind-independent sense".
As such your argument is a non-starter in consideration of reality.

Your "The illusory absolutely-mind-independent sense" leads to Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have also explained,
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.
In this case, you are using a human-mind [seems and experience] (1) to infer there is an interval caused by a 'Mind'.
Because you are relying upon a human mind to infer, its follow your 'Mind' is a resultant thought of the human-mind.(1).
Thus your 'Mind' [whatever that is] cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.
If you view your 'Mind' as a substance within Substance Theory, it is not tenable.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Criticisms of Substance Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

Besides you are also relying on the Principle of Causality.
Again causality is not tenable as realistic.
According to Hume, causation is grounded on the psychological, i.e. human acts.

Because of All the above criticisms and obstructions your claim 'Mind exists' cannot be realistic.
You are wrong in thinking that reality is the construct of the human mind.
Your view is self-refuting since the mind in your view depends on the brain
and the brain, a part of reality, depends on the mind.
The above is a strawman, where term 'depend' is problematic.

My argument is this;
P1. Humans [including brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of the whole of reality.
P2. Whatever is intricately part and parcel of reality of a whole cannot be absolutely independent of that whole.
C1 Therefore, the human brain and mind CANNOT be absolutely independent of the whole of reality.

The above refutes the philosophical realists' claim there is an absolutely human mind-independent reality.

In contrast, I have demonstrated the whole of reality [including humans therein] is an emergence [including consciousness] which is realized by humans, thereafter is perceived, known, believed and described by humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
Don't you believe that reality is a construct of the human mind?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am
Moreover, my view is subjective idealism.
  • Subjective idealism, a philosophy based on the premise that nothing exists except minds and spirits and their perceptions or ideas. A person experiences material things, but their existence is not independent of the perceiving mind; material things are thus mere perceptions. The reality of the outside world is contingent on a knower. The 18th-century Anglo-Irish philosopher George Berkeley succinctly formulated his fundamental proposition thus: Esse est percipi (“To be is to be perceived”). In its more extreme forms, subjective idealism tends toward solipsism, which holds that I alone exist.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/subjective-idealism
I don't think your belief is exclusively subjective idealism
It is more likely to be Absolute Idealism
  • Absolute Idealism, a philosophical theory that posits reality as a manifestation of a singular, underlying spiritual or ideal essence, forms the cornerstone of a profound intellectual tradition. - WIKI
In your case, there is a MIND [not human mind] that is absolutely independent of the human mind/brain.
This is substance dualism.
Mind is primary in my world view whereas reality is the object of experience and causation by the mind hence it is secondary.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am
  • Substance dualism, or Cartesian dualism, most famously defended by René Descartes, argues that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and physical.[8] This philosophy states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think. Substance dualism is important historically for having given rise to much thought regarding the famous mind–body problem.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%8 ... an_dualism
Yes I am a dualist as well. I believe in two substances, namely the mind and Quadia/physical.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am I suppose you believe this independent MIND creates the whole of reality which is independent of itself? this is problematic and is self-refuting.
Reality is not an independent thing in the sense that it could exist without the mind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am So what is your exact belief relating to 'Mind exists'.
By the mind exists I mean that the mind is a substance with abilities to experience and cause Quadia.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:08 am
I cannot deny that I am a realist too, in the sense that reality is not a construct of the human mind.
I already argued that based on the fossil record there was a period when humans did not exist but reality existed. I thought you believed in evolution. It seems not. Or you are contradiction yourself and cannot see it.
In GENERAL a realist can be an idealist and vice-versa but one has to identify the specifics.

In your case, you are a philosophical realist on one hand, while being an empirical idealist [also absolute idealism] on the other.
I have argued as linked above, Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Show me proofs that reality and things can be absolutely human-mind-independent.

You have not countered this argument of mine;

Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.
In this case, you are using a human-mind [seems and experience] (1) to infer there is an interval caused by a 'Mind'.
Because you are relying upon a human mind to infer, its follow your 'Mind' is a resultant thought of the human-mind.(1).
Thus your 'Mind' [whatever that is] cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

Prove you "Mind" [re OP] is absolutely independent of the human mind?

In addition, you have not deal with the Hume's problem of causation when you claim your mind as a substance 'causes' effects.
Also you have not dealt with the untenability of your substance within the criticisms Substance Theory.
I argue the existence of mind from the fact that change exists.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:33 pmw/e
What? You gave up?
Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:40 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:33 pmw/e
What? You gave up?
You lack the ability to make sense even before we go to the "mind" part.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:39 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:40 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:33 pmw/e
What? You gave up?
You lack the ability to make sense even before we go to the "mind" part.
I don't think so. Which part do you have a problem with?
Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:01 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:39 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:40 pm
What? You gave up?
You lack the ability to make sense even before we go to the "mind" part.
I don't think so. Which part do you have a problem with?
For example there are no known gaps in nature?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:02 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:01 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:39 pm
You lack the ability to make sense even before we go to the "mind" part.
I don't think so. Which part do you have a problem with?
For example, there are no known gaps in nature?
Well, how do you know? The process in nature could be discrete. Our experience is continuous but that does not imply that natural process is continuous. But regardless, the gap exists even if the natural process is continuous. Of course, the nature of a continuous gap is different from a discrete gap in the sense that it is arbitrarily small but non-zero since the process is simultaneous if the gap is zero.
Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:20 pm Well, how do you know? The process in nature could be discrete. Our experience is continuous but that does not imply that natural process is continuous. But regardless, the gap exists even if the natural process is continuous.
There are no known gaps.
Of course, the nature of a continuous gap is different from a discrete gap in the sense that it is arbitrarily small but non-zero since the process is simultaneous if the gap is zero.
Zero gap has nothing to do with the process being simultaneous.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:25 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:20 pm Well, how do you know? The process in nature could be discrete. Our experience is continuous but that does not imply that natural process is continuous. But regardless, the gap exists even if the natural process is continuous.
There are no known gaps.
How do you know? Do you have any proof?
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:25 pm
Of course, the nature of a continuous gap is different from a discrete gap in the sense that it is arbitrarily small but non-zero since the process is simultaneous if the gap is zero.
Zero gap has nothing to do with the process being simultaneous.
It has. A simultaneous process by definition is a set of events that occur at a point in time.
Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:30 pm How do you know? Do you have any proof?
Burden is on you, the one claiming that there are gaps.
It has. A simultaneous process by definition is a set of events that occur at a point in time.
But having no gaps has nothing to do with being simultaneous.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A proof of mind

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:33 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:30 pm How do you know? Do you have any proof?
Burden is on you, the one claiming that there are gaps.
The natural process is not simultaneous. This leaves us with two options, namely discrete or continuous in which in both there are gaps.
Atla wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:33 pm
It has. A simultaneous process by definition is a set of events that occur at a point in time.
But having no gaps has nothing to do with being simultaneous.
I already mentioned that: A simultaneous process by definition is a set of events that occur at a point in time. Do you have another definition for a simultaneous process? If yes, please share it.
Atla
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: A proof of mind

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:40 pmThe natural process is not simultaneous. This leaves us with two options, namely discrete or continuous in which in both there are gaps.
What gaps? Why? You're just imagining them.
I already mentioned that: A simultaneous process by definition is a set of events that occur at a point in time. Do you have another definition for a simultaneous process? If yes, please share it.
Yes but having no gaps has nothing to do with being simultaneous.
Post Reply