A proof of mind

[Atla]

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]

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?

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.

[bahman]

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.

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.

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]

w/e

[bahman]

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?

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

[bahman]

w/e

What? You gave up?

[Atla]

w/e

What? You gave up?

You lack the ability to make sense even before we go to the "mind" part.

[bahman]

w/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]

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?

[bahman]

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]

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.

[bahman]

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?

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]

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.

[bahman]

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.

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]

The 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.