A proof of mind

[bahman]

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.

No, I am arguing in favor of the gap. It is based on the fact that natural processes are not 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.

Yes but having no gaps has nothing to do with being simultaneous.

It has. What is your definition by the way?

[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.

No, I am arguing in favor of the gap. It is based on the fact that natural processes are not 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.

Yes but having no gaps has nothing to do with being simultaneous.

It has. What is your definition by the way?

...

T1 is a point in time, and T2 is a point in time. They are NOT simultaneous and there is NO gap between them.

There is only a "gap" when you think in a way that there has to be a gap, which way of thinking is nothing more than some kind of beginner thinking aid. Come on take this more seriously.

[bahman]

What gaps? Why? You're just imagining them.

No, I am arguing in favor of the gap. It is based on the fact that natural processes are not simultaneous.

Yes but having no gaps has nothing to do with being simultaneous.

It has. What is your definition by the way?

...

T1 is a point in time, and T2 is a point in time. They are NOT simultaneous and there is NO gap between them.

There is only a "gap" when you think in a way that there has to be a gap, which way of thinking is nothing more than some kind of beginner thinking aid. Come on take this more seriously.

To you, time is discrete or continuous? What is your definition of simultaneous?

[Atla]

No, I am arguing in favor of the gap. It is based on the fact that natural processes are not simultaneous.


It has. What is your definition by the way?

...

T1 is a point in time, and T2 is a point in time. They are NOT simultaneous and there is NO gap between them.

There is only a "gap" when you think in a way that there has to be a gap, which way of thinking is nothing more than some kind of beginner thinking aid. Come on take this more seriously.

To you, time is discrete or continuous? What is your definition of simultaneous?

Beside the point here.

Thinking that there has to be a gap between two adjacent points in time is similar to asking: what properties does a particle possess? It's an everyday confusion.

A particle doesn't possess properties, it is its properties. It's not particle + properties, it's just the properties and that's what we call a particle.

Just as there is no gap between two adjacent points in time. It's not T1 and gap and T2. It's just T1 and T2 and that's it.

[bahman]

...

T1 is a point in time, and T2 is a point in time. They are NOT simultaneous and there is NO gap between them.

There is only a "gap" when you think in a way that there has to be a gap, which way of thinking is nothing more than some kind of beginner thinking aid. Come on take this more seriously.

To you, time is discrete or continuous? What is your definition of simultaneous?

Beside the point here.

Thinking that there has to be a gap between two adjacent points in time is similar to asking: what properties does a particle possess? It's an everyday confusion.

A particle doesn't possess properties, it is its properties. It's not particle + properties, it's just the properties and that's what we call a particle.

Just as there is no gap between two adjacent points in time. It's not T1 and gap and T2. It's just T1 and T2 and that's it.

So in your opinion, there is't a time interval between T1 and T2? What is your definition of simultaneous?

[Atla]

To you, time is discrete or continuous? What is your definition of simultaneous?

Beside the point here.

Thinking that there has to be a gap between two adjacent points in time is similar to asking: what properties does a particle possess? It's an everyday confusion.

A particle doesn't possess properties, it is its properties. It's not particle + properties, it's just the properties and that's what we call a particle.

Just as there is no gap between two adjacent points in time. It's not T1 and gap and T2. It's just T1 and T2 and that's it.

So in your opinion, there is't a time interval between T1 and T2? What is your definition of simultaneous?

Yes I don't think that there is something between two points which by definition don't have a between.

Enough, bye

[bahman]

Beside the point here.

Thinking that there has to be a gap between two adjacent points in time is similar to asking: what properties does a particle possess? It's an everyday confusion.

A particle doesn't possess properties, it is its properties. It's not particle + properties, it's just the properties and that's what we call a particle.

Just as there is no gap between two adjacent points in time. It's not T1 and gap and T2. It's just T1 and T2 and that's it.

So in your opinion, there is't a time interval between T1 and T2? What is your definition of simultaneous?

Yes I don't think that there is something between two points which by definition don't have a between.

Enough, bye

It has between in the case of continuous time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

It is not "construct" in the literal sense, like a builder constructing a house or any physical object.
It is more like self-programming with self-reference [or collective reference] that enable an emergence of reality.
If you more details refer to 'Constructivism'.

There is no absolute mind-independent reality.
The fundamental of reality [tentatively - there is more to it] is a 'soup of particles in motion' emerged 13.7 billion years ago. e.g. this;

From 3.5 billion years ago, living things with a will-to-live self-program their own version of "reality"

With an inherent algorithm of 'pattern-seeking' and other functions, each individual and species self-programmed and enabling their specific version of reality in terms of varying bundles in varying densities of particles.
No living species will cognize the same realities out of that 'soup of particles in motion' e.g. a bacteria, bats, dolphins, humans will view the same object differently.

Agree?

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.

Qualia??
If you are a dualist, then your 'Mind' must be absolute independent from your body and all of reality.
It is the same with theists who believe their God is independent of the human body and the the whole physical reality that God created.

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.

If that is the case, then you cannot be a dualist per se.
If 'Reality' [which you are a part of] is not independent of 'the Mind' then 'you' are not independent of 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.

There is no issue where the above refer to a human mind, i.e.
"By the mind [human] exists I mean that the mind [human] is a [kind of] substance with abilities to experience and cause Quadia."

I read you are believing in;
- a human-mind
- the Ultimate Mind of which the human mind is a part of.

Where you believe that human-mind is a substance [e.g. soul] that can survive physical death, then, that is not tenable at all.
This is like the eternal atman [individual mind, soul] that dissolve into Brahman [Ultimate Mind] as in Hindu Vedanta. Is your belief something like this.
Note Hume's argument against an independent self, like a soul [mind] that can survive physical death.

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.

I remember that. Can you present a refresher on this or provide the reference.

Re Motion and Change, remind me of this:

• Two monks were arguing while watching a flag flapping in the wind.
  "The flag is moving," argued one monk.
  "No, it's the wind that is moving!" insisted the other monk.
  Huineng was passing by, and remarked, "It's your minds that are moving."
  https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/2217 ... discussion

The above is culminated from 2500 years of reflective thinking within Buddhism.

Can you prove 'change' is absolutely independent of the human mind.

[bahman]

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?

It is not "construct" in the literal sense, like a builder constructing a house or any physical object.
It is more like self-programming with self-reference [or collective reference] that enable an emergence of reality.
If you more details refer to 'Constructivism'.

There is no absolute mind-independent reality.
The fundamental of reality [tentatively - there is more to it] is a 'soup of particles in motion' emerged 13.7 billion years ago. e.g. this;

From 3.5 billion years ago, living things with a will-to-live self-program their own version of "reality"

With an inherent algorithm of 'pattern-seeking' and other functions, each individual and species self-programmed and enabling their specific version of reality in terms of varying bundles in varying densities of particles.
No living species will cognize the same realities out of that 'soup of particles in motion' e.g. a bacteria, bats, dolphins, humans will view the same object differently.

Agree?

What is the mind to you when you are saying that there is no mind-independent reality?

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.

Qualia??
If you are a dualist, then your 'Mind' must be absolute independent from your body and all of reality.
It is the same with theists who believe their God is independent of the human body and the the whole physical reality that God created.

No, I mean Quidia rather than Qualia. Qualia are the properties of Quidia and Quidia is the object of experience and causation.

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.

If that is the case, then you cannot be a dualist per se.
If 'Reality' [which you are a part of] is not independent of 'the Mind' then 'you' are not independent of 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.

There is no issue where the above refer to a human mind, i.e.
"By the mind [human] exists I mean that the mind [human] is a [kind of] substance with abilities to experience and cause Quadia."

I read you are believing in;
- a human-mind
- the Ultimate Mind of which the human mind is a part of.

Where you believe that human-mind is a substance [e.g. soul] that can survive physical death, then, that is not tenable at all.
This is like the eternal atman [individual mind, soul] that dissolve into Brahman [Ultimate Mind] as in Hindu Vedanta. Is your belief something like this.
Note Hume's argument against an independent self, like a soul [mind] that can survive physical death.

Human does not have any mind. There is only one mind, the mind, extended in spacetime.

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.

I remember that. Can you present a refresher on this or provide the reference.

Re Motion and Change, remind me of this:

• Two monks were arguing while watching a flag flapping in the wind.
  "The flag is moving," argued one monk.
  "No, it's the wind that is moving!" insisted the other monk.
  Huineng was passing by, and remarked, "It's your minds that are moving."
  https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/2217 ... discussion

The above is culminated from 2500 years of reflective thinking within Buddhism.

Can you prove 'change' is absolutely independent of the human mind.

The OP in the thread uses the fact that change exists. The events are not simultaneous since there is a change. This means that processes are either continuous or discrete.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no absolute mind-independent reality.
The fundamental of reality [tentatively - there is more to it] is a 'soup of particles in motion' emerged 13.7 billion years ago. e.g. this;

From 3.5 billion years ago, living things with a will-to-live self-program their own version of "reality"

With an inherent algorithm of 'pattern-seeking' and other functions, each individual and species self-programmed and enabling their specific version of reality in terms of varying bundles in varying densities of particles.
No living species will cognize the same realities out of that 'soup of particles in motion' e.g. a bacteria, bats, dolphins, humans will view the same object differently.

Agree?

What is the mind to you when you are saying that there is no mind-independent reality?[/quote]
That is the first thing I took care, i.e. define my 'what is mind'.

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)

It is this mind [my definition] that 'constructs' reality via 3.5 billions years of organic evolution.
Agree?

Qualia??
If you are a dualist, then your 'Mind' must be absolute independent from your body and all of reality.
It is the same with theists who believe their God is independent of the human body and the the whole physical reality that God created.

No, I mean Quidia rather than Qualia. Qualia are the properties of Quidia and Quidia is the object of experience and causation.

If you are introducing a new word you should have defined it.

Note my point;
"If you are a dualist, then your 'Mind' must be absolute independent from your body and all of reality."

Human does not have any mind.
There is only one mind, the mind, extended in spacetime.

You cannot deny the generally accepted 'mind' as defined above.
The mind is often understood as a faculty that manifests itself in mental phenomena like sensation, perception, thinking, reasoning, memory, belief, desire, emotion and motivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

What you seem to be referring to is the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_mind_thesis
"The Extended Mind" by Andy Clark and David Chalmers (1998)[2] is the paper that originally stated the EMT. Clark and Chalmers present the idea of active externalism (not to be confused with semantic externalism), in which objects within the environment function as a part of the mind. They argue that the separation between the mind, the body, and the environment is an unprincipled distinction. Because external objects play a significant role in aiding cognitive processes, the mind and the environment act as a "coupled system" that can be seen as a complete cognitive system of its own. In this manner, the mind is extended into the physical world.

I believe to avoid confusion, you should not deny there is a human mind [as defined above].
Then you can claim, the human mind [as defined] is extended to all of reality.
But to call this extended human mind, "mind" merely cause confusion.
Why not give is a different term to avoid confusion with typical what is mind which general referring to the faculty of mind within humans.
If you insist, you can terms your extended mind as 'extended mind' or "Mind" in capital M.

If you claim an extended mind, you cannot claim to be a dualist [as defined] which is generally mind-body dualism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism.
If otherwise you will have to explain how yours is different from the others.

It is a fact that reality as all-there-is including who are intricately part and parcel of reality, thus the human-mind is part and parcel of reality.
As such, whatever happens within reality, that event cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind [as defined].
Note Chaos Theory where one's sneeze can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world.

Merely to claim there is no human mind and there is only one mind without detailed qualification only caused confusion and is a sign of clumsy philosophizing.

I remember that. Can you present a refresher on this or provide the reference.

Re Motion and Change, remind me of this:

• Two monks were arguing while watching a flag flapping in the wind.
  "The flag is moving," argued one monk.
  "No, it's the wind that is moving!" insisted the other monk.
  Huineng was passing by, and remarked, "It's your minds that are moving."
  https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/2217 ... discussion

The above is culminated from 2500 years of reflective thinking within Buddhism.

Can you prove 'change' is absolutely independent of the human mind.

The OP in the thread uses the fact that change exists. The events are not simultaneous since there is a change. This means that processes are either continuous or discrete.

Let say,
1. there is a human mind [small m],
2. the human-mind is also extended into the whole of reality [as you claimed as "Mind"]

the point here is,
change is firstly conditioned upon the human mind.
the concept of 'change' is a construct of the human mind.
as such 'change' do not prove the existence of the extended mind.

Here is one perspective;
Reality is all-there-is
All-there-is comprised the human-mind and everything else.
The human-mind is intricately part and parcel of reality.

As such, your idea of "Mind" make no sense within the above, unless you want to introduce an element of 'agency' but not comfortable with the term 'God'.

The what is human mind is necessary and useful to psychology thus the improvements of well being of individuals and humanity.
Question: what is the end game of your claim 'there is a Mind?'
Will your idea of "Mind" facilitate the the improvements of well being of individuals and humanity?

[bahman]

There is no absolute mind-independent reality.
The fundamental of reality [tentatively - there is more to it] is a 'soup of particles in motion' emerged 13.7 billion years ago. e.g. this;

From 3.5 billion years ago, living things with a will-to-live self-program their own version of "reality"

With an inherent algorithm of 'pattern-seeking' and other functions, each individual and species self-programmed and enabling their specific version of reality in terms of varying bundles in varying densities of particles.
No living species will cognize the same realities out of that 'soup of particles in motion' e.g. a bacteria, bats, dolphins, humans will view the same object differently.

Agree?

What is the mind to you when you are saying that there is no mind-independent reality?

That is the first thing I took care, i.e. define my 'what is mind'.

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)

It is this mind [my definition] that 'constructs' reality via 3.5 billions years of organic evolution.
Agree?

No, I mean Quidia rather than Qualia. Qualia are the properties of Quidia and Quidia is the object of experience and causation.

If you are introducing a new word you should have defined it.

Note my point;
"If you are a dualist, then your 'Mind' must be absolute independent from your body and all of reality."

Human does not have any mind.
There is only one mind, the mind, extended in spacetime.

You cannot deny the generally accepted 'mind' as defined above.
The mind is often understood as a faculty that manifests itself in mental phenomena like sensation, perception, thinking, reasoning, memory, belief, desire, emotion and motivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

What you seem to be referring to is the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_mind_thesis
"The Extended Mind" by Andy Clark and David Chalmers (1998)[2] is the paper that originally stated the EMT. Clark and Chalmers present the idea of active externalism (not to be confused with semantic externalism), in which objects within the environment function as a part of the mind. They argue that the separation between the mind, the body, and the environment is an unprincipled distinction. Because external objects play a significant role in aiding cognitive processes, the mind and the environment act as a "coupled system" that can be seen as a complete cognitive system of its own. In this manner, the mind is extended into the physical world.

I believe to avoid confusion, you should not deny there is a human mind [as defined above].
Then you can claim, the human mind [as defined] is extended to all of reality.
But to call this extended human mind, "mind" merely cause confusion.
Why not give is a different term to avoid confusion with typical what is mind which general referring to the faculty of mind within humans.
If you insist, you can terms your extended mind as 'extended mind' or "Mind" in capital M.

If you claim an extended mind, you cannot claim to be a dualist [as defined] which is generally mind-body dualism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism.
If otherwise you will have to explain how yours is different from the others.

It is a fact that reality as all-there-is including who are intricately part and parcel of reality, thus the human-mind is part and parcel of reality.
As such, whatever happens within reality, that event cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind [as defined].
Note Chaos Theory where one's sneeze can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world.

Merely to claim there is no human mind and there is only one mind without detailed qualification only caused confusion and is a sign of clumsy philosophizing.

The OP in the thread uses the fact that change exists. The events are not simultaneous since there is a change. This means that processes are either continuous or discrete.

Let say,
1. there is a human mind [small m],
2. the human-mind is also extended into the whole of reality [as you claimed as "Mind"]

the point here is,
change is firstly conditioned upon the human mind.
the concept of 'change' is a construct of the human mind.
as such 'change' do not prove the existence of the extended mind.

Here is one perspective;
Reality is all-there-is
All-there-is comprised the human-mind and everything else.
The human-mind is intricately part and parcel of reality.

As such, your idea of "Mind" make no sense within the above, unless you want to introduce an element of 'agency' but not comfortable with the term 'God'.

The what is human mind is necessary and useful to psychology thus the improvements of well being of individuals and humanity.
Question: what is the end game of your claim 'there is a Mind?'
Will your idea of "Mind" facilitate the the improvements of well being of individuals and humanity?

Could you please organize your reply as It is difficult for me to reply to you?