bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Could you please tell me that what mind is made of?
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
If I had to speculate...
(which, of course, is precisely what we are all doing here - speculating)
...then I would suggest that mind and matter are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental essence, with both working together in tandem to produce what we call “reality.”
In other words, mind and matter are an inseparable amalgam of whatever it is that Spinoza was attempting to describe in his
“oneness substance” theories, beyond which nothing else exists.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Essence of what?
I told you already, it is whatever it is that Spinoza was
attempting to describe in his
“oneness substance” theories.
And as far as I know, we humans are not yet privy to the exact nature of that substance.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
1) Consciousness cannot emerge from something structured.
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
What are you talking about, bahman? Isn’t it obvious that consciousness can emerge from the highly structured context of a physical brain?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
No, it cannot. There is no such a thing as emergence. Basically particle physicists are trying to come up with theory of everything in which the behavior of everything is explained in term of behavior of parts, so called elementary particles. Standard theory to the best of my knowledge is an accurate model which explains reality very well.
Consciousness cannot be explained by particle physics.
And unless I misinterpreted what you stated in an alternate thread, then you, yourself, have pointed out the insolvability of the “hard problem of consciousness.”
So I am puzzled as to why you are now suggesting that particle physics “explains reality very well” when it cannot answer one of the most fundamental and dominant questions of all.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
2) Something structured cannot be free.
3) Something which is structured cannot cause.
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
I have already debunked 2 and 3 in my earlier rebuttal, here:
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
No, you didn't. You didn't also reply to -1-.
I was formulating a reply to
-1-, but then I remembered him insisting that any reply to him from me can never include a question. My reply included a question. And even though his own replies to others include questions, I simply chose not to post mine as per
-1-'s own request, here -
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25469&start=15#p387600
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
Your argument is constructed to support your personal assumption of why a
“free agent cannot be created.”
However, I have given you a hypothetical scenario wherein God...
(a Being that you agreed is a “free agent” under the terms that I laid-out)
...is able to replicate itself, thus causing a new free agent (just like God) to come into existence.
In other words, with specific and structured knowledge (as is possessed by God), a free agent can indeed be created.
Therefore, your argument is thus refuted, period, full-stop.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
That is just an opinion.
Of course it’s just an opinion.
And I suppose that everything you have to say is irrefutable fact?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
You need to tell me what is wrong with my argument.
Are you kidding me, bahman?
Everything that I have been posting back to you is basically an effort to show you what is wrong with your argument.
You either do not understand what I am saying (perhaps a language issue – see next post), or you simply refuse to accept any of it because it refutes your theory.
(Continued in next post)
_______