A proof of mind

[bahman]

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.

[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.

[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?

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. Moreover, my view is subjective idealism. 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.

[Flannel Jesus]

Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.

Don't know why you think that, but I'll accept it for a moment.

This means that an event cannot possibly cause another event, because of the interval.

I'm not sure that's entirely necessarily true, but I can see why you would think so, there's at least some intuitive sense to it.

Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.

Fucking... what? How did you get from where you were to this?

[Atla]

Or you are contradiction yourself and cannot see it.

Maybe VA does see the contradictions in what he says, but is completely unbothered by them. Strange I'd say.

[bahman]

Our reality seems continuous which means that there is an arbitrary small interval between the events we experience.

Don't know why you think that, but I'll accept it for a moment.

That is the definition of a continuous process. I defined three possible different processes here.

This means that an event cannot possibly cause another event, because of the interval.

I'm not sure that's entirely necessarily true, but I can see why you would think so, there's at least some intuitive sense to it.

Well, the time interval is a gap. The gap is arbitrarily small and it is not zero in a continuous process. The gap is the absence of anything. So you have the first event, the gap, then the second event. The first event cannot cause the second event because there is not anything between. Is this helpful?

Therefore, the mind, a substance with the ability to experience and cause, is the cause of the process.

Fucking... what? How did you get from where you were to this?

You need a kind of bridge to make change possible because of the gap since the first event cannot possibly cause the second event. That bridge I call the mind. The events that we experience in reality are related by this I mean given the first event one expects the second event to be specific. The mind should have the ability to experience the first event otherwise it cannot cause the second event that is related to the first event. Well, the mind should be able to cause as well otherwise there would not be a second event.

[bahman]

Or you are contradiction yourself and cannot see it.

Maybe VA does see the contradictions in what he says, but is completely unbothered by them. Strange I'd say.

I am just speechless!

[Flannel Jesus]

You need a kind of bridge to make change possible because of the gap since the first event cannot possibly cause the second event. That bridge I call the mind. The events that we experience in reality are related by this I mean given the first event one expects the second event to be specific. The mind should have the ability to experience the first event otherwise it cannot cause the second event that is related to the first event. Well, the mind should be able to cause as well otherwise there would not be a second event.

I'm gonna be honest, it just sounds like you're putting words in a random order.

[bahman]

You need a kind of bridge to make change possible because of the gap since the first event cannot possibly cause the second event. That bridge I call the mind. The events that we experience in reality are related by this I mean given the first event one expects the second event to be specific. The mind should have the ability to experience the first event otherwise it cannot cause the second event that is related to the first event. Well, the mind should be able to cause as well otherwise there would not be a second event.

I'm gonna be honest, it just sounds like you're putting words in a random order.

Why? Could we agree upon the existence of a gap?

[Atla]

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.

But continuous means that there is no interval between events.

[bahman]

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.

But continuous means that there is no interval between events.

No, no interval means that events lay at the same point in time therefore the process is simultaneuous. The continuous process is a process in which the intervals between events are arbitrarily small but never zero.

[Atla]

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.

But continuous means that there is no interval between events.

No, no interval means that events lay at the same point in time therefore the process is simultaneuous. The continuous process is a process in which the intervals between events are arbitrarily small but never zero.

No, a continuous process is where events don't lay at the same point in spacetime, but there is no interval between them.

[bahman]

But continuous means that there is no interval between events.

No, no interval means that events lay at the same point in time therefore the process is simultaneuous. The continuous process is a process in which the intervals between events are arbitrarily small but never zero.

No, a continuous process is where events don't lay at the same point in spacetime, but there is no interval between them.

What do you refer to when you are talking about interval? Interval in time or something else?

[Atla]

No, no interval means that events lay at the same point in time therefore the process is simultaneuous. The continuous process is a process in which the intervals between events are arbitrarily small but never zero.

No, a continuous process is where events don't lay at the same point in spacetime, but there is no interval between them.

What do you refer to when you are talking about interval? Interval in time or something else?

Well it's a "pause", a "blank" between two spacetime events. So that doesn't sound like continuous. Nor necessarily discrete.

[bahman]

No, a continuous process is where events don't lay at the same point in spacetime, but there is no interval between them.

What do you refer to when you are talking about interval? Interval in time or something else?

Well it's a "pause", a "blank" between two spacetime events. So that doesn't sound like continuous. Nor necessarily discrete.

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). A simultaneous process is a process in which there is no gap between events in time. So we are left to define a continuous process. What is the definition of a continuous process? I am just taking the definition of the continuum from mathematics.