There is a motion therefore there is a mind

[FlashDangerpants]

Your conclusion non sequitur. Even if the premise were valid, the argument would still be structurally faulty.

These are just claims. Lets see what are your objections?

Just identify what are thepremises and the conclusion in your argument...
Setup: Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state.
Premise: S and S' cannot coexist.
Premise: Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place.
Premise: There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing.
Conclusion: This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.
If the mind part is a conclusion to the other stuff, it is simply a non sequitur. There is nothing to debate about that.

am I wrong in assuming from the title of the tread that you intended the mind thing to be the conclusion of the argument?

But there is an infinitely divisible sequence of intermediate states between S and S,' so nothing disappears.

There is nothing between S and S'. They are two consecutive states. The definition of continues limit can be obtained by a limit, when you set the limit of the number of parts in an interval equal to infinity.

That's word salad, not a coherent sentence, so I cannot address its content.

Things move by changing location, not by blinking out of existence entirely and magically reappearing elsewhere.

That is not correct. The quantum filed theory for the tree forces consists of a set of fields operator which destruct and create particles. What you are saying is classical/Newtonian limit.

You are invoking a metaphor as a fact. Quantum objects with hard to comprehend behaviours are not addressable in natural language and so we talk about them as if they disappear and reappear because our language does not allow us to describe what they actually consist of, and what they are actually doing.

Or at least that is what the concept of movement entails, so you need to invoke some concept other than movement if you wish your stated premise to be meaningful.

As I mentioned the classical/continues motion is only a limit.

Nevertheless, you are communicating in natural language and are therefore subject to the boundaries of what it can describe. If you misuse it, the statements you make are literally meaningless. What you are attempting to describe goes completely against the concept of motion which describes an object that moves, not one that blinks out of existence and reappears as some different object in a new location.

[Impenitent]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

plants move

-Imp

[bahman]

Just identify what are thepremises and the conclusion in your argument...
Setup: Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state.
Premise: S and S' cannot coexist.
Premise: Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place.
Premise: There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing.
Conclusion: This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.
If the mind part is a conclusion to the other stuff, it is simply a non sequitur. There is nothing to debate about that.

am I wrong in assuming from the title of the tread that you intended the mind thing to be the conclusion of the argument?

No, we also describe the system which contains the stuff which we experience, Qualia, and us/minds who can experience and create Qualia. We as title suggest conclude that mind exist since Qualia moves.

That's word salad, not a coherent sentence, so I cannot address its content.

It is a coherent sentence. How do you define the continuous regime? The continuous regime is obtained by a limit. We know this from Calculus.

That's word salad, not a coherent sentence, so I cannot address its content.

That is a coherent sentence. How do you define continuous regime?

[bahman]

Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state. S and S' cannot coexist. Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place. There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing. This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.

plants move

-Imp

They have mind either.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just identify what are thepremises and the conclusion in your argument...
Setup: Consider a close system which is subject of motion, S->S', where S is initial state and S' is final state.
Premise: S and S' cannot coexist.
Premise: Therefore S has to vanishes before S' takes place.
Premise: There is however nothing when S vanishes so we cannot have something like S' from nothing.
Conclusion: This means that there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can create S' as it wishes.
If the mind part is a conclusion to the other stuff, it is simply a non sequitur. There is nothing to debate about that.

am I wrong in assuming from the title of the tread that you intended the mind thing to be the conclusion of the argument?

No, we also describe the system which contains the stuff which we experience, Qualia, and us/minds who can experience and create Qualia. We as title suggest conclude that mind exist since Qualia moves.

Since when was a quale a discrete object that could be described as moving?
How does any of this address the much simpler problem you have with your conclusion not being necessary and sufficient even if we were to accept that list of premises without comment?

That's word salad, not a coherent sentence, so I cannot address its content.

It is a coherent sentence. How do you define the continuous regime? The continuous regime is obtained by a limit. We know this from Calculus.

Why use a second instance of meaningless incoherence in defence of the first?

That's word salad, not a coherent sentence, so I cannot address its content.

That is a coherent sentence. How do you define continuous regime?

Why would I need to?

[ajlannutti@aol.com]

I tend to agree with the statement where there is motion there is mind. I believe there has to be a fundamental force of physics, that is mind or some type of consciousness.. a building block of awareness or mind that evolved into us, human consciousness. I think we focus too much on human consciousness, and this makes us miss all the other consciousnesses that are all around us. Anything have an awareness of the other things.. this awareness manifest itself in thing such as gravity which is a result of matter having an awareness of other matter, and say atoms having an awareness of other atoms and that is the basis of chemistry.. molecules have an awareness of other molecules etc.. the simplest imaginable awareness is off and on.. with on being the big bang..

When a person sleeps, is he unconscious, or is he conscious in a different way, devoid of those mental faculties needed to be a human consciousness, which are an evolution of this basic consciousness I am saying is a force of physics.. but if you poke a sleeping person, they wake up, so there is still a form of consciousness or awareness or mind present in a sleeping human. Therefore a human has at least two forms of consciousness asleep and awake.. using this logic, it can be said that the heart is a consciousness, the lungs etc.. every cell can have a conscious awareness of its surrounding, and this consciousness may be stored in our DNA. Clearly something in DNA instructs stem cells to make a heart. We cannot make a heart but of we could it would require a vast awareness of how do do this, which genes to activitae, when to activate them, and these sequences of conscious effort to shape a heart must be stored in DNA. Although it is not human consciousness. We also see the evidence for a consciousness/awareness/mind in plants who have no neural systems, but clearly they are using another system to form an awareness of the environment, for example their is a system to be aware of the sun, and it activates photosynthesis and so many things in plants.. this, they are clearly aware of their suroundings. And can even mimicking touch like in the venus fly trap. So there must be some force of physics that this awareness tabs that is not based on neurology

[bahman]

Since when was a quale a discrete object that could be described as moving?

There is no other way to describe motion.

How does any of this address the much simpler problem you have with your conclusion not being necessary and sufficient even if we were to accept that list of premises without comment?

You of course need to define the system too in order to explain motion in it afterward.

Why use a second instance of meaningless incoherence in defence of the first?

How do you define continuous regime?

Why would I need to?

Because I can define the continuous regime. You need to define it too.

[FlashDangerpants]

Since when was a quale a discrete object that could be described as moving?

There is no other way to describe motion.

That doesn't make the slightest sense. Quales don't have the property of continuous existence. It is built into the concept of quales that they are there, and then they are gone. If violating that is really the only way to describe motion (which of course it is not) then you are unable to describe motion and your argument therefore is unsound.

How does any of this address the much simpler problem you have with your conclusion not being necessary and sufficient even if we were to accept that list of premises without comment?

You of course need to define the system too in order to explain motion in it afterward.

That's not an answer to the question. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from the premises you supplied. You need to rewrite your argument to become valid so that the premises support the conclusion.

Why use a second instance of meaningless incoherence in defence of the first?

How do you define continuous regime?

Why would I need to?

Because I can define the continuous regime. You need to define it too.

It is not part of the argument you actually wrote in the OP.
You only introduced it later on in a garbage reply that didn't do anything to answer the question I posed.
So no, I don't need to define continuous regime, and neither do you.
It is an irrelevant sidetrack you are using to get out of confronting logical problems that make your argument unsound.

If you can't get out of this rut you are in, I am probably too bored with this conversation to do any more.

[bahman]

Since when was a quale a discrete object that could be described as moving?

There is no other way to describe motion.

That doesn't make the slightest sense. Quales don't have the property of continuous existence. It is built into the concept of quales that they are there, and then they are gone. If violating that is really the only way to describe motion (which of course it is not) then you are unable to describe motion and your argument therefore is unsound.

How does any of this address the much simpler problem you have with your conclusion not being necessary and sufficient even if we were to accept that list of premises without comment?

You of course need to define the system too in order to explain motion in it afterward.

That's not an answer to the question. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from the premises you supplied. You need to rewrite your argument to become valid so that the premises support the conclusion.

How do you define continuous regime?

Why would I need to?

Because I can define the continuous regime. You need to define it too.

It is not part of the argument you actually wrote in the OP.
You only introduced it later on in a garbage reply that didn't do anything to answer the question I posed.
So no, I don't need to define continuous regime, and neither do you.
It is an irrelevant sidetrack you are using to get out of confronting logical problems that make your argument unsound.

If you can't get out of this rut you are in, I am probably too bored with this conversation to do any more.

The displacement as far as I recall from calculus on real number domain is defined as the limit delta x=(dx/dt) * delta t when delta t is small enough, infinitesimal. dx/dt is speed. delta t cannot be zero since otherwise we have zero displacement. Can we agree up to this point?

[FlashDangerpants]

OK, fine. You aren't getting out of that rut and that's just what it is. You need to learn how to construct a valid argument where the premises if true demonstrate the truth of the conclusion. Obviously I can't help you learn that, so I think I am going to stop now.

[HexHammer]

.......but no intelligent thoughts...

[bahman]

OK, fine. You aren't getting out of that rut and that's just what it is. You need to learn how to construct a valid argument where the premises if true demonstrate the truth of the conclusion. Obviously I can't help you learn that, so I think I am going to stop now.

That is not fair. You stop exactly at the point that I am making my point. Anyway, I make my point: The existence of infinitesimal ensures that reality is discrete.

[bahman]

I tend to agree with the statement where there is motion there is mind. I believe there has to be a fundamental force of physics, that is mind or some type of consciousness.. a building block of awareness or mind that evolved into us, human consciousness.

I agree.

I think we focus too much on human consciousness, and this makes us miss all the other consciousnesses that are all around us. Anything have an awareness of the other things.. this awareness manifest itself in thing such as gravity which is a result of matter having an awareness of other matter, and say atoms having an awareness of other atoms and that is the basis of chemistry.. molecules have an awareness of other molecules etc.. the simplest imaginable awareness is off and on.. with on being the big bang..

I agree but there is a problem in this worldview: If all cells, atoms, etc have mind then who is in charge of decision?

When a person sleeps, is he unconscious, or is he conscious in a different way, devoid of those mental faculties needed to be a human consciousness, which are an evolution of this basic consciousness I am saying is a force of physics.. but if you poke a sleeping person, they wake up, so there is still a form of consciousness or awareness or mind present in a sleeping human. Therefore a human has at least two forms of consciousness asleep and awake.. using this logic, it can be said that the heart is a consciousness, the lungs etc.. every cell can have a conscious awareness of its surrounding, and this consciousness may be stored in our DNA. Clearly something in DNA instructs stem cells to make a heart. We cannot make a heart but of we could it would require a vast awareness of how do do this, which genes to activitae, when to activate them, and these sequences of conscious effort to shape a heart must be stored in DNA. Although it is not human consciousness. We also see the evidence for a consciousness/awareness/mind in plants who have no neural systems, but clearly they are using another system to form an awareness of the environment, for example their is a system to be aware of the sun, and it activates photosynthesis and so many things in plants.. this, they are clearly aware of their suroundings. And can even mimicking touch like in the venus fly trap. So there must be some force of physics that this awareness tabs that is not based on neurology

I agree.