We are minds

[Age]

Yes, we can call it soul.

A soul that survives physical death is an illusion as demonstrated by Kant.

According to Hume, there is no permanent soul or self; the self is merely a bundle of mental activities within a physical body. If the body is dead, the self disappear.

Btw, what is of use to postulate there is a real soul [essence of any being] that survives after physical death?

Hume was wrong. The change exists. That is due to a mind (I can prove this).

Do NOT forget that you can "prove" this to 'you' ONLY.

You have been UNABLE TO PROVE this to 'us' YET.

This is either because you are WRONG or because you have YET learned how to explain this FULLY. So, which one is it?

And, if it is the latter one, what can YOU do about this?

Therefore, a mind exists.

Saying, "a mind exists" without EVER stating what a 'mind' actually IS, is like saying, "God exists", without EVER stating what 'God' actually IS.

That is; it is TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to just say such things.

Mind is a substance that is irreducible, it can decide, therefore, it is an uncaused cause (I can prove this too).

Go right ahead and PROVE; Change exists because of 'mind' AND PROVE that 'mind' is an uncaused cause, and therefore infinite AND eternal.

But do NOT forget to first mention, in detail, what this 'mind' thing IS, EXACTLY.

If you can NOT or will NOT do this, then you can NOT prove ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here.

By the emergence, I mean that the whole has a property which parts do not have depending on condition.

So what you meant by emergence is equivalent to 'synergy' as define above.

If all the separate parts of the brain and whole body are dead, there is no emergence of mind nor synergy.

The argument against the hard emergence (the whole is bigger than its parts when it comes to the properties of the whole and parts). Consider a system made of parts that the whole has different property than the property of parts. There is however a reason why the whole has such properties than another property given the condition. Therefore, the property of the whole is a function. The only variables that exist are the property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

What is happening in the reality is that the mind experiences through the sensory system. The parts have all the properties but they don't show all of them because the property that is experienced is a function that is a condition of physical. Physical being the what mind experiences and causes.

[Age]

We are similar in the essence, minds, but different in surface, bodies.

"Similar"?

That means you think there's a bunch of us. Not just one cosmic Mind. A whole bunch of individual minds, floating around in...what? Separated and made distinct from each other by...what?

Mind has the ability to experience and cause physical.

HOW?

HOW COULD a "mind" CAUSE physical?

What you experience is exposed to you by higher minds.

HOW?

HOW many, so called, "higher minds" are there? WHERE are they? WHAT are they made up of?

You will live in this illusion until you see the whole truth and know the truth.

From what 'you' have said here 'you' are getting CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth, but 'you' still has some way to go YET.

Also, just saying; "until you see the whole truth and know the truth" does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, 'mean' that 'you' can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth YET. In fact, you saying that does NOT even 'infer' that you can SEE and KNOW 'It' YET.

You would have to be ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS FIRST before you could PROVE that you can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth.

And just saying you "can prove" some 'thing' in NO WAY actually 'infers' that you ACTUALLY COULD.

For actual EVIDENCE that you are STILL UNABLE to prove your CLAIMS can be CLEARLY SEEN in YOUR refusal to just ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you'.

[bahman]

"Similar"?

That means you think there's a bunch of us. Not just one cosmic Mind. A whole bunch of individual minds, floating around in...what? Separated and made distinct from each other by...what?

Mind has the ability to experience and cause physical.

Okay: but is the "physical" it causes real, or a mere figment of mind, and not real?

Physical is the by-product of mind activity.

... higher minds...

So all is NOT one mind?

No. There are many.

[bahman]

A soul that survives physical death is an illusion as demonstrated by Kant.

According to Hume, there is no permanent soul or self; the self is merely a bundle of mental activities within a physical body. If the body is dead, the self disappear.

Btw, what is of use to postulate there is a real soul [essence of any being] that survives after physical death?

Hume was wrong. The change exists. That is due to a mind (I can prove this).

Do NOT forget that you can "prove" this to 'you' ONLY.

You have been UNABLE TO PROVE this to 'us' YET.

This is either because you are WRONG or because you have YET learned how to explain this FULLY. So, which one is it?

And, if it is the latter one, what can YOU do about this?

I invite you to this thread.

Therefore, a mind exists.

Saying, "a mind exists" without EVER stating what a 'mind' actually IS, is like saying, "God exists", without EVER stating what 'God' actually IS.

That is; it is TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to just say such things.

Mind is a substance that is irreducible, it can decide, therefore, it is an uncaused cause (I can prove this too).

Go right ahead and PROVE; Change exists because of 'mind' AND PROVE that 'mind' is an uncaused cause, and therefore infinite AND eternal.

But do NOT forget to first mention, in detail, what this 'mind' thing IS, EXACTLY.

If you can NOT or will NOT do this, then you can NOT prove ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here.

I invite you to this thread.

[bahman]

"Similar"?

That means you think there's a bunch of us. Not just one cosmic Mind. A whole bunch of individual minds, floating around in...what? Separated and made distinct from each other by...what?

Mind has the ability to experience and cause physical.

HOW?

HOW COULD a "mind" CAUSE physical?

I already answer that in the first thread in my previous post. Experience and causation are abilities of mind otherwise there can be no change.

What you experience is exposed to you by higher minds.

HOW?

HOW many, so called, "higher minds" are there? WHERE are they? WHAT are they made up of?

There is a change. Therefore, there is a mind.

You will live in this illusion until you see the whole truth and know the truth.

From what 'you' have said here 'you' are getting CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth, but 'you' still has some way to go YET.

Also, just saying; "until you see the whole truth and know the truth" does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, 'mean' that 'you' can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth YET. In fact, you saying that does NOT even 'infer' that you can SEE and KNOW 'It' YET.

You would have to be ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS FIRST before you could PROVE that you can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth.

And just saying you "can prove" some 'thing' in NO WAY actually 'infers' that you ACTUALLY COULD.

For actual EVIDENCE that you are STILL UNABLE to prove your CLAIMS can be CLEARLY SEEN in YOUR refusal to just ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you'.

I am telling you the truth. One day you will be convinced if you are patient to read and think through.

[Immanuel Can]

Physical is the by-product of mind activity.[/qupote]
Is that byproduct a mere delusion, or something independently real? Both can be considered "products" of a mind, but there's a world of difference between those two claims, obviously.

... higher minds...

So all is NOT one mind?

No. There are many.

So then there has to be a third element: reality. For some feature, some difference, some substantive distinction is needed to make one "mind" not-another-mind. That difference would have to be instantiated in something not merely a fiction of one mind, and not of the other, but genuinely real for them both.

So are you also a believer in the existence of an independent reality?

[Age]

Hume was wrong. The change exists. That is due to a mind (I can prove this).

Do NOT forget that you can "prove" this to 'you' ONLY.

You have been UNABLE TO PROVE this to 'us' YET.

This is either because you are WRONG or because you have YET learned how to explain this FULLY. So, which one is it?

And, if it is the latter one, what can YOU do about this?

I invite you to this thread.

Therefore, a mind exists.

Saying, "a mind exists" without EVER stating what a 'mind' actually IS, is like saying, "God exists", without EVER stating what 'God' actually IS.

That is; it is TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to just say such things.

Mind is a substance that is irreducible, it can decide, therefore, it is an uncaused cause (I can prove this too).

Go right ahead and PROVE; Change exists because of 'mind' AND PROVE that 'mind' is an uncaused cause, and therefore infinite AND eternal.

But do NOT forget to first mention, in detail, what this 'mind' thing IS, EXACTLY.

If you can NOT or will NOT do this, then you can NOT prove ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here.

I invite you to this thread.

You can invite me absolutely ANYWHERE.

But do NOT forget your words alone do NOT necessarily PROVE absolutely ANY thing. And, NO matter how much you BELIEF they do, they ACTUALLY do NOT.

If they DID, then you would NOT have so much DISAGREEMENT and NONACCEPTANCE here, correct?

Actually what does the word 'prove', ACTUALLY 'mean', to 'you'.

[Age]

Mind has the ability to experience and cause physical.

HOW?

HOW COULD a "mind" CAUSE physical?

I already answer that in the first thread in my previous post. Experience and causation are abilities of mind otherwise there can be no change.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE 'that' what is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and which can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

This IS; the 'circularity' of YOUR, so called, "reasoning"

LOOK,

You say (and CLAIM);

A "mind" experiences AND causes physicality.

I ASK you;

HOW could a "mind" CAUSE physical/ity?

You answer:

Experience AND 'causation' are 'abilities' of a "mind". And then go on to TRY TO back up and support this OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM by stating the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS comment and remark; "otherwise there can be NO change".

The CIRCULARITY "reasoning" here is just so OBVIOUS that I should NOT have to be POINTING IT OUT, and just so ABSURD I find it MORE ABSURD each time I LOOK AT it.

LOOK, IF causation is the ABILITY of a "mind", then so be it. That is just what is the case. But, HOW does 'this ability' actually work?

What you experience is exposed to you by higher minds.

HOW?

HOW many, so called, "higher minds" are there? WHERE are they? WHAT are they made up of?

There is a change. Therefore, there is a mind.

You will live in this illusion until you see the whole truth and know the truth.

From what 'you' have said here 'you' are getting CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth, but 'you' still has some way to go YET.

Also, just saying; "until you see the whole truth and know the truth" does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, 'mean' that 'you' can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth YET. In fact, you saying that does NOT even 'infer' that you can SEE and KNOW 'It' YET.

You would have to be ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS FIRST before you could PROVE that you can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth.

And just saying you "can prove" some 'thing' in NO WAY actually 'infers' that you ACTUALLY COULD.

For actual EVIDENCE that you are STILL UNABLE to prove your CLAIMS can be CLEARLY SEEN in YOUR refusal to just ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you'.

I am telling you the truth.

I am NOT saying that you are NOT telling me the truth.

I am just TRYING TO get you to ACTUALLY back up and support what you say and CLAIM here with some 'thing' that is ACTUALLY substantive AND SUPPORTIVE.

You, however, I am FAILING COMPLETELY.

One day you will be convinced if you are patient to read and think through.

I will be SUPPOSEDLY 'convinced' of 'what', EXACTLY?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, we can call it soul.

A soul that survives physical death is an illusion as demonstrated by Kant.

According to Hume, there is no permanent soul or self; the self is merely a bundle of mental activities within a physical body. If the body is dead, the self disappear.

Btw, what is of use to postulate there is a real soul [essence of any being] that survives after physical death?

Hume was wrong. The change exists. That is due to a mind (I can prove this). Therefore, a mind exists. Mind is a substance that is irreducible, it can decide, therefore, it is an uncaused cause (I can prove this too).

Your above is confusing.
You mean, since there are changes, then, there is something that does not change.
But note, colloquially, what is not changing is merely change itself
Philosophically, Protagoras claimed "man is the measure of all things" in contrast to Socrates' theory of a permanent essence.

According to Hume, if the person is certified dead, there is no individual self and no mind.
So what you are countering is, if the person is dead, the self, mind or soul still survives and exists.
How can you prove the above with the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality?

If you mean the individual self or individual mind is irreducible as uncaused cause, that means there are million or billions of individual mind floating around reality - all there is?

Perhaps you intend to mean the individual selves and minds are reducible to ONE universal Mind.
If that is the case,
how can you prove the above ONE MIND with the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality?

By the emergence, I mean that the whole has a property which parts do not have depending on condition.

So what you meant by emergence is equivalent to 'synergy' as define above.

If all the separate parts of the brain and whole body are dead, there is no emergence of mind nor synergy.

The argument against the hard emergence (the whole is bigger than its parts when it comes to the properties of the whole and parts).
Consider a system made of parts that the whole has different property than the property of parts.
There is however a reason why the whole has such properties than another property given the condition.
Therefore, the property of the whole is a function.
The only variables that exist are the property of parts.
Therefore, there is no emergence.

I will also claim the individual self and mind are also a function.
In this case the 'function' is the emergence, it emerged from the entanglements of the parts within the brain, body and the universe.

What is happening in the reality is that the mind experiences through the sensory system. The parts have all the properties but they don't show all of them because the property that is experienced is a function that is a condition of physical. Physical being the what mind experiences and causes.

You missed some steps.

• 1. It is from the evolved primal sensory system and subliminal experiences of an entity that the individual self and mind emerges.
  
  2. Note there a loads of animals that has a sensory system and unconscious experiences but they don't have an individual self and mind like humans have.
  
  3. Therefore the individual human self and mind emerged [after 4 billion years] in the later stages of evolution relative to the present.

It is from this emerged self and mind that the mind subsequently with additional capabilities self-consciously experience through the sensory system.
At the same time, the brain is still experiencing subliminally and unconsciously without the self-conscious mind.

This is why the mind and sense of self disappear first [last in first out basis] as one get to old age and finally to being brain dead.

What is your counter to the above?

[Age]

A soul that survives physical death is an illusion as demonstrated by Kant.

According to Hume, there is no permanent soul or self; the self is merely a bundle of mental activities within a physical body. If the body is dead, the self disappear.

Btw, what is of use to postulate there is a real soul [essence of any being] that survives after physical death?

Hume was wrong. The change exists. That is due to a mind (I can prove this). Therefore, a mind exists. Mind is a substance that is irreducible, it can decide, therefore, it is an uncaused cause (I can prove this too).

Your above is confusing.

According to Hume, if the person is certified dead, there is no individual self and no mind.

So what you are countering is, if the person is dead, the self, mind or soul still survives and exists.
How can you prove the above with the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality?[/quote]

VERY, VERY EASILY when what the word 'person' refers to, when what the word 'dead' refers to, when what the word 'self' refers to, when what the word 'Mind' refers to, when what the word 'soul' refers to, and when what the words 'survive' and 'exists' refer to AND they ALL fit in PERFECTLY with one another forming One CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture of 'things', which is all very simple AND easy indeed. That is; when you KNOW how to refer these names and labels to the Right and Correct 'things'.

If you mean the individual self or individual mind is irreducible as uncaused cause, that means there are million or billions of individual mind floating around reality - all there is?

Perhaps you intend to mean the individual selves and minds are reducible to ONE universal Mind.
If that is the case,
how can you prove the above ONE MIND with the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality?

AGAIN, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY.

But, because 'you' BELIEVE otherwise, then you will ONLY SEE and ACCEPT 'that' what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

So what you meant by emergence is equivalent to 'synergy' as define above.

If all the separate parts of the brain and whole body are dead, there is no emergence of mind nor synergy.

The argument against the hard emergence (the whole is bigger than its parts when it comes to the properties of the whole and parts).
Consider a system made of parts that the whole has different property than the property of parts.
There is however a reason why the whole has such properties than another property given the condition.
Therefore, the property of the whole is a function.
The only variables that exist are the property of parts.
Therefore, there is no emergence.

I will also claim the individual self and mind are also a function.
In this case the 'function' is the emergence, it emerged from the entanglements of the parts within the brain, body and the universe.

What is happening in the reality is that the mind experiences through the sensory system. The parts have all the properties but they don't show all of them because the property that is experienced is a function that is a condition of physical. Physical being the what mind experiences and causes.

You missed some steps.

• 1. It is from the evolved primal sensory system and subliminal experiences of an entity that the individual self and mind emerges.

'you' are HALF Right here.

2. Note there a loads of animals that has a sensory system and unconscious experiences but they don't have an individual self and mind like humans have.

They only do NOT have an individual 'self' because 'you' have NOT YET given them one.

By the way, humans do NOT ACTUALLY 'have' a 'mind'.

3. Therefore the individual human self and mind emerged [after 4 billion years] in the later stages of evolution relative to the present.[/list]

And, 'you', human beings, are still living a VERY prehistoric way, in the days of when this is being written, relative to the how thee Truly INTELLIGENT ones are living in just a, relatively, very soon to become future and Reality.

It is from this emerged self and mind that the mind subsequently with additional capabilities self-consciously experience through the sensory system.

And, unless 'you' BELIEVE that the 'emerged self' has FULLY 'emerged', then OBVIOUSLY thee True 'Self' is continually emerging, through intelligent enough beings.

At the same time, the brain is still experiencing subliminally and unconsciously without the self-conscious mind.

What can be SEEN here is EXACTLY WHY, through human beings, thee True Self, and Consciousness, Itself, took SO LONG to REALLY and Truly 'emerge'.

This is why the mind and sense of self disappear first [last in first out basis] as one get to old age and finally to being brain dead.

What is the 'mind', to 'you'?

What is your counter to the above?

What I have written above, and countless other EXAMPLES and EVIDENCE, which PROVES, once and for ALL, EXACTLY HOW and WHY, in parts, what you wrote is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

[bahman]

HOW?

HOW COULD a "mind" CAUSE physical?

I already answer that in the first thread in my previous post. Experience and causation are abilities of mind otherwise there can be no change.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE 'that' what is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and which can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

This IS; the 'circularity' of YOUR, so called, "reasoning"

LOOK,

You say (and CLAIM);

A "mind" experiences AND causes physicality.

I ASK you;

HOW could a "mind" CAUSE physical/ity?

You answer:

Experience AND 'causation' are 'abilities' of a "mind". And then go on to TRY TO back up and support this OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM by stating the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS comment and remark; "otherwise there can be NO change".

The CIRCULARITY "reasoning" here is just so OBVIOUS that I should NOT have to be POINTING IT OUT, and just so ABSURD I find it MORE ABSURD each time I LOOK AT it.

LOOK, IF causation is the ABILITY of a "mind", then so be it. That is just what is the case. But, HOW does 'this ability' actually work?

I think we can agree that change exists. What I am arguing is that there is a mind that causes change. It is a matter of necessity that the mind has two abilities, experiencing and causation. Otherwise, it would not function.

HOW?

HOW many, so called, "higher minds" are there? WHERE are they? WHAT are they made up of?

There is a change. Therefore, there is a mind.

From what 'you' have said here 'you' are getting CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth, but 'you' still has some way to go YET.

Also, just saying; "until you see the whole truth and know the truth" does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, 'mean' that 'you' can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth YET. In fact, you saying that does NOT even 'infer' that you can SEE and KNOW 'It' YET.

You would have to be ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS FIRST before you could PROVE that you can SEE and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth.

And just saying you "can prove" some 'thing' in NO WAY actually 'infers' that you ACTUALLY COULD.

For actual EVIDENCE that you are STILL UNABLE to prove your CLAIMS can be CLEARLY SEEN in YOUR refusal to just ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, posed to 'you'.

I am telling you the truth.

I am NOT saying that you are NOT telling me the truth.

I am just TRYING TO get you to ACTUALLY back up and support what you say and CLAIM here with some 'thing' that is ACTUALLY substantive AND SUPPORTIVE.

You, however, I am FAILING COMPLETELY.

One day you will be convinced if you are patient to read and think through.

I will be SUPPOSEDLY 'convinced' of 'what', EXACTLY?

That is you who failed to provide a counter-argument or find an error in my arguments.

[bahman]

A soul that survives physical death is an illusion as demonstrated by Kant.

According to Hume, there is no permanent soul or self; the self is merely a bundle of mental activities within a physical body. If the body is dead, the self disappear.

Btw, what is of use to postulate there is a real soul [essence of any being] that survives after physical death?

Hume was wrong. The change exists. That is due to a mind (I can prove this). Therefore, a mind exists. Mind is a substance that is irreducible, it can decide, therefore, it is an uncaused cause (I can prove this too).

Your above is confusing.
You mean, since there are changes, then, there is something that does not change.
But note, colloquially, what is not changing is merely change itself
Philosophically, Protagoras claimed "man is the measure of all things" in contrast to Socrates' theory of a permanent essence.

According to Hume, if the person is certified dead, there is no individual self and no mind.
So what you are countering is, if the person is dead, the self, mind or soul still survives and exists.
How can you prove the above with the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality?

If you mean the individual self or individual mind is irreducible as uncaused cause, that means there are million or billions of individual mind floating around reality - all there is?

Perhaps you intend to mean the individual selves and minds are reducible to ONE universal Mind.
If that is the case,
how can you prove the above ONE MIND with the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality?

If we agree in the existence of a mind that can freely decide then it follows that mind cannot be created or distroyed. That is true since mind is uncaused cause.

So what you meant by emergence is equivalent to 'synergy' as define above.

If all the separate parts of the brain and whole body are dead, there is no emergence of mind nor synergy.

The argument against the hard emergence (the whole is bigger than its parts when it comes to the properties of the whole and parts).
Consider a system made of parts that the whole has different property than the property of parts.
There is however a reason why the whole has such properties than another property given the condition.
Therefore, the property of the whole is a function.
The only variables that exist are the property of parts.
Therefore, there is no emergence.

I will also claim the individual self and mind are also a function.
In this case the 'function' is the emergence, it emerged from the entanglements of the parts within the brain, body and the universe.

What is happening in the reality is that the mind experiences through the sensory system. The parts have all the properties but they don't show all of them because the property that is experienced is a function that is a condition of physical. Physical being the what mind experiences and causes.

You missed some steps.

• 1. It is from the evolved primal sensory system and subliminal experiences of an entity that the individual self and mind emerges.
  
  2. Note there a loads of animals that has a sensory system and unconscious experiences but they don't have an individual self and mind like humans have.
  
  3. Therefore the individual human self and mind emerged [after 4 billion years] in the later stages of evolution relative to the present.

It is from this emerged self and mind that the mind subsequently with additional capabilities self-consciously experience through the sensory system.
At the same time, the brain is still experiencing subliminally and unconsciously without the self-conscious mind.

This is why the mind and sense of self disappear first [last in first out basis] as one get to old age and finally to being brain dead.

What is your counter to the above?

Could you please tell me what is wrong with my argument? The mind doesn't emerge. There is no emergence.

[Age]

I already answer that in the first thread in my previous post. Experience and causation are abilities of mind otherwise there can be no change.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE 'that' what is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and which can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

This IS; the 'circularity' of YOUR, so called, "reasoning"

LOOK,

You say (and CLAIM);

A "mind" experiences AND causes physicality.

I ASK you;

HOW could a "mind" CAUSE physical/ity?

You answer:

Experience AND 'causation' are 'abilities' of a "mind". And then go on to TRY TO back up and support this OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM by stating the ABSURD and RIDICULOUS comment and remark; "otherwise there can be NO change".

The CIRCULARITY "reasoning" here is just so OBVIOUS that I should NOT have to be POINTING IT OUT, and just so ABSURD I find it MORE ABSURD each time I LOOK AT it.

LOOK, IF causation is the ABILITY of a "mind", then so be it. That is just what is the case. But, HOW does 'this ability' actually work?

I think we can agree that change exists.

You can STOP 'thinking' this NOW, as I TOTALLY AGREE that 'change' exists. So, NOW you KNOW that I DO agree with this, okay?

(Although some readers REALLY wonder if 'change' actually does exist when people are STUCK in their OWN BELIEFS, like 'you' ARE here.)

Did you REALLY MISS the WHOLE POINT of my reply, which you have quoted here?

What happened was; I ASKED you to CLARIFY just HOW a "mind" causes physical changes, but then you ONCE AGAIN just go straight to SAYING 'that' what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE.

LOOK, I ALREADY KNOW you BELIEVE and INSIST that 'change exists'. I have SAID countless times that CHANGE EXISTS.

I JUST 'want' to KNOW how 'you' think or believe that a "mind causes physical change".

When will you, or will you even, PROVIDE the answer to this question?

What I am arguing is that there is a mind that causes change.

But you are NOT 'arguing' any such thing here, in the sense of logical reasoning and providing sound and valid sentences for. All you are doing here is just SAYING "mind causes change".

And, you are just repeating the EXACT SAME thing, which is; "mind causes change", in the hope that "others" will just take on and accept your OWN BELIEF here.

LOOK, I ALREADY KNOW HOW thee 'Mind causes change', but I am NOT going to do YOUR work FOR YOU.

I am NOT the one who came on here making this CLAIM. You did. So, it is then up to 'you' to SHOW and PROVE just how a "mind causes change". If you can NOT or will NOT do this, then all you are REALLY doing is just saying and expressing your ALREADY gained and held onto BELIEFS.

Without PROOF most people, especially in a 'philosophy forum, i would hope', are NOT going to just accept a CLAIM as being true.

Also, PROVING that thee 'Mind' causes change is about one of the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST things to do. But I am NOT going to do it, for 'you'.

Either you can PROVE this or you can NOT, and I suggest that if you can NOT YET, then just become OPEN and REMAIN OPEN so that you can then learn what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, and then also learn HOW to PROVE your CLAIM here, properly AND correctly.

The reason WHY you can NOT prove your CLAIM here to be True is because 'you' have NOT YET got 'it' Right and Correct. You still have some way to go, okay?

It is a matter of necessity that the mind has two abilities, experiencing and causation. Otherwise, it would not function.

You have to FIRST SAY what this "mind' thing IS, EXACTLY, and then secondly you have PROVE that there is 'this' "mind". BEFORE you even concern "yourself" with getting "others" to ACCEPT your CLAIM that these "mind" things, themselves, 'experience' and 'cause/create'.

So, how about you BEGIN by TELLING 'us' what this "mind" thing IS, EXACTLY? Or, more correctly, how about you BEGIN by TELLING 'us' what you think or believe this "mind" thing IS, EXACTLY?

And, then when you have 'that' CLEARLY explained AND understood, then we can move on to SEEING if 'you' can PROVE that this 'thing' even ACTUALLY EXISTS, FIRST.

AND THEN, I will move onto questioning AND challenging 'you' about JUST HOW this "mind" 'thing' EXPERIENCES and CAUSES physical/ity, itself.

Are you up for this, or are you NOT YET capable of doing this? Your Honest answer would be much appreciated here, and everywhere else.

There is a change. Therefore, there is a mind.


I am telling you the truth.

I am NOT saying that you are NOT telling me the truth.

I am just TRYING TO get you to ACTUALLY back up and support what you say and CLAIM here with some 'thing' that is ACTUALLY substantive AND SUPPORTIVE.

You, however, I am FAILING COMPLETELY.

One day you will be convinced if you are patient to read and think through.

I will be SUPPOSEDLY 'convinced' of 'what', EXACTLY?

That is you who failed to provide a counter-argument or find an error in my arguments.

What I wrote above says, 'I am FAILING COMPLETELY'. The 'you' word was a slip, (a "freudian" slip some suggest and say).

If you REALLY think or believe that I have failed to find an error in your, so called, "arguments", then you have OBVIOUSLY intentionally completely MISSED what I wrote above and which YOU have quoted here in this reply of YOURS, or 'you' REALLY are MORE BLINDED by YOUR OWN BELIEFS than even I had ENVISIONED 'you' ARE.

Your WHOLE, so called, "argument" is PURE CIRCULAR "REASONING", as it is based SOLELY on your OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEF, of which you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up and support this BELIEF, other than your OWN ASSUMPTION that 'it' is true, right, and correct.

YOUR "argument" here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of a 'logical fallacy'.

[attofishpi]

We are similar in the essence, minds, but different in surface, bodies.

Dude, I know I can sound arrogant sometimes - but truth be told of my experience of the 3rd party intelligence that is definitely akin to instant A.I. - the construct to our reality...especially since my little pilgrimage to ULURU - the world we are in IS VIRTUAL - virtually real.

I still consider the plausibility that we are indeed JUST minds.

[Age]

We are similar in the essence, minds, but different in surface, bodies.

Dude, I know I can sound arrogant sometimes - but truth be told of my experience of the 3rd party intelligence that is definitely akin to instant A.I. - the construct to our reality...especially since my little pilgrimage to ULURU - the world we are in IS VIRTUAL - virtually real.

I still consider the plausibility that we are indeed JUST minds.

'We', in human being perspective, are just the 'thoughts' AND 'emotions' within human bodies, which, in a sense, are just making 'virtual perspectives' of what is, essentially, thee One and ONLY True and REAL 'world'.

What 'it' is, which is; AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED by ALL, is the closest to coming to KNOWING the REAL and True 'world' - thee ACTUAL Truth of "things'.

Because of what the Mind is ACTUALLY, 'we', individually are NOT thee Mind but ARE instead just the individual thoughts AND emotions within each and EVERY human body.

'We' collectively, however, and when in FULL AGREEMENT are thee One and ONLY Mind, Itself.