We are minds

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 [.I agree] "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 destroyed. That is true since mind is uncaused cause.

I believe we are talking pass each other due our different definition of mind.


My definition of 'mind' is the following;

Modern views often center around physicalism and functionalism, which hold that the mind is roughly identical with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity .......
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

In my case, what is mind to me can be confirmed the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality.


On the other hand, your definition of 'mind' is the following, i.e. an independent soul that survives physical death

Some of the earliest recorded speculations linked mind (sometimes described as identical with soul or spirit)..
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Your idea of mind is an illusion [Hume, Kant, and others] i.e. cannot be verified and justified empirical plus philosophically.
Why you are clinging to your definition despite without proof is due to subliminal psychology and the existential cognitive dissonance driving you to culminate in jumping to the 'uncaused cause' [oxymoron] as the consonance.

The onus is on you to prove [not speculate with arguments] the mind exists as concluded via the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality.

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.

The human mind in my case as defined emerged via the 4 billion years processes of evolution.

Your idea of pre-existing mind as an uncaused-cause is an oxymoron.

As stated above,
The onus is on you to prove [not speculate with arguments] the mind exists as concluded via the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality.

[bahman]

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?

That I already argued. Any change is made of two states of affair, X and Y, where Y comes after X, otherwise, X and Y are simultaneous so you cannot have any change. But X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if you want to have a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y.

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?

I already provided my argument with more elaboration in the previous comment.

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.

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. That is the definition that is provided before. You can find it in OP. The last sentence of proof A.

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.



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'.

Meh.

[bahman]

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 [.I agree] "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 destroyed. That is true since mind is uncaused cause.

I believe we are talking pass each other due our different definition of mind.


My definition of 'mind' is the following;

Modern views often center around physicalism and functionalism, which hold that the mind is roughly identical with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity .......
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

In my case, what is mind to me can be confirmed the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality.


On the other hand, your definition of 'mind' is the following, i.e. an independent soul that survives physical death

Some of the earliest recorded speculations linked mind (sometimes described as identical with soul or spirit)..
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Your idea of mind is an illusion [Hume, Kant, and others] i.e. cannot be verified and justified empirical plus philosophically.
Why you are clinging to your definition despite without proof is due to subliminal psychology and the existential cognitive dissonance driving you to culminate in jumping to the 'uncaused cause' [oxymoron] as the consonance.

The onus is on you to prove [not speculate with arguments] the mind exists as concluded via the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality.

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.


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.

The human mind in my case as defined emerged via the 4 billion years processes of evolution.

Your idea of pre-existing mind as an uncaused-cause is an oxymoron.

As stated above,
The onus is on you to prove [not speculate with arguments] the mind exists as concluded via the standard method of verification and justification empirically and philosophically where the scientific method is the standard bearer of truth of reality.

Please find the proof of mind in here.

[bahman]

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.

Yes, we live in a virtual reality made by other Minds.

[bahman]

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.

Yes, we live in a virtual reality made by other Minds.

[Age]

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?

That I already argued. Any change is made of two states of affair, X and Y, where Y comes after X, otherwise, X and Y are simultaneous so you cannot have any change. But X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if you want to have a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y.

This is the PUREST EXAMPLE of one BLINDED by their OWN ALREADY gained BELIEFS.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that they just keep REPEATING the EXACT SAME thing, although the, perceived, FAULTS in 'what they say' has ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED to 'them'. They are just NOT even ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE what was said and pointed out to them to be able to address 'that'. They actually BELIEVE that if they just REPEAT what they have previously said, then this will make what they are saying True and Right.

They are SO CLOSED and SO BLINDED that they, literally, can NOT even SEE the CLEARLY WRITTEN WORDS in front of 'them'.

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?

I already provided my argument with more elaboration in the previous comment.

And I have and am USING 'your' 'previous comment' as ACTUAL EVIDENCE to PROVE what I say and CLAIM.

Your inability here now to ONCE AGAIN address what was said and POINTED OUT to 'you' is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of just how CLOSED and BLINDED human beings make "themselves" when they only LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from their current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

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.

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. That is the definition that is provided before. You can find it in OP. The last sentence of proof A.

So, you define a word in one particular and then use that definition as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

Do 'you' KNOW and UNDERSTAND what 'circular logic', 'circular reasoning', and/or 'begging the question' actually means and refers to, EXACTLY?

If yes, then will you provide YOUR 'version'?

But, if you do NOT YET KNOW and UNDERSTAND, then I suggest you take a LOOK AT how those terms are defined.

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'.

Meh.

What does 'meh' mean?

By the way are 'you' AWARE that this is a 'philosophy forum'?

[Age]

How is this pile of worthless nothing dogshit of a thread worthy of any response whatsoever?
So many pretentious self-important twats on here.

Do NOT forget that 'you', "yourself", just responded to it, with something.

[bahman]

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?

That I already argued. Any change is made of two states of affair, X and Y, where Y comes after X, otherwise, X and Y are simultaneous so you cannot have any change. But X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if you want to have a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y.

This is the PUREST EXAMPLE of one BLINDED by their OWN ALREADY gained BELIEFS.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that they just keep REPEATING the EXACT SAME thing, although the, perceived, FAULTS in 'what they say' has ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED to 'them'. They are just NOT even ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE what was said and pointed out to them to be able to address 'that'. They actually BELIEVE that if they just REPEAT what they have previously said, then this will make what they are saying True and Right.

They are SO CLOSED and SO BLINDED that they, literally, can NOT even SEE the CLEARLY WRITTEN WORDS in front of 'them'.

And what is wrong with my argument?

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?

I already provided my argument with more elaboration in the previous comment.

And I have and am USING 'your' 'previous comment' as ACTUAL EVIDENCE to PROVE what I say and CLAIM.

Your inability here now to ONCE AGAIN address what was said and POINTED OUT to 'you' is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of just how CLOSED and BLINDED human beings make "themselves" when they only LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from their current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

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.

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. That is the definition that is provided before. You can find it in OP. The last sentence of proof A.

So, you define a word in one particular and then use that definition as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

Do 'you' KNOW and UNDERSTAND what 'circular logic', 'circular reasoning', and/or 'begging the question' actually means and refers to, EXACTLY?

If yes, then will you provide YOUR 'version'?

But, if you do NOT YET KNOW and UNDERSTAND, then I suggest you take a LOOK AT how those terms are defined.

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'.

Meh.

What does 'meh' mean?

By the way are 'you' AWARE that this is a 'philosophy forum'?

Indifferent.

[bahman]

How is this pile of worthless nothing dogshit of a thread worthy of any response whatsoever?
So many pretentious self-important twats on here.

And what is your opinion?

[Age]

That I already argued. Any change is made of two states of affair, X and Y, where Y comes after X, otherwise, X and Y are simultaneous so you cannot have any change. But X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if you want to have a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y.

This is the PUREST EXAMPLE of one BLINDED by their OWN ALREADY gained BELIEFS.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that they just keep REPEATING the EXACT SAME thing, although the, perceived, FAULTS in 'what they say' has ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED to 'them'. They are just NOT even ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE what was said and pointed out to them to be able to address 'that'. They actually BELIEVE that if they just REPEAT what they have previously said, then this will make what they are saying True and Right.

They are SO CLOSED and SO BLINDED that they, literally, can NOT even SEE the CLEARLY WRITTEN WORDS in front of 'them'.

And what is wrong with my argument?

'THAT' what I have ALREADY SAID and have ALREADY POINTED OUT in my writings, but which 'you' you are COMPLETELY BLINDED by your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, right, and correct.

I already provided my argument with more elaboration in the previous comment.

And I have and am USING 'your' 'previous comment' as ACTUAL EVIDENCE to PROVE what I say and CLAIM.

Your inability here now to ONCE AGAIN address what was said and POINTED OUT to 'you' is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of just how CLOSED and BLINDED human beings make "themselves" when they only LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from their current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. That is the definition that is provided before. You can find it in OP. The last sentence of proof A.

So, you define a word in one particular and then use that definition as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

Do 'you' KNOW and UNDERSTAND what 'circular logic', 'circular reasoning', and/or 'begging the question' actually means and refers to, EXACTLY?

If yes, then will you provide YOUR 'version'?

But, if you do NOT YET KNOW and UNDERSTAND, then I suggest you take a LOOK AT how those terms are defined.

Meh.

What does 'meh' mean?

By the way are 'you' AWARE that this is a 'philosophy forum'?

Indifferent.

So, you ARE 'indifferent' to the FACT that your writings so CLEARLY SHOW 'circular logic/reasoning'.

[bahman]

This is the PUREST EXAMPLE of one BLINDED by their OWN ALREADY gained BELIEFS.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that they just keep REPEATING the EXACT SAME thing, although the, perceived, FAULTS in 'what they say' has ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED to 'them'. They are just NOT even ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE what was said and pointed out to them to be able to address 'that'. They actually BELIEVE that if they just REPEAT what they have previously said, then this will make what they are saying True and Right.

They are SO CLOSED and SO BLINDED that they, literally, can NOT even SEE the CLEARLY WRITTEN WORDS in front of 'them'.

And what is wrong with my argument?

'THAT' what I have ALREADY SAID and have ALREADY POINTED OUT in my writings, but which 'you' you are COMPLETELY BLINDED by your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, right, and correct.

Belief? That is the argument. Do you understand what I am arguing?

And I have and am USING 'your' 'previous comment' as ACTUAL EVIDENCE to PROVE what I say and CLAIM.

Your inability here now to ONCE AGAIN address what was said and POINTED OUT to 'you' is just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of just how CLOSED and BLINDED human beings make "themselves" when they only LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from their current ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.



So, you define a word in one particular and then use that definition as a premise to prove your own conclusion.

Do 'you' KNOW and UNDERSTAND what 'circular logic', 'circular reasoning', and/or 'begging the question' actually means and refers to, EXACTLY?

If yes, then will you provide YOUR 'version'?

But, if you do NOT YET KNOW and UNDERSTAND, then I suggest you take a LOOK AT how those terms are defined.



What does 'meh' mean?

By the way are 'you' AWARE that this is a 'philosophy forum'?

Indifferent.

So, you ARE 'indifferent' to the FACT that your writings so CLEARLY SHOW 'circular logic/reasoning'.

I am indifferent to the lack of your understanding of the subject.

[Age]

And what is wrong with my argument?

'THAT' what I have ALREADY SAID and have ALREADY POINTED OUT in my writings, but which 'you' you are COMPLETELY BLINDED by your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, right, and correct.

Belief? That is the argument. Do you understand what I am arguing?

NOT now.

Indifferent.

So, you ARE 'indifferent' to the FACT that your writings so CLEARLY SHOW 'circular logic/reasoning'.

I am indifferent to the lack of your understanding of the subject.

Okay

[bahman]

'THAT' what I have ALREADY SAID and have ALREADY POINTED OUT in my writings, but which 'you' you are COMPLETELY BLINDED by your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true, right, and correct.

Belief? That is the argument. Do you understand what I am arguing?

NOT now.

Please feel free to tell me which part you don't understand. So I elaborate.

So, you ARE 'indifferent' to the FACT that your writings so CLEARLY SHOW 'circular logic/reasoning'.

I am indifferent to the lack of your understanding of the subject.

Okay

Cool.

[Age]

Belief? That is the argument. Do you understand what I am arguing?

NOT now.

Please feel free to tell me which part you don't understand. So I elaborate.

I might of before, but I have absolutely NO interest AT ALL, ANYMORE.

I am indifferent to the lack of your understanding of the subject.

Okay

Cool.