bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:32 pm
By freedom, I mean that you can freely decide between two options in a situation. Like eating or not eating an apple. It then follows that you are uncaused cause.
I didn't real eyes this was a discussion about free-will.
So.
Getting back to your OP statement:- Mind is uncaused cause
1. Mind is a result of causality. (not uncaused)
2. A 'cause' results in an 'affect' (stating mind is a cause is not correct, until it exerts an affect on the matter it has access to)
- so in this case - do I eat and apple or do I not eat an apple. Yes, I am free to choose, based upon analysis of certain things - will I enjoy the taste of an apple, do I have an appetite, am I too fat for the sugar content of the apple...etc..
Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.
The problem with this idea is, you assume that thoughts exist as things in themselves. But, if thoughts exist as patterns of neural firings, then they can coalesce, as if from nowhere, depending on the influential factors at the level of neurons, and they can likewise, disperse as if like a cloud, seemingly fizzling out of existence, supervening over a sea of neuronal firings which come together and then disperse. There will be minute causal factors, which comprise thoughts, which do not violate any kind of causality at the level of neurons. Because thoughts are in a sense emergent, that is, they supervene on neural firing.
I didn't real eyes this was a discussion about free-will.
So.
Getting back to your OP statement:- Mind is uncaused cause
1. Mind is a result of causality. (not uncaused)
2. A 'cause' results in an 'affect' (stating mind is a cause is not correct, until it exerts an affect on the matter it has access to)
- so in this case - do I eat and apple or do I not eat an apple. Yes, I am free to choose, based upon analysis of certain things - will I enjoy the taste of an apple, do I have an appetite, am I too fat for the sugar content of the apple...etc..
Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.
The 'you' can NOT. But thee 'I' can.
This is because of who and what the 'you' and thee 'I' are, EXACTLY.
I didn't real eyes this was a discussion about free-will.
So.
Getting back to your OP statement:- Mind is uncaused cause
1. Mind is a result of causality. (not uncaused)
2. A 'cause' results in an 'affect' (stating mind is a cause is not correct, until it exerts an affect on the matter it has access to)
- so in this case - do I eat and apple or do I not eat an apple. Yes, I am free to choose, based upon analysis of certain things - will I enjoy the taste of an apple, do I have an appetite, am I too fat for the sugar content of the apple...etc..
Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.
The problem with this idea is, you assume that thoughts exist as things in themselves. But, if thoughts exist as patterns of neural firings, then they can coalesce, as if from nowhere, depending on the influential factors at the level of neurons, and they can likewise, disperse as if like a cloud, seemingly fizzling out of existence, supervening over a sea of neuronal firings which come together and then disperse. There will be minute causal factors, which comprise thoughts, which do not violate any kind of causality at the level of neurons. Because thoughts are in a sense emergent, that is, they supervene on neural firing.
The thought is the result of the mind's activity by processing the information that resides in the physical, brain for example.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:14 pm
Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.
The 'you' can NOT. But thee 'I' can.
This is because of who and what the 'you' and thee 'I' are, EXACTLY.
Any mind can stop a chain of causality.
Besides the FACT that what you said here ONCE AGAIN had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever at all to do with what I said and which you quoted, how can a "mind" stop the causal chain of heat and light from the sun reaching earth.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:14 pm
Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.
The problem with this idea is, you assume that thoughts exist as things in themselves. But, if thoughts exist as patterns of neural firings, then they can coalesce, as if from nowhere, depending on the influential factors at the level of neurons, and they can likewise, disperse as if like a cloud, seemingly fizzling out of existence, supervening over a sea of neuronal firings which come together and then disperse. There will be minute causal factors, which comprise thoughts, which do not violate any kind of causality at the level of neurons. Because thoughts are in a sense emergent, that is, they supervene on neural firing.
The thought is the result of the mind's activity by processing the information that resides in the physical, brain for example.
Besides this SHOWING that you will say just about ANY thing to sound like you know what you are talking about, the fact that you have previously stated, "we are minds" and "your mind" just further conflates, confuses, and contradicts what you now say here.
Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:52 am
The 'you' can NOT. But thee 'I' can.
This is because of who and what the 'you' and thee 'I' are, EXACTLY.
Any mind can stop a chain of causality.
Besides the FACT that what you said here ONCE AGAIN had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever at all to do with what I said and which you quoted, how can a "mind" stop the causal chain of heat and light from the sun reaching earth.
Dimebag wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:16 am
The problem with this idea is, you assume that thoughts exist as things in themselves. But, if thoughts exist as patterns of neural firings, then they can coalesce, as if from nowhere, depending on the influential factors at the level of neurons, and they can likewise, disperse as if like a cloud, seemingly fizzling out of existence, supervening over a sea of neuronal firings which come together and then disperse. There will be minute causal factors, which comprise thoughts, which do not violate any kind of causality at the level of neurons. Because thoughts are in a sense emergent, that is, they supervene on neural firing.
The thought is the result of the mind's activity by processing the information that resides in the physical, brain for example.
Besides this SHOWING that you will say just about ANY thing to sound like you know what you are talking about, the fact that you have previously stated, "we are minds" and "your mind" just further conflates, confuses, and contradicts what you now say here.
No, coherent change, including thought, can take place without mind.
