Mind is uncaused cause

[bahman]

The brain and or mind no more stops a chain of causality than a shock absorber absorbs impact. There is still a transfer of energy from the world to your brain, which will be expressed in some way. You can find more positive ways of radiating that energy back out into the world, rather than simply reactively giving back what you were dealt. And this is all commensurate with the laws of physics, causality etc.

The mind is not due to physical. That is the mind that causes physical. I have an argument for that in here.

I am not referring to the mind of some god which may or may not oversee the whole of material reality, but rather the mind of a human. Is that mind not due to the physical? It undeniably emerges FROM the physical, so unless we hold some view like that of a spirit which inhabits the body upon conception, or birth, or some point in between, then the mind must be taken as some product of physical processes. As such, it is beholden to the same causal interactions as all other matter. After all, the mind breaks down along with the body. People’s faculties degenerate with age, or illness, physical damage, or degenerative conditions. These are all undeniable examples of the causal relationship between what you call mind, the brain, and the material world.

Minds are everywhere, I think any sperm has a mind.

So unless you prescribe to the dubious idea that the brain is some kind of receiver for the mind, and any malfunction in mind is due to a faulty receiver, which is the laziest form of reasoning I have come across when it comes to trying to explain the relationship between brain, mind and consciousness, then you cannot escape that mind is inextricably linked to the physical in such a way that the two cannot be separated, indicating some necessary link between the two.

And what is wrong with my argument?

[Age]

Well, if you can freely stop a chain of causality like a chain of thought then you are an uncaused cause.

Well, if the one that 'you' are talking to, and about, can do this, then this means that that one is NOT a human being. This is because EVERY human being is caused.

Also, where did you get the proof from to conclude what you have here? Or, do you NOT have ANY proof, yet?

There are two scenarios when a chain of causality stops: Either it stops due to another chain of causality or not. In the second case, an uncaused cause, the free agent is involved. It is free since it can decide in spite of what it perceives, the chain of causality.

Your response here, once again, does NOT really relate to what you quoted, and as such are replying to.

[Age]

And what is your position?

Some say, 'within EVERY thing', but in regards to 'what' EXACTLY?

In regard to the philosophy of mind. Do you think that the mind exists?

I KNOW thee One and ONLY Mind exists.

Just like I KNOW thee One and ONLY Universe exists.

[bahman]

Well, if the one that 'you' are talking to, and about, can do this, then this means that that one is NOT a human being. This is because EVERY human being is caused.

Also, where did you get the proof from to conclude what you have here? Or, do you NOT have ANY proof, yet?

There are two scenarios when a chain of causality stops: Either it stops due to another chain of causality or not. In the second case, an uncaused cause, the free agent is involved. It is free since it can decide in spite of what it perceives, the chain of causality.

Your response here, once again, does NOT really relate to what you quoted, and as such are replying to.

It does. You make a free decision when you are not under influence of what you experience, a chain of causality. You have to be the uncaused cause since otherwise, your free decision depends on something else so it is not free.

[bahman]

Some say, 'within EVERY thing', but in regards to 'what' EXACTLY?

In regard to the philosophy of mind. Do you think that the mind exists?

I KNOW thee One and ONLY Mind exists.

Just like I KNOW thee One and ONLY Universe exists.

Do you have any proof that only one mind exists?

[Dimebag]

The mind is not due to physical. That is the mind that causes physical. I have an argument for that in here.

I am not referring to the mind of some god which may or may not oversee the whole of material reality, but rather the mind of a human. Is that mind not due to the physical? It undeniably emerges FROM the physical, so unless we hold some view like that of a spirit which inhabits the body upon conception, or birth, or some point in between, then the mind must be taken as some product of physical processes. As such, it is beholden to the same causal interactions as all other matter. After all, the mind breaks down along with the body. People’s faculties degenerate with age, or illness, physical damage, or degenerative conditions. These are all undeniable examples of the causal relationship between what you call mind, the brain, and the material world.

Minds are everywhere, I think any sperm has a mind.

So unless you prescribe to the dubious idea that the brain is some kind of receiver for the mind, and any malfunction in mind is due to a faulty receiver, which is the laziest form of reasoning I have come across when it comes to trying to explain the relationship between brain, mind and consciousness, then you cannot escape that mind is inextricably linked to the physical in such a way that the two cannot be separated, indicating some necessary link between the two.

And what is wrong with my argument?

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

[Age]

There are two scenarios when a chain of causality stops: Either it stops due to another chain of causality or not. In the second case, an uncaused cause, the free agent is involved. It is free since it can decide in spite of what it perceives, the chain of causality.

Your response here, once again, does NOT really relate to what you quoted, and as such are replying to.

It does. You make a free decision when you are not under influence of what you experience, a chain of causality.

LOOK, you are NOT defining words like 'you', 'I', 'we', 'mind', and then also you are NOT relating those definitions into comprehensible and logical sense. Therefore, this is WHY what you are saying here is NOT being accepted.

When, and IF, you ever learn the True and Right definitions for these words, which aligns PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else, then what you will THEN say will be accepted and thus agreed with. But until then you are left STUCK in the predicament that you are in now.

So, who or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM makes 'free decisions'?

I suggest you just START EXPLAINING and STOP just saying.

You have to be the uncaused cause since otherwise, your free decision depends on something else so it is not free.

Are you even AWARE that YOUR "logic" here is faulty?

Discover, or either learn, what the True and Right, proper AND correct, answer IS to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', and then you will SEE the error of YOUR ways here.

[Age]

In regard to the philosophy of mind. Do you think that the mind exists?

I KNOW thee One and ONLY Mind exists.

Just like I KNOW thee One and ONLY Universe exists.

Do you have any proof that only one mind exists?

LOOK, until you are able to SEE, properly AND correctly, you will NEVER FULLY understand.

LOOK, I NEVER said that there exits only one mind.

What made you come to such an ABSOLUTELY WRONG ASSUMPTION as you have arrived at here.

As I have been saying, 'you', "bahman" are Truly BLINDED, and this is because of your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

When the ACTUAL words, which I have written so far, are LOOKED AT from thee Truly OPEN perspective, then what can be SEEN, and what will be SEEN, is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Until then what you are saying and claiming are just your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which OBVIOUSLY could be WRONG or partly WRONG.

NOW, I suggest you start asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what I ACTUALLY write instead of from what you just ACTUALLY ASSUMED I wrote.

[bahman]

I am not referring to the mind of some god which may or may not oversee the whole of material reality, but rather the mind of a human. Is that mind not due to the physical? It undeniably emerges FROM the physical, so unless we hold some view like that of a spirit which inhabits the body upon conception, or birth, or some point in between, then the mind must be taken as some product of physical processes. As such, it is beholden to the same causal interactions as all other matter. After all, the mind breaks down along with the body. People’s faculties degenerate with age, or illness, physical damage, or degenerative conditions. These are all undeniable examples of the causal relationship between what you call mind, the brain, and the material world.

Minds are everywhere, I think any sperm has a mind.

So unless you prescribe to the dubious idea that the brain is some kind of receiver for the mind, and any malfunction in mind is due to a faulty receiver, which is the laziest form of reasoning I have come across when it comes to trying to explain the relationship between brain, mind and consciousness, then you cannot escape that mind is inextricably linked to the physical in such a way that the two cannot be separated, indicating some necessary link between the two.

And what is wrong with my argument?

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

[bahman]

Your response here, once again, does NOT really relate to what you quoted, and as such are replying to.

It does. You make a free decision when you are not under influence of what you experience, a chain of causality.

LOOK, you are NOT defining words like 'you', 'I', 'we', 'mind', and then also you are NOT relating those definitions into comprehensible and logical sense. Therefore, this is WHY what you are saying here is NOT being accepted.

When, and IF, you ever learn the True and Right definitions for these words, which aligns PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else, then what you will THEN say will be accepted and thus agreed with. But until then you are left STUCK in the predicament that you are in now.

So, who or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM makes 'free decisions'?

I suggest you just START EXPLAINING and STOP just saying.

By you, I mean another person who is subjected to this discussion. The person, who read and respond.

You have to be the uncaused cause since otherwise, your free decision depends on something else so it is not free.

Are you even AWARE that YOUR "logic" here is faulty?

Discover, or either learn, what the True and Right, proper AND correct, answer IS to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', and then you will SEE the error of YOUR ways here.

I is the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

[Age]

I am not referring to the mind of some god which may or may not oversee the whole of material reality, but rather the mind of a human. Is that mind not due to the physical? It undeniably emerges FROM the physical, so unless we hold some view like that of a spirit which inhabits the body upon conception, or birth, or some point in between, then the mind must be taken as some product of physical processes. As such, it is beholden to the same causal interactions as all other matter. After all, the mind breaks down along with the body. People’s faculties degenerate with age, or illness, physical damage, or degenerative conditions. These are all undeniable examples of the causal relationship between what you call mind, the brain, and the material world.

Minds are everywhere, I think any sperm has a mind.

So unless you prescribe to the dubious idea that the brain is some kind of receiver for the mind, and any malfunction in mind is due to a faulty receiver, which is the laziest form of reasoning I have come across when it comes to trying to explain the relationship between brain, mind and consciousness, then you cannot escape that mind is inextricably linked to the physical in such a way that the two cannot be separated, indicating some necessary link between the two.

And what is wrong with my argument?

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

"bahman" LOOK at the difference here between what 'you' say and the way you write it from what "dimebag" says and the way that it is written.

Although what "dimebag" writes here is not sound, in the PUREST, but also in a Truly UNIMPORTANT for now, sense, what "dimbag" says is VERY valid and thus logically follows. Whereas, what 'you', "bahman", say and write is NOT sound, NOR valid and thus does NOT even logically follow at all.

What 'you' are doing is just STARTING from your currently held BELIEF, using that as the conclusion, and then saying and writing just about ANY thing, which you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE are premises, which are ALREADY PROVEN, and which PROVES YOUR 'conclusion' as being ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct. Which is ACTUALLY a Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS way to 'try to' argue ANY thing.

[bahman]

I KNOW thee One and ONLY Mind exists.

Just like I KNOW thee One and ONLY Universe exists.

Do you have any proof that only one mind exists?

LOOK, until you are able to SEE, properly AND correctly, you will NEVER FULLY understand.

LOOK, I NEVER said that there exits only one mind.

What made you come to such an ABSOLUTELY WRONG ASSUMPTION as you have arrived at here.

As I have been saying, 'you', "bahman" are Truly BLINDED, and this is because of your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

When the ACTUAL words, which I have written so far, are LOOKED AT from thee Truly OPEN perspective, then what can be SEEN, and what will be SEEN, is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Until then what you are saying and claiming are just your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which OBVIOUSLY could be WRONG or partly WRONG.

NOW, I suggest you start asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what I ACTUALLY write instead of from what you just ACTUALLY ASSUMED I wrote.

What do you mean with these "I KNOW thee One and ONLY Mind exists." and "Just like I KNOW thee One and ONLY Universe exists."?

[Age]

Minds are everywhere, I think any sperm has a mind.


And what is wrong with my argument?

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You are absolutely FREE to PROVIDE absolutely ANY thing that you like. But whether it is of ANY use or not is another matter.

Also, as I have ALREADY said, if what you provide is NOT a sound AND valid argument, then it is REALLY not that worthy of being LOOKED AT anyway. But go ahead and provide YOUR 'argument' against emergence.

However, you ONCE AGAIN appear to have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL quote that you are replying to. Which a part of it states:
', you seem unable to envision a world in which ...'.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you are MISSING, or DEFLECTING away from, the whole point of what is being said and mentioned to you.

You appear to just want to "argue" and FIGHT for what you ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is thee Truth of 'things', and just completely disregard ANY thing else.

You BELIEVE wholeheartedly that your views here are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, and so are BLINDED to what else is being said to you.

[Age]

It does. You make a free decision when you are not under influence of what you experience, a chain of causality.

LOOK, you are NOT defining words like 'you', 'I', 'we', 'mind', and then also you are NOT relating those definitions into comprehensible and logical sense. Therefore, this is WHY what you are saying here is NOT being accepted.

When, and IF, you ever learn the True and Right definitions for these words, which aligns PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else, then what you will THEN say will be accepted and thus agreed with. But until then you are left STUCK in the predicament that you are in now.

So, who or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM makes 'free decisions'?

I suggest you just START EXPLAINING and STOP just saying.

By you, I mean another person who is subjected to this discussion. The person, who read and respond.

And, what is OBVIOUSLY True is EVERY person has come from some 'thing' ELSE, and thus EVERY person was caused.
Therefore, EVERY one of 'you', persons, is NOT an uncaused cause.

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying and 'trying to' CLAIM here.

The more you 'try to' EXPLAIN, the more you CONTRADICT, "yourself".

You have to be the uncaused cause since otherwise, your free decision depends on something else so it is not free.

Are you even AWARE that YOUR "logic" here is faulty?

Discover, or either learn, what the True and Right, proper AND correct, answer IS to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', and then you will SEE the error of YOUR ways here.

I is the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.
[/quote]

You, ONCE MORE, appear to have completely MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what was being said to you, in the quote, which you are replying to, or you are just ONCE AGAIN 'trying to' DEFLECT.

So, is 'your' FINAL answer to that age-old question, 'Who am 'I'?', the person who is subjected to this discussion and write things right now.

[Dimebag]

Minds are everywhere, I think any sperm has a mind.


And what is wrong with my argument?

The problem with your argument is, you seem unable to envision a world in which matter doesn’t necessarily marche to the beat of some overseeing mind. My argument there was, mind emerges from matter. But matter can exist without mind. That doesn’t mean it can be known without mind, just that it operates, interacts, coalesces, and can even form the building blocks for life, which is the basis of mind, all without the need for one.

What if that I provide an argument against emergence?

You could, but based on your previous arguments I can’t see it being very powerful an argument, and without circular reasoning. When I say emergence, I don’t mean to say that consciousness, or mind as you seem to prefer to call it, is anything other than what the brain, which is fully material, is doing. When I say emergence, what I mean is that, some new layer of reality seems to exist on top of and fully dependent on the existing layers of reality.

The difference between the new emergent layer of consciousness, and all other previous layers, is, because it is encapsulated via the structure of an organ, being the body and brain, it’s existence can only be known from that structure. But further more, due to the way in which this system captures information about the outside and about itself, and represents it inside itself, the information can only be known from inside this new emergent layer. It can be inferred via interactions because this structure now has an ability to express itself, to communicate the structure of this new emergent reality to others who also possess this layer. It can also be inferred via technology that find ways to associate particular patterns of interaction in the brain and body with particular experiences, or basically via neural correlates.

This is why we have the problem of other minds. What minds do is create internal representations, and as such, that information is inaccessible to anything outside itself other than inference. Now, it so happens that OUR minds are set up in such a way that our powers of inference can be quite well tuned to others. This is theory of mind and empathy. But, it’s not perfect, and because of this, we can misattribute others state of mind. But, we can never have access to other minds directly, due to their inherent nature of internal representation.