Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:47 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:39 pm
What is experienced, matter, is an illusion since does not persist during the change.

I have stated the obvious 'the only constant [persisting] is change'.
Note Heraclitus'

Heraclitus concluded that nature is change. Like a river, nature flows ever onwards. Even the nature of the flow changes.

Heraclitus’ vision of life is clear in his epigram on the river of flux:

‘We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not’ (B49a).
https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.c ... on-change/

Heraclitus' contention is there is nothing that persists within change.
Can you prove him wrong?

I already provided my argument "There is a change, therefore there is a mind". You don't pay any attention to it!

Where there is change, there is only change. A = A.
How can be 'mind' from change in the fundamental sense?

In the crude sense, yes change can enable emergence.
When clouds changed, there is rain.
Thus in this case,
when Y changes, there is X.
X can by anything, not only mind as you have alluded above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:47 am

It is relevant. Matter affects matter because it has properties. No properties, no effects.

The above is pure speculation and illusory.
There is no matter-in-itself that effects another matter-in-itself.

That is what physics about, the relation between properties of matter.

In Physics, there is no matter-in-itself.

In basic Physics we have the reality of one moving marble knocking another marble and causing the other marble to move.
However in advanced and Quantum Physics, the reality of Physics is not independent but intertwined with the human participant [observers and actors].

There is no absolute matter-in-itself but what is matter in Physics is human-mind-intertwined matter.
Therefore the mind is merely an emergent and not an independent entity by itself.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:14 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:13 am Not being able to process context is such a bitch.

I am sorry to hear about your disability. Would you like me to teach you what context is?

It's a grammatical construct.

Till you understand how it works, I'll always frame you

To frame humans you would need a fully formed brain yourself. To understand what you are up against in the first place.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:35 am To frame humans you would need a fully formed brain yourself. To understand what you are up against in the first place.

I am not framing humans - just you.

Are you done yet?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:35 am To frame humans you would need a fully formed brain yourself. To understand what you are up against in the first place.

I am not framing humans - just you.

Are you done yet?

You can't frame me either, you are just making more errors.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:52 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:35 am To frame humans you would need a fully formed brain yourself. To understand what you are up against in the first place.

I am not framing humans - just you.

Are you done yet?

You can't frame me either, you are just making more errors.

Are you done yet?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:52 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:43 am
I am not framing humans - just you.

Are you done yet?

You can't frame me either, you are just making more errors.

Are you done yet?

I'll make fun of you much as I want.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:58 am I'll make fun of you much as I want.

Precisely. I am laughing at you, not with you

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:58 am I'll make fun of you much as I want.

Precisely. I am laughing at you, not with you

No not really. Because you know that your 'human' interactions are pretty much limited to internet trolling, and last as long as you can keep others here. But others don't have that limitation.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:03 am No not really. Because you know that your 'human' interactions are pretty much limited to internet trolling, and last as long as you can keep others here. But others don't have that limitation.

"Trolling" is reserved for Philosophers - it's your own medicine . Humans get humane treatment.

When you graduate from philosophy to being human, you'll find out.

The Universe Itself just continually evolves (changes).

What emerges in the continually evolving Universe are things like: Who 'I' am, knowledge, et cetera.

The Universe, Itself, does not emerge. However, answers to questions, and questions themselves, emerge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:47 am I have stated the obvious 'the only constant [persisting] is change'.
Note Heraclitus'

Heraclitus' contention is there is nothing that persists within change.
Can you prove him wrong?

I already provided my argument "There is a change, therefore there is a mind". You don't pay any attention to it!

Where there is change, there is only change. A = A.

What do mean? When there is a change we go from one state of affair to another state of affair. X to Y. I think that is obvious.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am How can be 'mind' from change in the fundamental sense?

In the crude sense, yes change can enable emergence.
When clouds changed, there is rain.
Thus in this case,
when Y changes, there is X.
X can by anything, not only mind as you have alluded above.

No, we go from one state of affair to another state of affair when there is a change. I already argue that something must vanish to allows something else to exist. Any change is the result of destruction of one state of affair and causation of another state of affair.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:47 am The above is pure speculation and illusory.
There is no matter-in-itself that effects another matter-in-itself.

That is what physics about, the relation between properties of matter.

In Physics, there is no matter-in-itself.

In basic Physics we have the reality of one moving marble knocking another marble and causing the other marble to move.
However in advanced and Quantum Physics, the reality of Physics is not independent but intertwined with the human participant [observers and actors].

So matter exist as a result of the collapse of the wave function which this is due to intervention of mind. Mind itself is the result matter activity. This means that mind should exist and exist not at the same time. Exist to cause the collapse of the wave function and exist not in order to emerge. Don't you see the contradiction?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am There is no absolute matter-in-itself but what is matter in Physics is human-mind-intertwined matter.
Therefore the mind is merely an emergent and not an independent entity by itself.

I agree that matter is an illusion. But mind is a real thing.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:54 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:13 pm
I already provided my argument "There is a change, therefore there is a mind". You don't pay any attention to it!

Where there is change, there is only change. A = A.

What do mean? When there is a change we go from one state of affair to another state of affair. X to Y. I think that is obvious.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am How can be 'mind' from change in the fundamental sense?

In the crude sense, yes change can enable emergence.
When clouds changed, there is rain.
Thus in this case,
when Y changes, there is X.
X can by anything, not only mind as you have alluded above.

No, we go from one state of affair to another state of affair when there is a change. I already argue that something must vanish to allows something else to exist. Any change is the result of destruction of one state of affair [water molecules] and causation of another state of affair [ice molecules].

I have already explained many times.
When water turned to ice, there is only a shift in the distance between the H20 molecules, there is no destruction of one state of affair [water molecules].

Note the law of conservation of energy:
the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
-wiki

There is no need to an independent mind as entity to explain the above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am

That is what physics about, the relation between properties of matter.

In Physics, there is no matter-in-itself.

In basic Physics we have the reality of one moving marble knocking another marble and causing the other marble to move.
However in advanced and Quantum Physics, the reality of Physics is not independent but intertwined with the human participant [observers and actors].

So matter exist as a result of the collapse of the wave function which this is due to intervention of mind. Mind itself is the result matter activity. This means that mind should exist and exist not at the same time. Exist to cause the collapse of the wave function and exist not in order to emerge. Don't you see the contradiction?

I did not argue the 'mind' is the result of "matter" activities.
The mind [my definition as per wiki] is merely a convenience to represent a collection of activities of the human brain which can be verified empirically.

In your case, the mind is an independent entity by itself, which is an illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am There is no absolute matter-in-itself but what is matter in Physics is human-mind-intertwined matter.
Therefore the mind is merely an emergent and not an independent entity by itself.

I agree that matter is an illusion. But mind is a real thing.

I disagree.

I do not agree with 'matter' in the philosophical sense.

1. Matter [scientific], i.e. physical things can be observed, experienced and verified by Science, so matter in this case is real and objective. How can this be an illusion?

2. Your mind as an independent entity is merely indirectly inferred from the above real matter -physical thing from 1 and their changes.
You don't have direct proof your mind [your definition] exists as real.
Show me the direct proof of mind [your definition], not just 'changes', speculations and blah, blah, blah.

3. You can challenge to prove the existence of real Matter [scientific], object, brain, mind [my definition], anything empirically evident as emergence. Name your challenge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:54 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am
Where there is change, there is only change. A = A.

What do mean? When there is a change we go from one state of affair to another state of affair. X to Y. I think that is obvious.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am How can be 'mind' from change in the fundamental sense?

In the crude sense, yes change can enable emergence.
When clouds changed, there is rain.
Thus in this case,
when Y changes, there is X.
X can by anything, not only mind as you have alluded above.

No, we go from one state of affair to another state of affair when there is a change. I already argue that something must vanish to allows something else to exist. Any change is the result of destruction of one state of affair [water molecules] and causation of another state of affair [ice molecules].

I have already explained many times.
When water turned to ice, there is only a shift in the distance between the H20 molecules, there is no destruction of one state of affair [water molecules].

Note the law of conservation of energy:
the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
-wiki

This is already addressed in another thread.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am There is no need to an independent mind as entity to explain the above.

There is a need. I have an argument for that the title being "there is a change, therefore, there is a mind". I already provide this argument to you several times.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am
In Physics, there is no matter-in-itself.

In basic Physics we have the reality of one moving marble knocking another marble and causing the other marble to move.
However in advanced and Quantum Physics, the reality of Physics is not independent but intertwined with the human participant [observers and actors].

So matter exist as a result of the collapse of the wave function which this is due to intervention of mind. Mind itself is the result matter activity. This means that mind should exist and exist not at the same time. Exist to cause the collapse of the wave function and exist not in order to emerge. Don't you see the contradiction?

I did not argue the 'mind' is the result of "matter" activities.
The mind [my definition as per wiki] is merely a convenience to represent a collection of activities of the human brain which can be verified empirically.

Aren't you saying that mind which is an idea, collection of things such as experience and causation, is responsible for collapse of the wave function?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am In your case, the mind is an independent entity by itself, which is an illusion.

I will not be conceived until you show that my argument, there is a change therefore there is a mind, is wrong.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:29 am There is no absolute matter-in-itself but what is matter in Physics is human-mind-intertwined matter.
Therefore the mind is merely an emergent and not an independent entity by itself.

I agree that matter is an illusion. But mind is a real thing.

I disagree.

I do not agree with 'matter' in the philosophical sense.

1. Matter [scientific], i.e. physical things can be observed, experienced and verified by Science, so matter in this case is real and objective. How can this be an illusion?

2. Your mind as an independent entity is merely indirectly inferred from the above real matter -physical thing from 1 and their changes.
You don't have direct proof your mind [your definition] exists as real.
Show me the direct proof of mind [your definition], not just 'changes', speculations and blah, blah, blah.

3. You can challenge to prove the existence of real Matter [scientific], object, brain, mind [my definition], anything empirically evident as emergence. Name your challenge.

Matter is an illusion since it is under change. What causes change? Mind. I already address that in the argument, there is change, therefore, there is a mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am I disagree.

I do not agree with 'matter' in the philosophical sense.

1. Matter [scientific], i.e. physical things can be observed, experienced and verified by Science, so matter in this case is real and objective. How can this be an illusion?

2. Your mind as an independent entity is merely indirectly inferred from the above real matter -physical thing from 1 and their changes.
You don't have direct proof your mind [your definition] exists as real.
Show me the direct proof of mind [your definition], not just 'changes', speculations and blah, blah, blah.

3. You can challenge to prove the existence of real Matter [scientific], object, brain, mind [my definition], anything empirically evident as emergence. Name your challenge.

Matter is an illusion since it is under change. What causes change? Mind. I already address that in the argument, there is change, therefore, there is a mind.

Here is my explanation re change from X to Y from the other post;

When we see 'water' changes into 'ice', we study what is observable and infer from observations the relevant principles and mechanisms involved.
As such "what is the cause" should be confined to what is observed and inferences that can be explained, verified, justified and repeated.
In this case, the direct observable cause is obviously the change in temperature.

If it is is not observable by the senses, the inferred cause must be capable to explanation grounded on the empirical observations, reason, justifiable, and repeatable - e.g. gravity.

Why must you bring in
the 'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?

The answer is due to some internal desperate psychology as Hume alluded to.

The problem is you are too observed with an independent mind, thus unable to think outside the box.

Btw, you have not addressed my OP at all, i.e.
Reality-as-it-is is an emergence similar to the illusion I linked above.
Thus Reality-as-it-is, whilst real as it is, is another form of illusion.
This is what the Buddhists and Hindus called 'Maya'.
Do you agree with this?
If not, why not?

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:11 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:47 am I disagree.

I do not agree with 'matter' in the philosophical sense.

1. Matter [scientific], i.e. physical things can be observed, experienced and verified by Science, so matter in this case is real and objective. How can this be an illusion?

2. Your mind as an independent entity is merely indirectly inferred from the above real matter -physical thing from 1 and their changes.
You don't have direct proof your mind [your definition] exists as real.
Show me the direct proof of mind [your definition], not just 'changes', speculations and blah, blah, blah.

3. You can challenge to prove the existence of real Matter [scientific], object, brain, mind [my definition], anything empirically evident as emergence. Name your challenge.

Matter is an illusion since it is under change. What causes change? Mind. I already address that in the argument, there is change, therefore, there is a mind.

Here is my explanation re change from X to Y from the other post;

When we see 'water' changes into 'ice', we study what is observable and infer from observations the relevant principles and mechanisms involved.
As such "what is the cause" should be confined to what is observed and inferences that can be explained, verified, justified and repeated.
In this case, the direct observable cause is obviously the change in temperature.

If it is is not observable by the senses, the inferred cause must be capable to explanation grounded on the empirical observations, reason, justifiable, and repeatable - e.g. gravity.

Why must you bring in
the 'mind' [an independent entity] as the cause of change?

The answer is due to some internal desperate psychology as Hume alluded to.

The problem is you are too observed with an independent mind, thus unable to think outside the box.

Btw, you have not addressed my OP at all, i.e.
Reality-as-it-is is an emergence similar to the illusion I linked above.
Thus Reality-as-it-is, whilst real as it is, is another form of illusion.
This is what the Buddhists and Hindus called 'Maya'.
Do you agree with this?
If not, why not?

In later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

I am not talking about the change in condition.