Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:43 am
What I am expressing is based on evidences verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

What evidence you have that mind is an emergent thing? How could you justify it empirically and philosophically?

The human mind is defined as;

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

All the above are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Emergent = arising as a natural ... consequence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergent

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:43 am Your idea of "free' not empirically + philosophically based, thus is too woo woo.

What do you mean with free?

I will go along with what relevant within this definition of free;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

• e.g.
  8a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded

i.e. free humanly but not in the absolute sense.

In your case your 'free' is still active and valid with a corpse which is not-humanly.

Emergence in philosophy is much more complex (and varied--there are numerous versions of what it amounts to) than that. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

For example, some views have it that: "strong emergents [are] 'over and above' the physical entities upon which they depend in a straightforward way. It also leads to a rejection of physical causal closure, often through the posit of fundamentally novel 'compositional' powers or forces (as described by, but not endorsed in McLaughlin 1992)."

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:04 am
What evidence you have that mind is an emergent thing? How could you justify it empirically and philosophically?

The human mind is defined as;

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

All the above are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Emergent = arising as a natural ... consequence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergent

This is a very poor definition of emergence. Let's say that the matter has a set of properties, such as mass, charge, etc. but not consciousness. Could matter in a given configuration, the brain, for example, become conscious?

Emergent is a top down concept, i.e. we start from what is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness then work downward reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus the use of critical philosophy.

As such what is matter, consciousness, all-there-is-of-reality is an emergent [that which has arisen] that is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus within the domain of critical philosophy.

In the above case, you assumed there is a source of consciousness even when you have not proven what it is or whether your consciousness as you defined it exists or not.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am

What do you mean with free?

I will go along with what relevant within this definition of free;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

• e.g.
  8a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded

i.e. free humanly but not in the absolute sense.

In your case your 'free' is still active and valid with a corpse which is not-humanly.

I am happy with these definitions. Are you suggesting that free will also is emergent?

Not 'free' but 'freedom' is an emergent concept.

Let take a primitive person in the middle of yet to be explored thick jungle.
He can do and go wherever he likes within his physical and environmental limits.
In this case the primitive person just act in accordance to his impulse, to him there is no consideration of what is emergent or freedom.

It is only when we philosophize when we reflect on the following;
This state of affairs entailed a lot of variables which are emergent, i.e. the person, the land, the forests, all sort of matters, etc.
The primitive person is "free" to do and go wherever he wish to but he is he is obstructed, restricted, impeded, hindered and thus not free within his physical and environmental limits.
The above emergent, consciousness and freedom are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

But what you are trying to propose is absolute freedom & consciousness which are non-existent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:04 am
What evidence you have that mind is an emergent thing? How could you justify it empirically and philosophically?

The human mind is defined as;

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

All the above are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Emergent = arising as a natural ... consequence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergent

What do you mean with free?

I will go along with what relevant within this definition of free;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

• e.g.
  8a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded

i.e. free humanly but not in the absolute sense.

In your case your 'free' is still active and valid with a corpse which is not-humanly.

Emergence in philosophy is much more complex (and varied--there are numerous versions of what it amounts to) than that. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

For example, some views have it that: "strong emergents [are] 'over and above' the physical entities upon which they depend in a straightforward way. It also leads to a rejection of physical causal closure, often through the posit of fundamentally novel 'compositional' powers or forces (as described by, but not endorsed in McLaughlin 1992)."

Emergence is complex only to those who mess up the foundation of reality with dualism due to ignorance and desperate psychology in the first place.

In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

Why dualists are triggered to separate the mind from the body is due to psychology and being stuck in the silo of common sense or theism.

Theists for example are driven to assume the mind is separate from the body.
It is the theists desperation for eternal life that they assume the mind as related to a soul that can survive physical death.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:57 am
Emergence is complex only to those who mess up the foundation of reality with dualism due to ignorance and desperate psychology in the first place.

The more complex philosophical versions of emergence aren't limited to nonphysicalist (or in general non-monist) views.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:09 pm The more complex philosophical versions of emergence aren't limited to nonphysicalist (or in general non-monist) views.

Yeah, but only non-monists can put upward causation on a pedestal above downward causation.

Knowledge emerges from that very interaction.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:49 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am
The human mind is defined as;

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

All the above are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

Emergent = arising as a natural ... consequence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergent

This is a very poor definition of emergence. Let's say that the matter has a set of properties, such as mass, charge, etc. but not consciousness. Could matter in a given configuration, the brain, for example, become conscious?

Emergent is a top down concept, i.e. we start from what is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness then work downward reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus the use of critical philosophy.

As such what is matter, consciousness, all-there-is-of-reality is an emergent [that which has arisen] that is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus within the domain of critical philosophy.

In the above case, you assumed there is a source of consciousness even when you have not proven what it is or whether your consciousness as you defined it exists or not.

I can buy that the way to study the emergence is top-down. What do you find when you look top-down? I mean is the basic elements of reality is conscious or otherwise.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am
I will go along with what relevant within this definition of free;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

• e.g.
  8a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded

i.e. free humanly but not in the absolute sense.

In your case your 'free' is still active and valid with a corpse which is not-humanly.

I am happy with these definitions. Are you suggesting that free will also is emergent?

Not 'free' but 'freedom' is an emergent concept.

Let take a primitive person in the middle of yet to be explored thick jungle.
He can do and go wherever he likes within his physical and environmental limits.
In this case the primitive person just act in accordance to his impulse, to him there is no consideration of what is emergent or freedom.

It is only when we philosophize when we reflect on the following;
This state of affairs entailed a lot of variables which are emergent, i.e. the person, the land, the forests, all sort of matters, etc.
The primitive person is "free" to do and go wherever he wish to but he is he is obstructed, restricted, impeded, hindered and thus not free within his physical and environmental limits.
The above emergent, consciousness and freedom are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

But what you are trying to propose is absolute freedom & consciousness which are non-existent.

Let me make it simple for you. Can you stop a chain of causality or not?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:41 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:49 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:49 am
This is a very poor definition of emergence. Let's say that the matter has a set of properties, such as mass, charge, etc. but not consciousness. Could matter in a given configuration, the brain, for example, become conscious?

Emergent is a top down concept, i.e. we start from what is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness then work downward reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus the use of critical philosophy.

As such what is matter, consciousness, all-there-is-of-reality is an emergent [that which has arisen] that is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus within the domain of critical philosophy.

In the above case, you assumed there is a source of consciousness even when you have not proven what it is or whether your consciousness as you defined it exists or not.

I can buy that the way to study the emergence is top-down. What do you find when you look top-down? I mean is the basic elements of reality is conscious or otherwise.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am

I am happy with these definitions. Are you suggesting that free will also is emergent?

Not 'free' but 'freedom' is an emergent concept.

Let take a primitive person in the middle of yet to be explored thick jungle.
He can do and go wherever he likes within his physical and environmental limits.
In this case the primitive person just act in accordance to his impulse, to him there is no consideration of what is emergent or freedom.

It is only when we philosophize when we reflect on the following;
This state of affairs entailed a lot of variables which are emergent, i.e. the person, the land, the forests, all sort of matters, etc.
The primitive person is "free" to do and go wherever he wish to but he is he is obstructed, restricted, impeded, hindered and thus not free within his physical and environmental limits.
The above emergent, consciousness and freedom are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

But what you are trying to propose is absolute freedom & consciousness which are non-existent.

Let me make it simple for you. Can you stop a chain of causality or not?

As I had stated it is most realistic and effective to adopt the top-down approach to understand "emergent" where we start from what-is-GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness.

There is no need to consider whether to stop a chain of causality or not.

What is most practical and realistic is to work downward [justified empirically and philosophically] reducibly to the deepest point of
1. what is known,
2. knowable and
3. of possible experience.

Then we take Wittgenstein's advice,

• “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”,

i.e. literally shut up and do not insist there is something further than whereof one cannot speak.

One may think and speculate further, but one must always qualify and be mindful of what is speculated and understand that is only a speculation.
It would be delusional to insist without evidence and proof there is a real basis element of reality, e.g. consciousness, etc.

Why the majority will naturally jump to something ultimate of reality [God, consciousness, and the likes] is due to an inherent psychological impulse to soothe the terrible inherent existential dissonance of being in suspense.
You should research into this alternative point within your own psyche.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 6:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:41 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:49 am
Emergent is a top down concept, i.e. we start from what is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness then work downward reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus the use of critical philosophy.

As such what is matter, consciousness, all-there-is-of-reality is an emergent [that which has arisen] that is GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness reducibly to the point of what is known, knowable and of possible experience plus within the domain of critical philosophy.

In the above case, you assumed there is a source of consciousness even when you have not proven what it is or whether your consciousness as you defined it exists or not.

I can buy that the way to study the emergence is top-down. What do you find when you look top-down? I mean is the basic elements of reality is conscious or otherwise.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:36 am
Not 'free' but 'freedom' is an emergent concept.

Let take a primitive person in the middle of yet to be explored thick jungle.
He can do and go wherever he likes within his physical and environmental limits.
In this case the primitive person just act in accordance to his impulse, to him there is no consideration of what is emergent or freedom.

It is only when we philosophize when we reflect on the following;
This state of affairs entailed a lot of variables which are emergent, i.e. the person, the land, the forests, all sort of matters, etc.
The primitive person is "free" to do and go wherever he wish to but he is he is obstructed, restricted, impeded, hindered and thus not free within his physical and environmental limits.
The above emergent, consciousness and freedom are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.

But what you are trying to propose is absolute freedom & consciousness which are non-existent.

Let me make it simple for you. Can you stop a chain of causality or not?

As I had stated it is most realistic and effective to adopt the top-down approach to understand "emergent" where we start from what-is-GIVEN to be experienced in consciousness.

There is no need to consider whether to stop a chain of causality or not.

What is most practical and realistic is to work downward [justified empirically and philosophically] reducibly to the deepest point of
1. what is known,
2. knowable and
3. of possible experience.

Then we take Wittgenstein's advice,

• “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”,

i.e. literally shut up and do not insist there is something further than whereof one cannot speak.

One may think and speculate further, but one must always qualify and be mindful of what is speculated and understand that is only a speculation.
It would be delusional to insist without evidence and proof there is a real basis element of reality, e.g. consciousness, etc.

Why the majority will naturally jump to something ultimate of reality [God, consciousness, and the likes] is due to an inherent psychological impulse to soothe the terrible inherent existential dissonance of being in suspense.
You should research into this alternative point within your own psyche.

From top to down perspective we know that body is conscious on the top level. We also know that matter is not conscious in the small sacle. So there is a discrepancy. Where the consciousness comes from if the matter on the small scale is not conscious.

Moreover, it is important to know whether you can break a chain of causality or not. Yes, or no?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:54 pm From top to down perspective we know that body is conscious on the top level. We also know that matter is not conscious in the small scale. So there is a discrepancy.
Where the consciousness comes from if the matter on the small scale is not conscious.

I agree as with the purpose of philosophy we should always ask questions of reality,
but the critical point is there a critical need to be so bothered about the point,
where did consciousness comes from if the matter we are made of is not conscious.

While we must always ask questions of reality, we cannot simply jump to hasty conclusions because there are no justified reasons.

As I had stated,

• What is most practical and realistic is to work downward [justified empirically and philosophically] reducibly to the deepest point of
  1. what is known,
  2. knowable and
  3. of possible experience.
  
  Then we take Wittgenstein's advice,
  “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”,
  i.e. literally shut up and do not insist there is something further than whereof one cannot speak.

You on the other hand is jumping to conclusion based on very crude pseudo reasoning, i.e. because we are conscious, therefore there must be a source of consciousness.
Therefrom you cannot justify your conclusion empirically and philosophically.

Philosophers of the past, and modern has realized the above delusional tendency. Here is where Kant critiqued Plato hastiness [read it carefully];

Kant in CRP wrote:It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding [intellect], and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space [la la land] of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be,
and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.

All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.

I have stated, why you and gang are so hasty in jumping to conclusion is due to a psychological drive to eliminate the existential dissonance.
I suggest you try to research and understand this point which is happening within your psyche.

Moreover, it is important to know whether you can break a chain of causality or not. Yes, or no?

I am not sure of your question.
You'll need to elaborate with more details.

I believe in 'causality' which is conditioned upon the human conditions and there is no ultimate cause that can be known experientially.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:54 pm From top to down perspective we know that body is conscious on the top level. We also know that matter is not conscious in the small sacle. So there is a discrepancy. Where the consciousness comes from if the matter on the small scale is not conscious.

Properties are a factor of substances and the dynamic relations of substances. Each difference there has different properties. So there should be no surprise that there would be different properties when we're talking about brains, say, as opposed to water droplets.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:35 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:54 pm From top to down perspective we know that body is conscious on the top level. We also know that matter is not conscious in the small scale. So there is a discrepancy.
Where the consciousness comes from if the matter on the small scale is not conscious.

I agree as with the purpose of philosophy we should always ask questions of reality,
but the critical point is there a critical need to be so bothered about the point,
where did consciousness comes from if the matter we are made of is not conscious.

Yes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:35 am While we must always ask questions of reality, we cannot simply jump to hasty conclusions because there are no justified reasons.

As I had stated,

• What is most practical and realistic is to work downward [justified empirically and philosophically] reducibly to the deepest point of
  1. what is known,
  2. knowable and
  3. of possible experience.
  
  Then we take Wittgenstein's advice,
  “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”,
  i.e. literally shut up and do not insist there is something further than whereof one cannot speak.

I simply disagree with him and you. One should always investigate any situation. What is the point of being intellectual otherwise?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:35 am You on the other hand is jumping to conclusion based on very crude pseudo reasoning, i.e. because we are conscious, therefore there must be a source of consciousness.

Your system of belief is incoherent because it cannot answer many things one of them being the hard problem of consciousness. The reality is that there is no problem in here once you change your system of belief. You are left on the field once you kill the opponent thought. There are other problems like Libet result of free will.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:35 am Therefrom you cannot justify your conclusion empirically and philosophically.

Empirically? I experience mind once. Philosophically I have arguments in favor of my ideas.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:35 am Philosophers of the past, and modern has realized the above delusional tendency. Here is where Kant critiqued Plato hastiness [read it carefully];

Kant in CRP wrote:It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding [intellect], and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space [la la land] of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be,
and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.

All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.

I have stated, why you and gang are so hasty in jumping to conclusion is due to a psychological drive to eliminate the existential dissonance.
I suggest you try to research and understand this point which is happening within your psyche.

I have many mental states that you are not aware of it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:35 am

Moreover, it is important to know whether you can break a chain of causality or not. Yes, or no?

I am not sure of your question.
You'll need to elaborate with more details.

I believe in 'causality' which is conditioned upon the human conditions and there is no ultimate cause that can be known experientially.

Think of the situation when you are following a chain of causality, chain of thoughts for example. Couldn't you stop thinking whenever you wish?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:54 pm From top to down perspective we know that body is conscious on the top level. We also know that matter is not conscious in the small sacle. So there is a discrepancy. Where the consciousness comes from if the matter on the small scale is not conscious.

Properties are a factor of substances and the dynamic relations of substances. Each difference there has different properties. So there should be no surprise that there would be different properties when we're talking about brains, say, as opposed to water droplets.

Each particle has a set of properties some be variable and others have constant. This is an approximation of reality but it excludes the existence of consciousness, according to materialist lead is not conscious but the brain is. So the question is that where the consciousness could come from if particles are not conscious intrinsically.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:59 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:54 pm From top to down perspective we know that body is conscious on the top level. We also know that matter is not conscious in the small sacle. So there is a discrepancy. Where the consciousness comes from if the matter on the small scale is not conscious.

Properties are a factor of substances and the dynamic relations of substances. Each difference there has different properties. So there should be no surprise that there would be different properties when we're talking about brains, say, as opposed to water droplets.

Each particle has a set of properties some be variable and others have constant. This is an approximation of reality but it excludes the existence of consciousness, according to materialist lead is not conscious but the brain is. So the question is that where the consciousness could come from if particles are not conscious intrinsically.

Lead is made of different materials, in different dynamic relations, than brains are.

Every difference of substance, every different in relations, every different in processes, amounts to different properties. Brains obviously have different properties than lead does. One set of those properties amounts to consciousness/mentality.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:59 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:41 pm

Properties are a factor of substances and the dynamic relations of substances. Each difference there has different properties. So there should be no surprise that there would be different properties when we're talking about brains, say, as opposed to water droplets.

Each particle has a set of properties some be variable and others are constant. This is an approximation of reality but it excludes the existence of consciousness, according to materialist lead is not conscious but the brain is. So the question is that where the consciousness could come from if particles are not conscious intrinsically.

Lead is made of different materials, in different dynamic relations, than brains are.

Every difference of substance, every different in relations, every different in processes, amounts to different properties. Brains obviously have different properties than lead does. One set of those properties amounts to consciousness/mentality.

Does each atom of the brain have conscious property?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:59 pm
Each particle has a set of properties some be variable and others are constant. This is an approximation of reality but it excludes the existence of consciousness, according to materialist lead is not conscious but the brain is. So the question is that where the consciousness could come from if particles are not conscious intrinsically.

Lead is made of different materials, in different dynamic relations, than brains are.

Every difference of substance, every different in relations, every different in processes, amounts to different properties. Brains obviously have different properties than lead does. One set of those properties amounts to consciousness/mentality.

Does each atom of the brain have conscious property?

No. Again, properties obtain via (a) substances (b) relations and (c) processes. The properties of brains are properties of ALL of the substances, relations and processes that are occurring at a particular time, and the mental properties would be properties of ALL of the substances, relations and processes relevant to that mental state obtaining. A subset of the substances, relations and processes wouldn't have the same properties. Every difference in substance, relations and processes has different properties.