Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:27 am Your proof may or may not be correct, but from what I know, the premise is correct.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 2:11 pm which mind?

-Imp

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 3:27 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:27 am Your proof may or may not be correct, but from what I know, the premise is correct.

Well, so you don't have any objection to my proof!?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:42 pm In here, I provide proof for the existence of the mind. The mind however has to be omnipresent in space-time. Here is the proof: 1) The mind has to be omnipresent in space: Change/process occurs in every place. Consider two places, A and B where a change happens in A first and then in B. Let's assume that there is no mind in B first. This means that the mind itself is subject to change. This leads to regress since another mind is needed to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space. 2) The mind is omnipresent in time: Let's assume two points in time T1 and T2 where the mind exists in former time but not later. This means that there is a change in the mind. This leads to regress since another mind is required to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable therefore the mind is omnipresent in time. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space-time.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 4:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 3:27 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:27 am Your proof may or may not be correct, but from what I know, the premise is correct.

Well, so you don't have any objection to my proof!?

I'd say that omnipresence is an inference. The inference is verified via mind being accessed. This is done via thought, emotion, memory, and sensory impressions. When that is not done with a particular portal, then mind is not accessed by that portal, therefore mind is not omnipresent to that portal, mind is available but not accessible. However, we can infer that somewhere a portal to mind is operative and accessing mind, thus implying omnipresence of mind.

I didn't look at your proof because it's probably over my head. I looked at the thread title and the conclusion.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 4:53 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:42 pm In here, I provide proof for the existence of the mind. The mind however has to be omnipresent in space-time. Here is the proof: 1) The mind has to be omnipresent in space: Change/process occurs in every place. Consider two places, A and B where a change happens in A first and then in B. Let's assume that there is no mind in B first. This means that the mind itself is subject to change. This leads to regress since another mind is needed to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space. 2) The mind is omnipresent in time: Let's assume two points in time T1 and T2 where the mind exists in former time but not later. This means that there is a change in the mind. This leads to regress since another mind is required to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable therefore the mind is omnipresent in time. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space-time.

The Mind: You wrote that “reality explains itself. It is indeed almighty and we need not presume something "more" almighty outside of it is responsible for its existence.”
Me: Yes – I remember that.
The Mind: The wheel of time.
You also wrote “The bits I have read haven't dissuaded me from being curious about such an entity as YHWH - and I admit I did go through a stage of thinking he was Satan - which I think is acceptable given the scribed association...but I got over that through the assistance of a hypnogogic experience which brought that being to my bedside...
Not to digress any more than necessary, I can see why YHWH left it up to humans to tell their stories re their interactions with said entity...so the stories would be different and it is obvious that YHWH works with whoever makes themselves available and this would have to involve working within the boundaries of the individuals belief systems - something which could indeed give a reader the impression of contradiction...”
Me: Yes. I also remember writing that…
The Mind: Occupy "The Trinity of Love" - three things operating as One Thing
Me: You refer to Matthew 22:40.
The Mind: Went To The Devil YouTube Video "AI robot terrifies officials, explains our illusion..."

The Mind: The Agenda of YHVH
“The Mind is omnipresent in space-time.”

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:42 pm In here, I provide proof for the existence of the mind. The mind however has to be omnipresent in space-time. Here is the proof: 1) The mind has to be omnipresent in space: Change/process occurs in every place. Consider two places, A and B where a change happens in A first and then in B. Let's assume that there is no mind in B first. This means that the mind itself is subject to change. This leads to regress since another mind is needed to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space. 2) The mind is omnipresent in time: Let's assume two points in time T1 and T2 where the mind exists in former time but not later. This means that there is a change in the mind. This leads to regress since another mind is required to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable therefore the mind is omnipresent in time. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space-time.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:44 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:42 pm In here, I provide proof for the existence of the mind. The mind however has to be omnipresent in space-time. Here is the proof: 1) The mind has to be omnipresent in space: Change/process occurs in every place. Consider two places, A and B where a change happens in A first and then in B. Let's assume that there is no mind in B first. This means that the mind itself is subject to change. This leads to regress since another mind is needed to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space. 2) The mind is omnipresent in time: Let's assume two points in time T1 and T2 where the mind exists in former time but not later. This means that there is a change in the mind. This leads to regress since another mind is required to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable therefore the mind is omnipresent in time. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space-time.

You do not get to prove a point with you first premise contining the thing you are trying to prove.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:48 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:44 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 4:42 pm In here, I provide proof for the existence of the mind. The mind however has to be omnipresent in space-time. Here is the proof: 1) The mind has to be omnipresent in space: Change/process occurs in every place. Consider two places, A and B where a change happens in A first and then in B. Let's assume that there is no mind in B first. This means that the mind itself is subject to change. This leads to regress since another mind is needed to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space. 2) The mind is omnipresent in time: Let's assume two points in time T1 and T2 where the mind exists in former time but not later. This means that there is a change in the mind. This leads to regress since another mind is required to cause the former. The regress is not acceptable therefore the mind is omnipresent in time. Therefore, the mind is omnipresent in space-time.

You do not get to prove a point with you first premise contining the thing you are trying to prove.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say, apart from the typos.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 3:05 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:48 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:44 pm

You do not get to prove a point with you first premise contining the thing you are trying to prove.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say, apart from the typos.

You do not get to prove a point with your first premise containing the thing you are trying to prove.
Your "proof" assumes the existence of the thing you are trying to prove.
The conclusion is contained in the premises.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 3:09 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 3:05 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:48 pm
I cannot understand what you are trying to say, apart from the typos.

You do not get to prove a point with your first premise containing the thing you are trying to prove.
Your "proof" assumes the existence of the thing you are trying to prove.
The conclusion is contained in the premises.

What do you mean by the first premise? The premise about the mind exists and causes change?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 3:09 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 3:05 pm
You do not get to prove a point with your first premise containing the thing you are trying to prove.
Your "proof" assumes the existence of the thing you are trying to prove.
The conclusion is contained in the premises.

What do you mean by the first premise? The premise about the mind exists and causes change?

If you do not know what a premise you can hardly expect to know how to present a proof.