I have been enjoying the philosophical exercise of our on-going give & take dialog. — Gnomon

I get great value from my dialoguing with you. I look forward to its continuance.

Do you acknowledge embracing the realist doctrine abstract concepts have an objective experience inhabiting its own reality? — ucarr

No. — Gnomon

Energy + Matter transforms on level Two into the dynamic organic systems we call Life... And eventually, that same Potential power-to-enform evolves into the immaterial non-dimensional thinking stuff (res cogitans) that we experience as Mind — Gnomon

If this quote directly above is what you believe -- and not just your paraphrasing of Information Philosopher -- please explain how it is consistent with your answer to my opening question.

Are you claiming top-down causation from Enformation to matter_mass_energy? — ucarr

Yes. But by means of natural laws, not divine intervention. — Gnomon

We can agree with Deacon that ideas and information are immaterial, neither matter nor energy, but they need matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. And when they are embodied, they are obviously present (to my mind) — Gnomon

So, from your above quotes: a) you believe there is top-down causation from enformation -- ( meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter. -- to mind and then to body; b) you think the connection natural, not supernatural; c) you believe enformation, mind and matter form one interwoven continuum. Please explain how -- given your endorsement of this seamless continuum from enformation to mind to matter -- the first two links in the chain -- both immaterial -- connect with material brain?

Energy + Matter transforms on level Two into the dynamic organic systems we call Life... And eventually, that same Potential power-to-enform evolves into the immaterial non-dimensional thinking stuff (res cogitans) that we experience as Mind — Gnomon

You seem to be utilizing some of Deacon's absentialist materialism in the bottom-up causal chain articulated above. However, going either way, there's no explanation how immaterial connects with material.

I understand Deacon to be articulating a thesis that explains how all dynamical processes through all of their higher-orders remain within the domain of the material systemically. This approach addresses the mind/body problem by establishing a continuum that excludes problematical dualism.

With your articulations of causation -- in both directions -- you appear to do what Deacon indicts in the early part of Incomplete Nature: sneaking into the system an unannounced homunculus who -- without explanation -- brings about a material/immaterial interface.

The entirety of our universe may very well be explained by several first causes over time culminating in today. — Philosophim

So, the universe is still growing?

A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. — Philosophim

So, a first cause may not trigger a causal chain? Should it instead be called a birth? You imply it's logically possible for the universe to continue growing for a period of time so far unspecified?

I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. — Philosophim

But once its incepted, it is what it is, which is possibly limited. — Philosophim

Do you agree you imply a first cause is the means of its own inception? If you agree with this, do you acknowledge you also imply anything is possible? Do you acknowledge all possible inceptions implies contradictory inceptions can coexist, and thus the universe allows existence of paradoxes?

...it is that identities are imposed limitations — Philosophim

I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. But once its incepted, it is what it is, which is possibly limited. — Philosophim

These two claims, taken to together, suggest first causes, if self-actualized, impose identities upon themselves. Do you agree this implies the universe comes into being as self-will unlimited?

Do you agree that if the means of an unprecedented inception is separate from the thing incepted, then the latter is not a first cause? Do you agree that, moreover, in this situation, the means of an unprecedented inception is an immaterial and all-powerful will to create, i.e., a deity?

I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. — Philosophim

...we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo. — Philosophim

How do you explain the above two quotes as non-contradictory?

How do you explain the last of the two above quotes as being a negation of the central tenet of your thesis: There is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. Specifically, how do you explain the coming into being of a first cause if not ex nihilo?

"That is really similar to a hydrogen atom and it creates other existences besides itself". Sure. But its not a hydrogen atom as we currently define it, because hydrogen atoms cannot do that. — Philosophim

Explain how the above is not weakened by the existence of water, as well as the other organic compounds containing hydrogen?

...because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there... — Philosophim

Do you agree the above is evidence you think first causes self-caused?

...While anything could have been possible, (and would still be as a first cause could happen at any time)... — Philosophim

Do you agree the above is evidence you think the universe allows paradoxes? Do you agree, moreover, that a universe continually growing with new first causes can eventually become filled with paradoxes?

a first cause must act causally — Philosophim

Do you agree the above contradicts:

A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. — Philosophim

Do you agree that:

...because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there... — Philosophim

And

I think there's a difference between saying, "There's a reason for everything" and then spelling out what that reason is or how it must unfold. — Philosophim

do not connect because the former does not spell out what the reason is or how first causes unfold? Do you see that, instead, it's presented as a axiom from which your thesis proceeds. As such, it says in effect, eventually everything will be everything because things, like hydrogen, simply are. Do you see that this -- the core of your thesis -- precludes scientific investigation?

I do not believe in self-evident truth. Truth is what is. — Philosophim

Do you see that in the above quote, immediately following your claim to dis-believe self-evident truths, you support this claim with a self-evident truth: "truth is what it is"?

I believe some of the things about first causes are beyond experimentation or observation — Philosophim

Do you see that you, like scientists, sometimes take recourse to things beyond science in order to begin doing science (or philosophy). Science and philosophy are systemically dependent upon axioms.

Do you accept that some major implications of your thesis include:

a) the universe allows paradoxes; b) the conservation law re: matter-mass-energy, instead of actually being a law, is merely a plank within a working hypothesis still liable to refutation; c) the universe, because it continues to incept new matter-mass-energy into itself, exists as an open system.

To argue that our consciousness is highly emergent you must show that the features of our consciousness are supervenient over the underlying complex structure of neurons. This would mean that any damage to the brain has consequences for consciousness. — Ypan1944

Do you accept selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors -- SSRIs -- an established medication treatment for major depressive disorder -- as an example of the deep interweave of mind and brain via supervenience? SSRIs can greatly relieve long-term depression, a state of consciousness embedded in the empirical experience of some individuals. They achieve their effect by increasing the volume of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that carries signals between neurons.

A first cause is the inception of a causality chain. — Philosophim

Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes, each first cause is a discrete causality chain, and therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time, and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong.

What is the metaphysics of materialism? — ucarr

Any generalization of principles (all things are . . . .) from less than comprehensive experience is considered a metaphysical concept, not a physical or empirical fact*1. Also, portraying some principle as universal, implies either a First Cause or Eternal Being. — Gnomon

Do you accept that each discipline of study has a database governed by principles organized logically, and that that logical organization of principles is its grammar? I'm asking if you accept "grammar" as a synonym for "metaphysics."

Do you acknowledge embracing the realist doctrine abstract concepts have an objective experience inhabiting its own reality?

Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter? — ucarr

No. I have repeatedly denied that unwarranted implication. However, I do assert that Matter is not the primary cause of all phenomena in the world. My thesis goes into great detail to support the idea that Causal Information is prior to both physical Energy and malleable Matter. — Gnomon

Is Causal Information a label for metaphysics as a whole, or is it a subdivision of general metaphysics?

Enformationism resolves the [mind/body] problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter. — Gnomon

Are you claiming top-down causation from Enformation to matter_mass_energy?

Your mundane examples may be "substantial"*6 enough for scientific endeavors, but lack the essential "qualities" or general principles necessary for philosophical purposes. — Gnomon

You're saying you don't see connections between my examples and philosophically engaging metaphysical principles?

Conversely, the brain is also damage tolerant and in some cases is able to rewire itself to compensate for damage. So perhaps there is both supervenience and some form of strong emergence? — Pantagruel

Yes.

...if you consider the brain as a physically complex system, with "consciousness" as a (weak) emergent phenomenon, then there is nothing to worry about. — Ypan1944

Do you think your description of weak emergence the closest fit for: a) sentience; b) reason as mental emergences from the brain? If so, why?

I ask this question because I think strong emergence the closet fit for: a) sentience; b) reason as mental emergences from the brain. I think this because: a) the human brain is the most networked system imaginable; b) the supervenience of sentience and reason is so strong that minor changes in brain tissue can radically alter practice of sentience and reason.

You seem to interpret his Absentialism as-if it remains safely within the orthodox metaphysics of Materialism — Gnomon

What is the metaphysics of materialism?

The main reason I & others have had difficulty understanding your Absential Materialism worldview, is that it seems to be a vain attempt to squeeze a metaphysical philosophical concept into a physical scientific box, and to describe intangibles in materialistic language. — Gnomon

Never mind my absential materialism label. Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter?

...he was often forced by his own reasoning to include unscientific concepts, such as end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution... to convey his metaphysical interpretations of "hidden connections" that exist right in front of us. — Gnomon

Please elaborate your refutation of his unscientific concepts of end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution. Also, please check out this conversation re: its pertinence to teleodynamics:

Emergency

Ideas do not exist in the same sense as Real things, and can't be adequately described in materialistic language --- although some may try. That's why your real world examples (post above) of your own neologisms seemed superficial to me, and missed the philosophical essence of the concept. — Gnomon

Here's another notable difference between us. Whereas you see my examples of ententional properties as being superficial due to a lack of philosophical essence, I see them as being substantial due to their mundanity. Understandings of the highest value tend to seep into the lexicon of the general public because of their ready application to the familiar things of the everyday world. Most people have some notion of relativity without deep immersion into either science or philosophy.

This is a useful assessment of both the phyics/metaphysics dialogue and Deacon's role within it.

Deacon didn't include a glossary of his ad hoc new-words in the book, but a few others have posted their own Deactionaries on the net to supplement their own interpretations of his unconventional meanings* — Gnomon

In my edition of Incomplete Nature Deacon's glossary does include his neologisms. I don't know if the list is complete, but he does define those he uses in the book.

You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. — ucarr

Why do you say above statement is not knowledge of the identity of the first cause? I ask this question because you identify first cause as what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation.

How is claiming first cause is what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation different from claiming God is what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation?

...my point is that such an existence wouldn't be a hydrogen atom as we define it today. Whatever it is could exist, and to an untrained eye it might look like a hydrogen atom, but it cannot have the same exact composition as a hydrogen atom, or it would not have the special qualities you note. — Philosophim

If first cause proceeds without limitation, why do you imply that first cause, acting to cause hydrogen atom, must follow limits that humans use to make sense of the world? If first cause proceeds without limitation, then why cannot it incept a hydrogen atom that is not a hydrogen atom? You imply that first cause must act logically. Why do you not think that's a limitation upon the actions of first cause? Why do you not think implying first cause must act rationally is not a case of you projecting your logical thinking onto first cause?

Anything that does not exist as a hydrogen atom, is not a hydrogen atom. Once the existence is in reality, its rules are set. — Philosophim

Why do you think first cause, acting without limitations, must conform to humanoid logical thinking in causing a hydrogen atom to enter causality delineated as a stable and specific entity?

...if an object can incept other things, it must do so within the limitation of what it is. — Philosophim

Why do you not think the above quote is a contradiction of earlier saying:

Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. — Philosophim

Even if you're not talking about cosmic first cause and instead are talking about one of the subsequent first causes, why must cosmic cause acting without limitation incept a subsequent causality that resembles human logical thinking. Being without limitation, it might do so, so why do you say it must do so?

Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)? — ucarr

Sorry Ucarr, I did not understand the question. I'm not sure what statements I've made that you're referencing here. — Philosophim

The following is my paraphrase of something you said earlier: A cause that's the first of all first causes doesn't prohibit subsequent non-cosmic first causes for other things.

If this is so, then our universe can be filled with a vast number of non-cosmic first causes. This is similar to saying, "there's a reason for everything that happens." This is a trivial truth agreed upon by the multitudes. "Everything is everything (for a reason)." Below is another one of your statements about the universe being stocked with myriad first causes.

It does not need to be eternal. A first cause has the potential of happening five seconds from now. A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal. — Philosophim

Why do you not think a universe filled with first causes is a conception of the universe that explodes the following conservation law: matter_mass_energy are neither created nor destroyed. If non-cosmic first causes can pop material objects into the universe from nothing, then the total volume of the mass_matter_energy of the universe is constantly fluctuating instead of remaining constant through conservation. If you say incept of every new first cause disappears an earlier, established first cause, the problem is solved. However, this is very close to merely repeating the conservation laws for matter_mass_energy.

A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal. — Philosophim

Does this hold true for the cosmic first cause, with cosmic first cause = the first of the first causes?

How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation? — ucarr

I think this question is too broad and you'll need to focus on something specific. What are you referencing in particular that you believe is outside of explanation? — Philosophim

I'm referencing axioms.

I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. — Philosophim

Some characterize axioms as self-evident truths. This characterization is a preface to saying the assumption upon which we're building our working premise lies beyond the reach of experimentation, observation, collection of data, compiling of data statistics, analysis of data and building logical arguments supported by data. In short, it's saying our science follows from the axiom, but cannot penetrate into it.

A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think rain pre-exists a saturated cloud that starts releasing droplets of water?

there is no limitation upon what can be incepted — Philosophim

You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity? — ucarr

No, I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been. — Philosophim

You say, Establishment happens by first cause of the starting point of creation. You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. How does what you say differ from what is said by the rabbi, the priest or the minister?

You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr

01) No, because then its not a hydrogen atom anymore. A hydrogen atom has a clear definition and limitation of what it can be. — Philosophim

02) I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been. — Philosophim

Given the part of your quote underlined above, why cannot a first cause incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself?

Why is your 02) quote not a contradiction of your 01) quote immediately above?

03) If a hydrogen atom incepts as a first cause, its still a hydrogen atom because that's what it is. — Philosophim

Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom has its own unique definition, then all that is not defined as a hydrogen atom is other?

Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom as first cause is utterly alone, and yet nonetheless can cause things not a hydrogen atom to exist, as its definition of first cause requires, then its ability to cause subsequent inception of all things without limitation is indistinguishable from the creative power of a supernatural deity?

04) Do you agree that if first cause of a hydrogen atom can only cause subsequent hydrogen atoms, then there is no general first cause of all things, only an infinity of first causes of every individual thing?

It doesn't mean that a first cause hydrogen atom cannot later bump into a first cause helium atom. But this influence is only after the inception of each, and neither can incept the other. — Philosophim

Do you agree that your above quote examples you saying first causes are parallel, meaning they don't interact? I repeat this question because the first time I asked you denied their parallelism.

Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)?

You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause? — ucarr

It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause. — Philosophim

Why do you not think the underlined portion of your above quote implies something that simply is is eternal and thus has no inception? I ask this with the understanding inception implies establishment which, in turn, implies a process which is a cause.

I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. — Philosophim

How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation?

...there is no limitation upon what can be incepted. — Philosophim

You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity?

lets say a hydrogen atom appeared as a first cause. As soon as it exits, it is a hydrogen atom. Its limited by its parts and the rules of itself. — Philosophim

You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself?

the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr

I don't think that's quite it. The network of its continued self existence is bound by its formation. — Philosophim

Your saying inception can incept a first cause that possesses a boundary of selfhood beyond which there is no otherness? Moreover, you're saying the boundary of selfhood is simultaneously not a boundary since there is no otherness?

After a first cause exists, it enters into causality with everything it can interact with. — Philosophim

I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. — Philosophim

With the above two quotes you're saying each family of causation runs parallel with all other families of causation? Moreover, you're saying there's no general causation that applies to all causal sequences?

I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying pre-existing causal chains suggesting general causality predating a new first cause have no pertinence to a new first cause? Moreover, you're saying each new first cause requires a new study of causation starting from scratch?

You're saying a first cause can enter into causality in spite of it having no cause?

You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause?

...something prior could exist, but if none of what exists causes a new existence, that new existence is a first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying a new causeless existence, post-dating prior existences with causes, nonetheless has no interaction with general causation? Moreover, you're saying each new causeless existence initiates a new family of causation unlike any pre-existing causation?

I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. — Philosophim

A first cause is when there is a point in which there is no prior cause. It is irrelevant whether we measure it or realize it. And, as the argument shows, its logically necessary that there eventually be at least one. — Philosophim

You're saying the number line has an end?

I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying being able to intersect doesn't imply merging causal chains share a common first cause?

A first cause cannot pass through time. — Philosophim

You're saying first causation is a phenomenon that transpires with time interval equal to zero?

...there is no prior cause which would prevent a first cause from appearing that does not follow conservation laws. — Philosophim

You're saying first causation is free to violate the conservation laws?

You're saying first causation is axiomatic and thus beyond the domains of science, logic and reason?

There must be something prior to the first "cause..." — Metaphysician Undercover

Please articulate an argument supporting this premise.

Because there is no prior cause for a first cause, there is no limitation on what a first cause could be. — Philosophim

Regarding no limitation, what about the selfhood of the first cause? If selfhood establishes a boundary between self and other, and the first cause is a self, then: a) it's limited by the boundaries of its selfhood; b) the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self.

The key to being a first cause is that it is not caused by something prior. — Philosophim

That does not mean that other things prior to a first cause cannot exist like other first causes. — Philosophim

The photon did not cause the big bang; they are both first causes of their respective causality chains. — Philosophim

You're saying a particular first cause can have a non-causal relationship with other things prior to it?

Moreover, you're saying the attribute of first cause generally allows for a multiplicity of independent first causes temporally sequenced across a positive interval of time?

Does this not imply that a particular first cause has a bounded domain of first causal influence upon a sub-set of the totality of existing things?

For example, a photon appears with no prior causality here. Five minutes later and thousands of miles away, a big bang appears uncaused as well. The photon did not cause the big bang; they are both first causes of their respective causality chains. — Philosophim

Your above quote answers my question directly above it in the affirmative.

Is this not a description of everyday causes such as: a) a virus causes pneumonia; b) a cloud saturated with water causes rain?

Why is it not the case your argument now is merely a description of causation in the everyday world replete with many causes not casually linked to each other? You advance your argument by lopping off "first" and thereby turning first cause into everyday cause.

Am I mistaken in my understanding of your purpose as being an examination of the first cause of all existing things, including existence itself?

...a) no existing thing exists in isolation; b) every existing thing is a roadmap to other existing things (i.e. quantum entanglement); c) an existing thing, if divisible, cannot pre-exist that thing's sub-components necessary to its existence. — ucarr

I don't believe so if my point has been clarified.

a. No existing thing exists in isolation

To clarify, there's a reason I call it a first cause. Because immediately after its existence it enters into causality. Meaning one time tick after, its has its own reference at a prior time tick to explain why it state of existence is as it is at the second tick of time. Further, there is nothing that forbids one thing existing in isolation in theory. Nothing I'm noting is negating the universe as it is today, and we clearly have a lot of things. :) — Philosophim

If first cause passes through time from its first tick to its second tick, time is co-equal with it.

Further, there is nothing that forbids one thing existing in isolation in theory. — Philosophim

I'm inclined to think the conservation laws forbid the total isolation of a thing. A truly isolated thing means all of mass_energy, being a singularity, negates equilibrium. If our universe defaults toward equilibrium, as the conservation laws confirm, then absolute singularity is an infinite value never reached.

b) every existing thing is a roadmap to other existing things (i.e. quantum entanglement)

Once a first cause exists, it is within causality within its own temporal changes, or if there are other resulting chains of causal existence from other first causes. — Philosophim

Is self-causation is meaningful, its an attribute shared by all existing things.

c) an existing thing, if divisible, cannot pre-exist that thing's sub-components necessary to its existence. True. Though as you mentioned earlier, " when you categorize the variety of existing things as being unified as one collective thing: a) atom; b) universe, they're all equal (by your own argument above) with respect to temporal primacy of existence." — Philosophim

That takes us back to saying all of existence is its own first cause which is like saying "everything is everything," trivial.

The first cause is only in the first time tick. — Philosophim

From this I conclude you're grounding the primacy of first cause within temporal sequence. So, the first cause is first in time before all other things existing in time.

The universe cannot always have existed co-temporally as a first cause. The first cause is only in the first time tick. — Philosophim

Let's revisit something you said earlier:

Lets imagine that we first spy a hydrogen atom that forms with apparently no prior cause. Any time tick before this, the atom is not there. — Philosophim

Sidebar 1 - Notice I've made "forms" bold. If there's a "forms" before the first time tick of existence of the hydrogen atom, then this preceding "forms" (i.e. physical processes) exists before the first time tick of the hydrogen atom.

Sidebar 2 - Notice I've made "there" bold. If there's a "there" before the first time tick of existence of the hydrogen atom, then this preceding "there" (i.e. spacetime) exists before the first time tick of the hydrogen atom.

Main focus:

Once it is there, we know an atom is composed of particular parts. Lets pretend, for simplicities sake, that protons, neutrons, and electrons are fundamental particles. We say, "What causes this atom to exist?" We note the protons, neutrons, and electrons in a particular order. But this is not a prior cause, just the inner causal make up of the atom in general. — Philosophim

If you can posit theoretically the popping into existence of an atom as first cause, why cannot you posit theoretically the popping into existence of a universe as first cause?

In either case, when you categorize the variety of existing things as being unified as one collective thing: a) atom; b) universe, they're all equal (by your own argument above) with respect to temporal primacy of existence.

If there's no reason to partition atom and universe with respect to which collective can be first cause temporally, then first cause in terms of temporal sequencing is meaningless. In other words, existence in general, being first cause, makes the notion of a first cause in terms of temporal sequencing meaningless. Everything that can and does exist popped into existence at the same time.

If, on the other hand, you posit an innate temporal sequence of existing things, with some things not existing in any conceivable way prior to a specific point in one-directional time, then you must ask yourself if positing any first existing thing generates an infinite regress of prior existing things because: a) no existing thing exists in isolation; b) every existing thing is a roadmap to other existing things (i.e. quantum entanglement); c) an existing thing, if divisible, cannot pre-exist that thing's sub-components necessary to its existence. In sum, all of this draws a circle back to saying temporal primacy of existence is meaningless.

"What causes this atom to exist?" We note the protons, neutrons, and electrons in a particular order. But this is not a prior cause, just the inner causal make up of the atom in general. — Philosophim

This is a common sense answer. Let's consider details. A proton is not an atom. Likewise, a neutron is not an atom and, etc. Also, we know that elementary particles combine, split apart into other particles, change orbital shells and, etc. Furthermore, we know atoms combine to form compounds and they combine to form radicals and, etc. All of these phenomena are differentiable. Pretty soon, you've got the entire phenomenal universe as you and I know it today popping into existence as the first cause. But the phenomenal processes I've been describing happen in time. If you remove the time element for an atom, or for a universe, either way the primacy of being first becomes meaningless.

Let's suppose the entire universe is the first cause. If everything has always existed co-temporally, then first cause is meaningless.

Why do you not think the logical necessity of a first cause positions it as an antecedent to the first cause it necessitates?
— ucarr

Could you clarify this with an example? You definitely make good points ucarr, I'm just not quite getting it here. — Philosophim

In this example, logical necessity is, by definition, logically prior to the ontic status of the first cause it necessitates. It is the logical cause of the "first" cause. This is what you're implying with the wording of you OP title: "A First Cause Is Logically Necessary."

You yourself are doing exactly what you say below must not be done:

My point is that there is no way to predict when or how a first cause would form or exist. To say a first cause must form a particular way (e.g. via logical necessity) or is likely to form at a particular time would require a cause outside of itself. — Philosophim

Does any type of priority negate first cause? Is it only temporal priority that negates first cause?

Please give me a functional definition (what it does) and a real-world example (what it is) of the following terminology : a> "end oriented constraints" ; b> "absentially tied" ; c> "Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design" ; d> "blockchain of nested dynamical systems". — Gnomon

An everyday example of an end-oriented constraint comes in the example of a woman who decides she'll eliminate dairy products from her meals. By constraining her eating behavior to exclude dairy products over an extensive interval of time she drops quite a few pounds, the end her constraint was forwardly directed towards. Weight loss is what it does causally. A non-dairy diet is what it is.

Absential binding is exampled by a controlled burn in a forest. During the spring season at a national park, park staffers do a controlled burn to eliminate dead leaves, tree limbs and debris. During the summer season, park visitors enjoy enhanced safety bound to what's absent, dangerous kindling strategically removed. Hazardous materials removal is what it does. Land clearance is what it is.

A physically compelled strategic constraint via design is exampled by encrypted data communications protecting online money transfers. Transmission of currency value signifiers (bits) via open/closed gate sequences astronomical in their possible permutations proceeds to receptors with matching open/closed gate sequences extremely resistant to random duplication (due to improbability). Biasing towards far from equilibrium probability statistics is what it does. Privatized monetary data is what it is.

Blockchaining of nested dynamical systems is exampled by human metabolism. Ingested food is
broken down from starches to sugars. This thermodynamically released energy in turn is aggregated from the cellular level to a morphodynamic distribution across a network of chemical complexes regulating the major organ systems. Next, the neuronal networks of the brain's hemispheres alert the individual to the slaking of hunger in the presence of a surplus of necessary nutritional supplies. Finally, the teleodynamically empowered feedback looping of the brain's memory modules informs the individual of his happy feeling while resting before going to bed. Vertical stacking of higher-orders of Shannon Information is what it does. A successfully prepared supper is what it is.

...a photon can appear without any velocity — Philosophim

Do you dispute that a photon with rest mass entails infinite quantities, and that equations describing practical situations break down upon approach to functions with infinite input/output values?

A first cause may be already in motion.. — Philosophim

Why is it not the case that if a first cause instantiates already in motion, then spacetime, mass_energy, velocity and a host of other physical fundamentals (spin, charge, up/down quarkiness, color, charm, etc.) co-exist with it, thus stripping it of being "first?"

More generally, how can something be first cause if its essential makeup entails differentiable constituent components co-equal in primary status?

Does this thought suggest to you a first cause as abstract concept must be a pure singularity and, as such, exists as a conceptual limit approachable only through mind via imagination?

Why do you not think the logical necessity of a first cause positions it as an antecedent to the first cause it necessitates?

...a first cause would be a Y with no other X entity as its cause for existence. — Philosophim

Why do you not say a first cause is Y & ~Y in superposition? I ask this particular question with the assumption that a first cause must instantiate motion.

If motion is essential to a first cause no less so than to its effects, then said first cause must be self-transcendent. If self-transcendence entails change of position, then first cause must paradoxically encompass itself and the negation of itself in a state of superposition placing the contradictions in two places at once. Superposition is then, by my argument here, the means by which a first cause (presumably a single) effects essential motion.

A question is whether a self-transcendent cause in superposition is paradoxically a first cause and not a first cause due to the bi-directional, paradoxical causation of the two iterations of a single self vis-a-vis itself.

Do you agree that causation is the natural form of shape-shifting within the our phenomenal world of material things?

In that moment, that duplicate, even if qualitatively identical to you, is numerically distinct. Therefore, that someone else gets to live your life is slim comfort in the face of the fact that you will be killed. — hypericin

Yes. It seems to me that duplication entails splitting.

No. Kirk wasn't also split. Kirk was split. Riker was not. Two entirely different scenarios.

Kirk was, indeed, split in two. His yin and yang halves were separated.

Riker was duplicated. — Patterner

Are you sure duplicating doesn't entail splitting?

If you duplicate a man without simultaneously splitting him, in the Newtonian scenario you have identical copies synchronized. Has any human seen this in 3D?

If you duplicate a man without simultaneously splitting him, in the QM scenario you have upwardly energized that man into superposition. In that situation, meeting one or the other duplicate means being in one or the other of two alternate realities. Moreover, these alternate realities, with respect to the duplicates (whatever that is) are indistinguishable. So, when one duplicate is met, the other duplicate collapses, and vice-versa. Now you have branching trajectories of multiple witnesses who are necessarily paradoxically lying about the simultaneous identical yet differential circumstances of meeting one or the other duplicates, both equally and identically yet differentially true.

If you duplicate the man and simultaneously split him, one man being in one place and moving about out of sync with the other man being in another place and also moving about out of sync with the first it's clear they are extremely similar in form and content but not duplicates. As they continue to be in different places having different experiences, even as the same man they, like twins, will continue to grow apart.

Furthermore, the observing mind-brain-body is physically entangled with the object of its observation — ucarr

I say that mind in philosophical thought exists emergent from brain-body. I think this position lies closer to the truth than the position claiming mind in philosophical thought exists independent from brain-body.

That's why I prefer to avoid getting tangled-up in materialistic physics, on a forum designed for discussion of meta-physics. The object of a physical experiment is a material Object, external to the Brain, but the object of mental "observation" is a Subject, internal to the Mind. — Gnomon

Your above quote expresses the crux of our disagreement about the correct approach to practicing philosophy. You say, "Do philosophy by avoiding materialistic physics." I say, "Do philosophy by embracing materialistic physics."

I think you're ensnared within a self-defeating struggle in your efforts to straddle materialistic science and metaphysical philosophy. That's your actual approach to doing philosophy: inhabit the middle position, not avoidance. I cite the following as an example of the most recent evidence of this internal conflict:

The "Hard Problem" of consciousness is only made more complicated by including the entangled neurons in the definition of Mind. Unfortunately, the philosophy of Materialism does not allow us to make such categorical distinctions. — Gnomon

You want to make metaphysical discoveries about abstract thought while skipping over the discoveries of neuroscience? This attitude parallels an automotive engineer saying, "Hey, man. Those mechanics with their heads stuck under a hood can't tell me anything."

inferred Photons — Gnomon

or

infra-red Photons — Gnomon

...the photons, while moving at lightspeed are massless, and electrons are both non-local and massless while "flowing". — Gnomon

I see online that photons are paradoxical with regard to their wave/particle status. Speaking paradoxically, photons are matter without mass. As you know, they don't exist at rest.

Electrons have mass and they're only stationary at wavelength infinity, so under natural conditions electrons are matter with mass.

So, in its (photon) normal invisible & massless state, does it qualify as materially Absent"? — Gnomon

Photons and electrons, being particles, hold place as parts of presential materialism.

The strategic constraints of upwardly evolving dynamical processes, in contrast to photons and electrons, exemplify absential materialism.

The neuronal circuitry of the brain, acting as the platform for the mind, connects with the furture states of being of end-directed design through physically caused contraints on higher-order dynamics. These constraints are contra-grade forces impelling emergence of mind, a dynamical process substrated by but independent from brain.

Let me make a distinction between materially absent and materially absential. The difference is parallel to the difference between 2 - x versus 2i = 0 + 2i. In verbal grammar this is the difference between something simply distanced, as in the first example versus something distanced-yet-complexly-connected, as in the second example. — ucarr

The mind, like an imaginary number, has a distanced-yet-complexly-connected-with-its- base relationship: imaginary number to real number and mind to brain. In both instances, the distanced thing, because it has parameters that violate its substrate, seems therefore necessarily separate from it and thus the perplexing bifurcation of things implicitly connected. Understanding emergence as a phenomenon that imparts category transgression within the domain of inter-dependence between the transgressor and the transgressed lies at the heart of understanding absential materialism.

I'm gradually coming to realize that Materialism is an unprovable metaphysical Axiom (presumption), not an empirical scientific Theory (inference from facts). It's more of an attitude or belief than a fact. So, I guess I can't expect such beliefs to make sense in an objective manner. — Gnomon

So, you think materialism is objectively non-sensical.

Terrence Deacon said "Materialism, the view that there are only material things and their interactions in the world, seems impotent here" {my emphasis}. He also referred to “the antimaterialist claim” that “like meanings & purposes, consciousness may not be something there in any typical sense of being materially or energetically embodied, and yet may still be materially causally relevant” p7.{my bold} — Gnomon

Your concept of Absential Materialism may be related to the notion of “materially relevant”. :smile: — Gnomon

Since we both agree on the material relevance of thought, again I say we're not far apart in our beliefs. I further think thought absentially material whereas you hold fast at thinking thought materially relevant.

I can provisionally agree with the first part of your assertion above : "mental functions are dependent on material things" ; but not with the second part : "because they {mental functions} too are material things, albeit absentially". How can something "absential" be material? Isn't Presence an essential element of the definition of "material" — Gnomon

Consider the modulated EM-field that populates your tv screen with audio-visual phenomena. Does the EM-field have presence within your den? How about when the tv set is off. Does the EM-field still have presence within your den? Now, let's take a step further from the foggy presence of a waveform energy field to the absential presence of an absence strategically constrained by the design intent of a teleodynamic process compelling the strategic absence via its physicality. We have a physical system propagating through physical spacetime towards a desired future state of being.

Deacon's "absence" seems to be a commonsense reference to the philosophical concept of "potential". — Gnomon

potential | pəˈten(t)SH(ə)l |
adjective [attributive]
having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future: a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers. — Apple Dictionary

If my argument above your last quote has truth content, then it applies here also.

Life is a function of Causation in a material substrate. — Gnomon

But those Absential products are not made of Presential matter. So, my question is not about the walnut-shaped Vessel, but about the contents we call Mind : the "Substance" or "Essence" of subjective Ideas, as defined by Aristotle*3. — Gnomon

In a functional relationship, there's an operator that transforms input into output. For sentients with minds generating abstractions, they, no less than the other orders of life, function with the operator as the nested hierarchy of self-organizing dynamical processes articulated by Deacon. Furthermore, the observing mind-brain-body is physically entangled with the object of its observation. Still furthermore, the medium propagating the object/observer relationship is material-physical spacetime. Absential materialism, possessing both properties of waves and of particles, presents itself as a knot of complexity fostering the-glass-is-half-full-half-empty debates.

In what meaningful sense are Abstract Nouns*1, such as Absence, Function, and Causation, referring to material things, and not to ideas about things or processes? Of course, mental abstractions are dependent on a material Brain, but scientifically, their referents have no objective material substance, only subjective meaning. It's the material stuff that is Absent or Absential. — Gnomon

If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality.

This seeming break between mind and body is in reality absential materialism. Below is Deacon's blockchain of nested dynamical systems bi-directionally linked across space and time:

The dynamical reflexivity and constraint closure that characterizes a teleodynamic system, whether constituting intraneuronal processes or the global-signaling dynamics developing within an
entire brain, creates an internal/external self/other distinction that is determined by this dynamical closure. Its locus is ultimately something not materially present—a self-creating system of constraints with the capacity to do work to maintain its dynamical continuity—and yet it provides a precise dynamical boundedness.

The sentience at each level is implicit in the capacity to do self-preservative work, as this constitutes the system’s sensitivity to non-self influences via an intrinsic tendency to generate a self-sustaining contragrade dynamics. This tendency to generate self-preserving work with respect to such influences is a spontaneous defining characteristic of such reciprocity of constraint creation. Closure and autonomy are thus the very essence of sentience. But they are also the reason that higher-order sentient teleogenic systems can be constituted of lower-order teleogenic systems, level upon level, and yet produce level-specific emergent forms of sentience that are both irreducible and unable to be entirely merged into larger conglomerates.2 It is teleogenic closure that produces sentience but also isolates it, creating the fundamental distinction between self and other, whether at a neuronal level or a mental level.

You seem to have been confused between your mind and the objects of your perception. — Corvus

A visual artist walks a country road early morning one day. Through the light, blue-gray fog he sees the dark-spotted, white "blanket" at the center flank of an Appaloosa. It's running circles around the paddock in a frolic with neighing.

Come evening, the artist finishes a charcoal sketch of the morning Appaloosa just as his wife comes into his studio with news of supper being ready. She praises his work by way of commenting upon the vitality of the captured image.

He smiles at her. "I have a sticky mind for pretty pictures, my dear. Especially for horses at daybreak. Something smells good. Roast beef?" He puts his arm around her as they stroll towards the kitchen. Glancing back to the studio, she smiles, looking at her charcoal portrait next to the Appaloosa. "Now that you've got me just right, and the horse just right, maybe we should go down to that ranch and buy that horse."

Hecuba, Hesperia’s mother, stands up from the gathering and the elder dares not deny her the floor.

“Please, grand dam, speak to us.”

“It’s clear to me the looking glass favors no one beyond the person it happens to reflect upon in the moment.” — ucarr

What you see and hear, the content of your perception is not your mind. — Corvus

At the dinner table, between mouthfuls of roast beef slathered with horseradish, he makes an admission to her. "You know, the grain of my charcoal pencil is too coarse. The appaloosa has a much finer coat. But there's no way to change the grain of my pencil, so I had to rough up the appaloosa." She comforts him. "Well now, that's not to worry about. Roughing up the appaloosa makes a pretty visual."

Observer Effect

...your incumbent job is to define what mind is. What does mind mean to you? Please define. — Corvus

The curious villager comes forward. "It's you duty to tell what you believe about mind."

"Narrative holds up a mirror to nature." -- Shakespeare

Chorus:

The speed of light is constant. It’s absolute in its velocity. All other velocities refer to it.

Photons have no rest mass. Light is the animation of the universe. All other animations refer to it.

The popular question is “What?” The mysterious question is “How?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The elder, after venturing across the lake to the far island of the mysterious, flashing lights, returns to his village. He carries a large, rectangular shape underneath a sackcloth.

After supper, the villagers gather round the elder for the unveiling of the gift from the far island, now held for hours of painful suspense underneath the sackcloth.

The elder calls on Glaucon, his favorite student, to come forth before the gathering inside the cave and remove the sackcloth.

Upon doing so, the villagers start gasping with excitement as they see images of themselves on the surface of the looking glass just unveiled.

Andrew, Glaucon’s friend, exclaims, “I see a man who moves just as I move.”

Hesperia, arriving just as the sun behind her is deepest gold, answers Andrew. “You are looking upon yourself.”

“I am in that shiny surface?”

“You are,” the elder explains.

Glaucon, suddenly jealous, shoves aside Andrew and now his image inhabits the shiny surface.

Before long, a gaggle of men fight amongst themselves for a place in the shiny surface.

Sebastian, clever and observant, exclaims “It is the lake, the deity that gives us our fishing, made solid. Have we not seen shadows moving just as we move in the daylight water?”

The elder spoke up. “Not shadows, but rather reflections, just like you see in the daylight water.”

Hesperia chimed in. “But this lake become solid doesn’t let us see through our doubles down to the lakebed below.”

“Listen to me, students. Our gift, from the dwellers on the island across the lake, has a name. They call it a looking glass. It has a special magic that lets you look backwards at yourself. When it looks at the sun, it makes you look backwards at the great source of life. The blinding lights from across the lake have us looking backwards at the sun.”

Hesperia laughs when Glaucon, turning around and facing her, exclaims, “I can’t see myself by looking backwards!”

When the elder beckons her to come to the front and stand beside him, she obliges him.

“Hesperia, gaze into our looking glass and tell us who it favors within itself.” The elder keeps his stern gaze upon her as she stands there suddenly affrighted.

“The cave grows quiet as she contemplates the reflection of herself for a long time.

Andrew can’t hold his peace any longer. “Hesperia, most beautiful maiden of all! The looking glass favors you!”

The elder next beckons Daphne, the cook still wearing her bloody apron, to come forward. She too gazes at her reflection for a long time.

Hecuba, Hesperia’s mother, stands up from the gathering and the elder dares not deny her the floor.

“Please, grand dam, speak to us.”

“It’s clear to me the looking glass favors no one beyond the person it happens to reflect upon in the moment.”

The elder, delighted, smiles, nodding his approval. “Yes, Lady Hecuba. You speak truth.”

After Hecuba seats herself, the elder makes his move. “Who can tell us something about the looking glass most memorable?”

Glaucon rises to the occasion. “The looking glass favors no one.”

“Anyone else care to speak?”

Hesperia rises. “The looking glass, if it has time enough, will favor everything in creation that might be looked upon.”

The elder is now very excited. “Who else can speak?”

Daphne’s voice suddenly starts intoning. “The looking glass wants to take a journey throughout all of creation! It wants to see everything.”

Hecuba rises. “A journey throughout all of creation? That’s a journey without an ending.”

Now the elder is ready to deliver the closer. “Consider a journey without an ending. It is constant, moving at the speed of possibility, and it never rests. It’s not primarily concerned with what to look at, but rather how to look at. And what does it tell us about how to look at?”

Glaucon has the last word. “Look at everything.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chorus:

When looking glass looks at looking glass, not only is what they see not local, it’s not localizable.

...if you closed your eyes and blocked your ears, then you don't see, and you can't hear. Does it mean that you become a mindless when you closed your eyes and blocked your ears? — Corvus

Seeds for the crop were planted on the island. Shortly thereafter, the local volcano erupted, sending great spews of lava high into the air accompanied by boulders, rocks and volcanic ash. For months the atmosphere darkened the island, blotting out the sun. Villagers took to the caves with their animal skins and last season's stocks of grain and vegetables.

Eventually, mid-season for planting, strong ocean currents carried off the volcanic ash blighting the islands growing season. Turned up soil revealed dead seeds succumbed to the lack of the sun's regulation of soil temperature. Crops already growing prior to the eruption, unsupported for weeks in their photo-synthetic production of sugar by direct sunlight, withered and paled, providing but meager food. These were the minority of stalwart growths; most had died.

The high priests were busy with offerings to the sun gods accompanied by loud chantings and throbbing drum beats. Inspired by the efforts of the holy, farmers planted pale, withered seeds into the warming soil, looking skywards with hope.

Dahlbach, the village outcast, given to rantings about the unreliable gods and their wanton inclinations, launched into daily rants about the need to banish the gods and replace them with his solution to the problem of crops: farming inside of caves, where termperature control is easier. The villagers, sympathetic to the misfortunes caused by madness, made sure he ate his meager rations along with everyone else. Dahlbach, risen to his imaginary bully pulpit of woven palm fronds, his belly full of donated grain, bellyached in loud voice: "I banish your false gods! In this cave I will bring fertile soil and plant seed. With torches I'll keep the soil warm, because a seed can't sprout without the sun, and the torch will be the sun. You say the sun is not here in the cave? No, it's not. I shall pretend it is here in the cave with my torches. You say the sun is unapproachable. You remind me of the fate of Icarus, whose wax wings melted during his flight towards the sun, sending him to his death below. I shall approach the sun in the cave. No, I shall not find the sun. Who can find the sun without finding death first? Instead, I shall chase the sun with my torches, pretending to be the sun I can never find."

Here's Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviewing David Chalmers on Closer To Truth. The Australian mathematician, physicist, philosopher runs through a list of materialisms examining why none of them work with respect to consciousness. If I'm not mistaken, he concludes with a theory of consciousness that sounds similar to what Penrose and Hameroff are working on: within each active neuron there's a moment when its QM waveform collapses; that's when subjectivity makes its appearance at the micro-scale within the human brain.

...I assumed that we had something in common, besides accepting the dependence of mental functions on material mechanisms. — Gnomon

Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially.

Idealism can only be defended with metaphors and rational arguments, but no appeals to the authority of empirical Science. That's because Ideas (per se) are materially Absent, and cannot be explained by any traditional physical mechanism. — Gnomon

Let me make a distinction between materially absent and materially absential. The difference is parallel to the difference between 2 - x versus 2i = 0 + 2i. In verbal grammar this is the difference between something simply distanced, as in the first example versus something
distanced-yet-complexly-connected, as in the second example.

Emergent functions from material processes cannot be observed empirically, but must be inferred theoretically. — Gnomon

This is true when the emergent functions are themselves material, albeit absentially.

I know you're not all in on Idealism, but you seem to be invested in the immaterial status of philosophical ideas, especially those considered metaphysical.

Our disagreement boils down to whether you can show how ideas, beyond occupying the thinking space of philosophers, have causal impact upon material things. There's no problem if you, like me, acknowledge ideas are, ultimately, connected to physical_material things via self-organizing dynamical systems. There's only a problem is you insist on understanding ideas in terms of:

Idealism can only be defended with metaphors and rational arguments, but no appeals to the authority of empirical Science. That's because Ideas (per se) are materially Absent, and cannot be explained by any traditional physical mechanism. — Gnomon

If you repeat your argument about energetic, potential enformaction en route to becoming enformation with the power of Wheeler's it from bit, I'll acknowledge that's your bridge from idea to material whereas I see it as physical_material across the entire spectrum.

So, the only important difference between us is that you see ideas are materially absent whereas I see that ideas are materially absential.

When you say "the mind", it must have a referent that "the mind" is referring to. — Corvus

You say the mind must have a referent it is referring to? And if it doesn't?

But if you say the stories that your hear, and the world you see is "the mind itself", it just doesn't make sense. Because when you closed your eyes or bloked your ears, you lose all your mind. You don't see or hear anything. You become a mindless. Do you? Really? — Corvus

You say when you are blocked off from the world you are mindless? You say when you are blocked off from the world and mindless you don't see or hear anything? When you do see and hear things, it's because you have a mind in contact with the world?

Someone light a Roman Candle! Make the black sky bright with light! Corvus is starting to get me.

Ok, let's suppose that is the case. How does it explain your mind and the body problems? — Corvus

"...the mind", it must have a referent that "the mind" is referring to. — Corvus

...when you closed your eyes or bloked your ears, you lose all your mind. You don't see or hear anything. You become a mindless. Do you? Really? — Corvus

You've already answered your question in your own words.

It seems to be your futile tactics to revert back to some poetic nonsense, when you have no idea what you were even asking about. — Corvus

What do they have anything to do with the knowledge of your mind? — Corvus

The boy returned to the old man. He was always sitting under the baobab tree. It was during the highest heat of the day when young Jabari would go to him, perplexed and angry with questions he couldn’t answer. “Why won’t old man Davu give me direct answers when I ask him questions?” he wondered, thoroughly vexed. Now, instead of going away puzzled and furious, he would confront him. “Why don’t you just tell me directly what I want to know?” Davu, calm and unperturbed by Jabari’s vehemence, took a long time to respond, saying finally, “It’s no good my talking to you directly. That is my mind. You have your own mind. When it sees the world directly, or sees the world through a story, you must learn to listen when you hear it talking to itself.”

So, if you are watching TV comedy show, then is the TV comedy show your mind? — Corvus

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck it must be a duck.

If you close your eyes, then you see nothing but darkness. Is the darkness your mind? — Corvus

The new born pup lost its bitch getting born, but the little girl took the dying whelp to her bed and her warm stomach. Next morning the pup squealed from under the covers vivid with life and a new, two-legged mother.

Are you claiming, then a blind man has no mind? — Corvus

The blind flower girl touched the little tramp’s face carefully, telling him his day would be a good one. She knew this she explained by telling him she could see his smile. Puzzled, he asked her, “How do you know I’m smiling? You’ve never seen a smile.” Smiling, she said, “Here at the flower stand I see smiles because I perceive with eyes forever closed.”

Are you claiming, then a blind man has no mind? — Corvus

You’re driving in your car. You suddenly stop at a green lit intersection where you see a blind man in dark glasses slowly making his way through the crosswalk. Do you conclude the blind man has no mind?

That sounds like your visual perception. Are you sure it is the existence of your mind itself? — Corvus

Apart from my mind, where is my… perception?

So, you are claiming that you can perceive the mind.
What is the shape and colour of your mind? — Corvus

When I awoke this morning, looking up through my concave skylight, I saw a palette of swirling, subtle grays hovering like thought-balloons with glowing, white cracks of lightning.

As I leaned over the side of the bed and looked down I saw my black leather slippers with roasted- cashew feet slipping into them.