As humans do.... Things that are not human are generally not expected to "experience" the way humans do. — tim wood

So you agree that the physical, a cup of tea for example, does not have subjective experience at all, including experiencing time.

Are you suggesting that things are not, then, subject to the passage of time? — tim wood

I think that anything that is changing is subject to the passage of time.

As to your thought experiment, you can believe what you like, but you have proved/demonstrated nothing. And that is the important point. You seem to think you have, and that's why I wonder if you can tell the difference between belief and fact. — tim wood

My thought experiment in fact is very demonstrative. Philosophers use examples all the time to demonstrate something that is difficult to grasp.

By relational, I mean that information depends on engagement with the substance, otherwise the substance is not a vehicle of informing. — NotAristotle

We have two things here, information and getting informed. The object is a vehicle of information. Getting informed, however, requires an agent to conceive the information through perceiving the object.

Unsupported claims, assumptions, hypothetical conditionals, false conclusions. — tim wood

The physical neither has a sensory system to experience time nor has a memory to estimate the passage of time through the accumulation of memory, as humans do. In fact, saying that the physical can experience time is absurd since the physical including us exists within each instant of time only and each instant of time is similar (please consider my thought experiment).

What do you mean?

Your arguments are predicated on beliefs and assumptions and thus have no more force than your beliefs and assumptions provide. This a fatal flaw for proofs. — tim wood

I don't think that my argument is based on beliefs and assumptions. Here is my argument in syllogism form for further consideration:

D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the causal power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct time, t2, to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change

Sure I know the difference between facts and beliefs. What does this have to do with my argument?

An invalid argument is an argument that its premises are false. Could you point to a premise in my argument which is false?

The beauty of sculpture is its intrinsic property. We are however informed about its beauty by looking at it and having a subjective experience of beautiful sculpture.

Like the form of a sculpture.

Hi and welcome to the forum! What is your OP?

For I understand information not as a substance but as the relationship. — JuanZu

I didn't say that information is a substance but information is a form of a substance.

MoK, you want to say the information just is the form, right? That's fine, but if you go that route then you seem to be implying that the information just is the form and is contained therein. But if this is the case, information would not appear to be an act that requires engagement between interpreter and interpreted, as JuanZu has suggested it is. — NotAristotle

Yes, to me the information is a specific form of the object. We become aware of it only when we perceive the object.

For JuanZu, information is relational, not intrinsic to any substantial form. You might respond that the creation of the sculpture is relational, and I think that is correct, but without the audience there would appear to be something, let's say "incomplete," about the information. — NotAristotle

What do you mean by relational here?

Okay, now I think your trichotomy of object, audience, and artist is spot on and I also agree that the audience is the interpreter. Contrary to my initial thoughts, it is the interpreted who transcribes the substance into an informational content, that is, into a substantial form through which information can be had, that is, what I have called the communicative act. — NotAristotle

Do you mean interpreter (bold part)? If yes I agree with what you said.

And since the communicative act of informing is a two way street, we may add that just as the artist communicates to the audience (but where such communication is itself obscure to the artist because he knows not what his art means to the audience), so does the audience communicate to the artist and leave an impression on him -- "what a beautiful sculpture" or "I don't really get it." — NotAristotle

Communication in the case of a work of art is a one-way street. The artist creates his work with his intention, what he wants to communicate. The audience perceives the work and gets the message that the artist wanted to communicate.

In this context, what is directly designed are the laws of nature. — A Christian Philosophy

But life is possible whatever the laws of nature are! So my objection about the design is valid.

The style of that OP is not one I could take seriously. — Banno

I already changed the OP in the syllogism form. You are welcome to read the new form of the argument and comment on it if you wish.

Disregarding your insults, I didn't find anything valuable in your post so I won't comment on it further.

I am afraid this is not a counterargument, so I cannot comment on it further.

What twaddle. "Laws" of nature are just ways of talking about the way things are, ways that have been shown to work. They are not "enforced" - as if one were fined for braking the law of gravity... or sent to jail for creating a perpetuum mobile. — Banno

I have a thread on the topic that the physical cannot be the cause of its own change here. If we agree on this then it follows that there must be an entity, so-called the Mind, that is in charge of change in physical. Once, this is accepted then it follows that it is the Mind who is in charge of enforcing the laws of physics.

I have a thread on the topic that the physical cannot be the cause of its own change here. If we agree on this then it follows that there must be an entity, so-called the Mind, that is in charge of change in physical. Once, this is accepted then it follows that it is the Mind who is in charge of enforcing the laws of physics.

It is interesting because you said the substance informs the interpreter. — NotAristotle

Do you by interpreter mean the artist? I first consider it to be the audience that observes the work of art.

Perhaps this is the right way of looking at it, but I would qualify this appraisal by affirming that the substance in itself is not doing any informing, and instead aver that the interpreter must first interpret, translate, transcribe the substance into a "form" that is understood by it as information. This I will call, tentatively, the communicative act. — NotAristotle

We have three things here, the artist, the audience, and the work of art/object. The artist gives the object a form that conveys a message to the audience. Once, the work of art is complete, then it is informative for the audience. To me, the information is the form of the work of art. I distinguish the information from Qualia that the audience conceives.

I agree only if we take into account that the shape of the object is distinguished from the information that will be created later. — JuanZu

The type of Qualia that the subject conceives is due to the form of the object. To me, Qualia is not information so to me, the information is the form of the object.

Since nothing is transmitted. — JuanZu

What do you mean?

We simply have signs as causes in a work of art that provoke different things in us. — JuanZu

The signs I call information.

But there must be a relationship between interpreter and interpreted, between the human and the work of art. — JuanZu

What do you mean by interpreter here?

Correct!

We have two things, namely the interpreter and the object. The object is a substance and has a specific form which informs the interpreter.

I cannot say that information is the form in a substance. — JuanZu

Information is the form in a substance. Take a bulk of clay that does not have any specific form. An artist can give a shape to the bulk of clay to convey something meaningful to his/her audience.

Information as I conceive it is the act of informing. — JuanZu

All things that you conceive, so-called Qualia, are forms of a substance namely the object.

That is, to cause significant effects on an interpreter. — JuanZu

Of course, you need an interpreter to conceive the form and get informed from the information in the form of the object.

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties so in this sense the information is not a substance. The information exists in a form in a substance and the form is the result of the substance having specific properties.

I accept that the laws of nature can explain the existence of life forms. — A Christian Philosophy

Cool.

But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first place. — A Christian Philosophy

I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind, but I wonder how this can be called intelligent design. In fact, I can argue that given any laws of nature and considering that the universe is infinite, one can expect a form of life soon or late so I wonder what the design is about.

The information is the texture of a substance.

Eternal punishment is also promised in Islam as well.

The universe is infinite and very old so any form of life is possible within!

Nor did I explicate that that's all which mind is, but these are certainly what I consider to be aspects of mind, rather than aspects of matter. — javra

I understand that but to me, the mind is a substance with the ability to perceive and cause the object. In this thread, I start with experience which is a coherent and informative conscious event, and conclude the substance dualism. Experience cannot be coherent on its own since it is only a conscious event hence there must be a substance so-called the object which is coherent. I then discuss that the object cannot directly perceive its content so I conclude the existence of the second substance hence substance dualism.

This then seems to me the crux of where we differ. — javra

Correct.

All these thoughts, ideas, percepts - which are immaterial rather than being mater - are themselves experienced by what else than awareness (be this awareness either consciousness or not)? — javra

Thoughts, ideas, percepts, and feelings are different forms of Qualia which is the result of the mind perceiving the object. The object and the brain are constantly interacting. It is through this interaction that the mind has indirect access to the result of neural processes in the brain.

The property dualism although it can explain bottom-up causation, the existence of experience for example, cannot explain top-bottom causation, for example, how a single experience like a thought you have can lead to you typing the content of your thought.

Again, no problem if the use of essence rather than that of substance doesn't work for you. — javra

It is all right mate. I am interested to learn new things through exchanging ideas.

But to address this quote: pure awareness would here be non-illusory essence which is that via which maya (illusory essence) is experienced. — javra

I think that is the Mind/mind that experiences the state of pure awareness and Maya. Pure awareness to me is a mental state so it cannot experience Maya. I think that substance pluralism is the correct worldview in which the Mind/mind perceives and causes other substances.

All that is not pure awareness - to include both mind (thoughts, ideas, percepts, etc.) and matter (rocks, atoms, etc.) - is thereby different aspects of the same maya as illusory essence - a sort of property dualism of maya. — javra

The Mind/mind to me is not a set of thoughts, ideas, percepts, etc. The Mind/mind is a substance that perceives other substances. These substances have properties so-called Qualia, what is traditionally called Maya by Buddhists for example, that are experienced by the Mind/mind. I think there are at least three substances, namely the Mind/mind, object, and physical. I discussed the Mind which is the uncaused cause in another thread here and here I am discussing the mind. The Mind perceives and causes physical whereas the mind perceives and causes the object. The object and physical are different substances to me so I don't believe in a form of property dualism where therein there is only a substance with different properties.

So yes, there is a duality of essences here, but it is not a duality between "different modes of experience": all experience of maya being contingent on and originating from the non-illusory essence of pure awareness (also termed "witness consciousness"). — javra

I am afraid to say that pure awareness is only a mode of experience that is the result of the Mind/mind perceiving a substance.

I'm not sure if anyone brought this up yet (haven't read the entire thread) but have you considered an "essence dualism" - this so as to avoid all the pitfalls of "substance dualism"?

Here is one possible example of an essence dualism; Here leaning on Hindu views as one example, one could then posit an essence of "maya (illusion or magic-trick in an ultimate sense of reality, which would in traditional views include both mater and mind)" and a separate essence of "pure awareness" (which is non-illusory actuality). — javra

To my understanding, Maya and pure awareness are different modes of experience, so essence dualism refers to a duality—maya versus pure awareness—whereas substance dualism is the fundamental model of reality.

Amy Winehouse - Stronger Than Me

Is energy "either dynamic or static"? — jkop

It depends on the model you use. In the standard model, most of the energies related to the forces are dynamic while the rest mass energy is not. In the string theory, however, all properties of elementary particles are due to the vibration of strings including the rest mass. Each model has however its own problems though. I, however, think that the problems of the string theory can be resolved eventually.

Its random fluctuations might seem "dynamic", but arise from the uncertainty principle. — jkop

Fluctuations are indeed dynamic things.

Perhaps it takes time to fluctuate — jkop

That is not an acceptable statement. Please read the last comment.

or perhaps the fluctuation is part of what generates time? — jkop

That is not an acceptable statement either. Please read the last comment.

Mass is generated by the Higgs mechanism — jkop

Correct in the standard model. The mass however explained as the vibration of strings in the string theory.

and now current research seems suggest that also spacetime is generated / emerges. — jkop

First I have to say that if someone finds a coherent theory of quantum gravity, then that would be like BOMB. There are three main theories of quantum gravity that are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory though.

Good and evil are fundamental features of our reality and are both necessary. Morality is about what is right or wrong to do in a situation. Everything is situational at the very end.

Very well said! :up:

When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help. — Corvus

You already mentioned what you mean with coherence and I mentioned that that is not what I mean by coherence.

Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning. — Corvus

Well, I already defined and gave examples of what I mean by coherence. None of that helped you. I also asked whether you could give an example of an incoherent experience that you ignored. So I cannot help you further.

Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread. — Corvus

As you wish.

Refer to
1) The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Edited by Ted Honderich
2) Philosophical Logic by Silbil Wolfram

for coherence concepts. Bye~~ — Corvus

Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence.

Same here! All the best.

I already gave examples so it should be clear to you by now what I mean by coherence.