What you "asked", Mok, is a red herring that lamely avoids addressing my critical objections to both your claims and how you're (mis)using "mind" and "physical" throughout this thread discussion. — 180 Proof

My request is not a red herring. We have to start an argument from something. How could we possibly proceed and make any progress in a discussion when the terms that are used are not defined well? In your first post in this thread, you only referred to a few articles that I read carefully. A definition of mind and physical is missing in those articles though. Therefore, my request for definitions is legitimate.

Fair enough but faith isn't meant to be argued... — DifferentiatingEgg

I have an argument for the Mind. It is not a matter of my faith.

but rather believed because of a complete lack of evidence... — DifferentiatingEgg

I have an argument for the Mind. I start by experience as a phenomenon that exists and is different from physical. I then establish my argument. Please read my argument and tell me if you have any objections to it.

An "uncaused cause" is indistinguishable from a random event and "mind" (i.e. what sufficient complex brains do ... contra a reification fallacy of "the mind") is not random, or "uncaused". — 180 Proof

I asked you what the mind and physical are to you and you refused to answer. I think we cannot make any progress.

This reification fallacy is what's confusing you. Sorry, I can't follow the rest of your post. — 180 Proof

What is the experience to you? To me, the experience is a conscious event perceived by the Mind that contains information.

I already answered that: — Relativist

You define experience as a set of processes. That is not what experience is. When you experience something, it feels something in a certain way to you. So experience is not a mere process. I am not saying that experience is not due to process in physical but distinguish it from process.

You then asked me to define "perception", which I did, and now you've ignored all that and are reasking the question I already answered. — Relativist

Aren't you happy with my definition of experience? If yes, then great we can move on. If not, you still need to define the experience since we cannot progress without it.

Your definition ASSUMES there is something nonphysical, and then when a physicalist approach cannot account for it, you think you've proven something. — Relativist

Of course, experience is not an physical thing given my definition. And I don't assume its existence. It exists and we cannot deny it. Are you denying that experience does not exist?

Is there some relevant uncontroversial fact that I haven't yet accounted for? — Relativist

You need to define the experience.

They don't have mental experiences. — Relativist

So, a chair is physical to you. What makes you think that the brain is not a physical object?

I read it. Here's a few questions: — Relativist

You have many questions and I try my best to answer them in this post. Some of the questions indicate that you didn't read OP carefully but never mind. The argument as I mentioned in OP is very dense and long so I don't expect that anyone understand it in one shot.

how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? — Relativist

The brain like any other physical object is subject to change. It goes from one state to another state later. I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something but it is caused when it changes. The mind is Omnipresent in spacetime as I argued in the third part of the argument in OP. It also has the ability to experience and cause physical. These abilities as I discussed are necessary since physical as I argued in OP cannot be the cause of its own change. So there must exist a substance so-called the Mind with the ability to cause physical. I then discuss that states of matter are related and that means that the Mind must have the ability to experience physical as well. So the general picture is like this, the Mind experiences physical in state X and then later causes physical in state Y.

Alternatively: does the mind actually have some material properties? If so, which ones? — Relativist

The Mind does not have any physical property like charge, mass, etc. It is only Omnipresent in spacetime though.

Explain the connection between mind an brain: is there one place in the brain that makes this connnection? Multiple places? Does every neuron connect to it? Every synapse? — Relativist

Mind is Omnipresent in spacetime so It exists everywhere including in the brain.

If minds occupy a specific location in space (at least in part, so it can interact with the brain) where is this? Does it occupy the same space as the brain? The brain, and it’s components, occupy physical space, so if the mind is to interact with it, there must be some sort of connection – one that connects to your brain, rather than your wife’s. — Relativist

There is only one Mind but different physical objects or persons. We are inside spacetime so we are inside the Mind. We move within the Mind.

How does the brain deliver sights and sounds to the mind? For example, does every neuron connect to the mind, or only certain ones, or combinations? I discussed physical activity associated with vision. Where does the non-physical mind fit in to that? — Relativist

The Mind experiences physical directly. The features of experience however depend on the texture of the physical.

Can a mind exist without a body? Can it become detached? If a mind can become detached from a body (as in an OBE or after death), how is it able to perceive what is happening in the absence of being connected to sense organs? If sense organs aren’t needed when disembodied, why are they needed when paired with the body? — Relativist

The Mind is a substance that exists independently. I think you are talking about the soul here. However, that is a different topic, so let's put it aside. I once had an out-of-body experience. I am currently thinking about it, so I cannot give you a clear answer. Anyhow, if you accept the out-of-body experience then it means that the experience is not due to the brain activity but the activity of another substance that I call it soul.

Do minds pre-exist bodies, or do they come into existence with the body? If the latter, when? At fertilization? Does it develop in parallel with the brain? — Relativist

Yes, the Mind pre-exists bodies. The Mind is Omnipresent in spacetime.

If my mind causes me to raise my arm, and simultaneously your mind causes you to raise your arm, how do we know it wasn’t my arm causing your arm to raise, and your mind causing my arm to raise? — Relativist

As I mentioned before, there is only one Omnipresent Mind. It causes a change in you because you as a person have a location in spacetime. It causes a change in me as well because I exist in another location.

Memories are lost when brains are damaged from trauma or disease, showing that memories are encoded in the brain. If memories are physical, and destroyed as the brain decomposes at death, but your mind survives, in what sense is that mind still YOU? i.e. what aspects of YOU is your disembodied mind? — Relativist

Correct. Memories are encoded in the brain and they are subject to destruction upon the brain damage. Mind however exists whether you exist or not. You as a person can have certain experiences because you are physical while being alive and healthy. Whether there is a soul that survives death is the subject of another thread.

How do you account for the impact of natural chemicals (such as hormones, seratonin) and artificial chemicals (e.g.hallucinogens, mood altering substances) on thought processes? — Relativist

Well, these chemicals, whether natural or artificial affect the brain's function so we can have different sorts of experiences depending on the substance. The hallucinogenic substance, such as LSD, can cause hallucinations. I have studied this topic but it seems that the nature of hallucination is not yet known to the best of my knowledge.

Perception=a short term memory produced when our sensory organs sends electrochemical signals to a portion of the brain that channels the data to the cerebral cortex. E.g. photons stimilate the retina, signals are passed by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, and then the cerebral cortex. Physical changes throughout. — Relativist

That is a physical process. You can call it perception. I asked you what is experience though.

I accounted for experience as a purely physical phenomenon. — Relativist

You are the only one with such a claim. Are you a physicalist?

What aspect of it can you prove to be nonphysical? Stipulating a non-physical definition isn't proving anything. — Relativist

I already defined experience. Given this definition, I distinguish between physical and experience. Let me ask you this question: Do you think objects around you experience anything? According to physicalists matter does not experience anything. It works on its own without any need for consciousness.

Then outline your theory. Explain what exists other than the physical, and how it interacts with the physical. E.g. is there a single conduit within the brain? Multiple? What ties this nonphysical thing to a specific body? I have many more questions, but need to know exactly what your theory is. — Relativist

Please read OP and let me know if you have any questions.

Basically, more or less you think the mind exists free of the body. — DifferentiatingEgg

Not only that. The Mind is the uncaused case.

An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories). — Relativist

You need to define perception. The perceptions are not changes in the brain. The rest of your definition is ambiguous at best.

Yes, we can. An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon. — Relativist

Matter by definition is a substance that undergoes changes governed by the laws of physics. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the Hard Problem of consciousness. Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness.

It seems that you're trying to disprove physicalism by using phrasing that you interpret in ways inconsistent with physicalism. — Relativist

I am defending a new version of substance dualism and I am attacking physicalism for two main reasons, 1) The Hard Problem of consciousness and 2) The common sense that tells us that the change in physical is due to experience.

read the rest then? — DifferentiatingEgg

I read the rest. But you are talking about conscious and unconscious minds. They need their own separate definitions.

:100: :up:

the mind is an emergent property within our flesh. — DifferentiatingEgg

I asked for a definition of the mind. Saying that the mind is an emergent property is not informative enough.

You're defining "experience" with more vague terms: "Event", "conscious event", "information". — Relativist

It is not vague. By event, I mean something that happens. A conscious event therefore is something that happens and affects our awareness. And finally, by the information, I mean a quality of conscious event that informs us in a certain way. Think of experiencing a red rose for example. That is a conscious event since it affects your awareness. The experience however has certain qualities like the redness of the rose, its shape, etc. These qualities come in a single package that I call information.

By the way, what is your definition of experience?

The brain changes due to perception (sensory and bodily) and due to thoughts. This is all there is to mental experience. You're treating "experiences" as something more than the brain changes. This is the source of your error in claiming there's overdetermination. — Relativist

I think I was clear in OP. The experience is due to matter and change in matter is due to experience. But we cannot equate matter or change in matter with experience. Could we? The experience is a phenomenon that we cannot deny it. It is however not matter or change in matter for sure since matter and its change have clear definitions that cannot be equated to experience.

The mind exists within the flesh. — DifferentiatingEgg

What is your definition of the mind?

How can seeing something traumatize a person? — DifferentiatingEgg

The change in the state of matter is due to experience. I guess we agree with this. But experience cannot change the state of matter since it is not a substance. Therefore, the Mind exists with the ability to experience and cause matter.

experience doesn't need to be a substance to alter us... lol wild assumption but okay... — DifferentiatingEgg

So do you agree or disagree? If you disagree then what is the experience to you?

Experience alters neuroplasticity and neuroplasticity reinforces itself. — DifferentiatingEgg

How could experience change the brain if it is not a substance?

1)Your question reifies "experience". The brain is changed by new perceptions and the act of thinking. — Relativist

So you agree that the brain changes by new experiences, whether the experience is perception, thoughts, etc. You however didn't answer my question: How could the experience change the brain knowing that the experience is not a substance?

2) Yes to laws of nature, but there may be some indeterministic elements, due to quantum collapse. — Relativist

I think the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because it is paradox-free. The wave function of the universe is not subject to collapse in this interpretation so everything changes according to laws of physics deterministically.

3) See #1 — Relativist

But, that leads to overdetermination in the state of matter. If the change in the state of the brain is determined by laws of physics then it cannot be subject to change because of experience. So, we either have horizontal causation by which the state of matter determines the state of matter later or we have vertical causation but we cannot have both because of overdetermination. Horizontal causation however leads to epiphenomenalism in which no room is left that experience can change the state of matter. This is against common sense so we are left with vertical causation.

and (finally) provide your definition of "experience". — Relativist

I already did: A conscious event that is perceived by the Mind and contains information.

We are talking about logic here now, not physics. Until the moment the glass broke, the glass was unbroken. Therefore glass breaking is not a process. Glass breaking is a momentary motion. — Corvus

There are many (practically infinite states if we accept that time is continuous) states before the glass breaks into parts. The glass first is deformed without breaking since the atoms attract each other. As time passes there is a moment that atoms cannot hold on to each other so they separate. That is what we call the crack in the glass. As time passes, the cracks continue to extend and there is a moment when we have parts of glass. It is then that the glass shatters and its pieces move differently.

The glass was not broken until the moment it was broken. The moment of breaking and not breaking is in the state of sorities paradox. How could a paradox be a process? — Corvus

This a gradual process and that requires time for it to happen. There is nothing paradoxical about it.

That is a type of change in physical and biological level. — Corvus

If you accept that as a change then time is required for it to happen.

Breaking glass is a motion. A mass traveled into the glass in speed which increased the focused energy onto the mass. The breaking action should be looked as a motion with energy. Not a process. — Corvus

Let's focus on two states of glass, before breaking and after breaking, let's call them S1 and S2 respectively. It is easy to break a glass by which I mean that the glass goes from the state of S1 to S2. Is it possible that parts of glass come together and form the glass, by which I mean a change from S2 to S1? It is possible but very unlikely.

Aging is a perception of change, not the change itself. The wine aged well, they say. You cannot tell it was aged well until you taste the wine. — Corvus

Are you denying the loss of information during the process of cell division?

Broken glass is not a process. — Corvus

I didn't say that the broken glass is a process. I said breaking a glass is a process.

Aging is a concept. It is for describing a body or food has been changing via time. Because it is a concept, it doesn't affect the actual physical process of change itself. It doesn't require direct intervention of time. — Corvus

It is a change. The information of DNA is not preserved completely during the process of cell division. This is the cause of aging.

Aging is not process. If something is a process, then it can go back to the original state. Can you age backwards to your newly born state? — Corvus

No, that is very unlikely because of the second law of thermodynamics. Does a glass change when you break it? Sure yes. Do you expect parts of the broken glass to come together and form the glass? It is possible but that is very unlikely.

Sure, but you don't have to know about aging to get old. Your body still gets old, whether you know about aging or timing, or totally unaware of it like the indigenous folks. — Corvus

Accepting that aging is a change then it follows that aging requires time since any change requires time.

What does it tell you? Aging is just mental awareness, and it is doesn't have any relation or control of the physical body getting old. — Corvus

Aging is a process by itself but can also be considered as a mental representation of a process. We need to make a distinction between these two.

The process of aging is a temporal process--hence in time. — Bob Ross

Correct.

You absolutely do not stay with her until she is ready for separation. — Patterner

I do, and by becoming ready, I don't mean that she no longer feels love for me.

Everyone knows it's a risk to love someone. Everyone knows you might be hurt. Few people go through life without having their heart broken. — Patterner

I think that should become a part of education for teenagers. Many teenagers are not aware that love is a temporary emotion. We should teach them this so they can manage the situation when there is a conflict in feelings.

you. You're the one saying it's violent, it's criminal. If we went back in time and instead of you saying it should be criminal to offend someone, you instead had said what you're saying now, "it is not the government's business when someone insults someone else", I would have just agreed with you. There might be some interesting exceptions and edge cases but in general, that's right, it's not the governments business. — flannel jesus

That is just your opinion. People think differently, and that is why insult is considered an offense. So, you are subject to the laws whether you like them or not.

it's not the governments business if someone decides to end a relationship — flannel jesus

In the same manner, it is not the government's business when someone insults someone else. So who cares!?

I think people have the right to end their relationships, no one is a prisoner to a relationship, ending a relationship shouldn't be a crime. A world where it is a crime is a world of terrible horror. — flannel jesus

I agree but I talk about people who just dump their partners. So again which type of guy you are? Do you dump your partner or try to explain the situation to her until she is ready for separation? What we should do with people who cheat their partner or dump them when they are pleased?

Because you're speaking nonsense lmao. If you can't even distinguish between "what should you do?" and "what should the law enforce?" then answering your questions is only enabling you to fall further into your delusions and confusions. — flannel jesus

What do you think we should do with people who dump their partners? What do you think of dumping?

It is absolutely different. I don't think someone should wash their underwear and their shirts in the same load, but I don't believe anybody should be criminalized for it. "What you should do" and "What should the law enforce" are clearly 2 different things. — flannel jesus

Why don't you answer my questions?

No you didn't, you talked about what I should do. Saying what someone should do is different from explicitly saying it's violent or it's criminal. — flannel jesus

No, it is not different. Don't you agree that dumping your partner who is in love with you is not correct and that you should do everything you can to reach a situation in which your partner is ready for separation? Which kind of person you are? Do you dump your partner or stay with her until she is ready for separation? What do you think of dumping? Isn't it a wrong act?

We're talking about laws and, really, you called it "violence" initially. Whether I agree with you on what someone should do is entirely different from the claim that it's violent, or that it should be illegal.

A non vague answer from you would be something like "this behaviour IS violent / this behaviour should be illegal". Is it violent to break up with someone if it hurts their feelings? Should it be illegal? — flannel jesus

I already answered that in the case of your girlfriend. Dumping people is not allowed and it is an offence.

you are speaking in complete vagueries at this point — flannel jesus

Of course not. Do you agree with me in the girlfriend scenario?

I mean what if I want to break up with my girlfriend, if that hurts her feelings that makes me a criminal? — flannel jesus

Consider that you lost your feelings to your girlfriend but she still loves you. You should still care for her feelings. That does not mean you are forced to live with her forever but you need to stay with her, talk with her openly and gently, explaining your feelings to her, until she becomes ready for the separation. We cannot simply dump people and play with their feelings because we desire to do so.

It could hurt a parents feelings to find out their child is gay, but it could hurt the child's feelings to find out their parents are homophobic. Are they both criminals? — flannel jesus

Sure not. We just need to become open-minded to accommodate people who feel, believe, and think differently from us.

Anytime someone's feelings are hurt, that's an offense? — flannel jesus

I think so.

That's a crime worthy of punishment from the local government? — flannel jesus

I think so but it is not considered as a crime.

an offense based on what criteria? — flannel jesus

You hurt people's feelings.