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.

I asked for example. Can you give an example of something which is incoherent, excluding our thoughts?

I have already given you a clear explanation on coherence here. — Corvus

I asked for examples.

Your way of argument is just keep denying everything blindly. You don't accept or see the rational points. — Corvus

You just repeating yourself not seeing the truth. Why Don't you open a thread on the topic that our experience could be incoherent?

I don't need help. You do need help. :D — Corvus

I don't think so. You should at least have a doubt when the majority of people agree on something. Having doubt is a useful practice. :D

Your seeing a cup in a location is a subjective visual experience. It has no truth value. It is just a perception. When you make up a statement "I see a cup.", it can be true or false, depending on the fact there is someone else witnessing the cup, heard your statement and agreeing with your statement. It is only true on that instance. Otherwise, it is a meaningless self talk or monologue, with no value of truth or falsity. — Corvus

Could you give an example of something coherent or incoherent?

Just keep denying blindly whatever has been countered, forwarded or pointed out, is not philosophical argument. — Corvus

Huh?

So whatever the majority believes is the truth? :roll: — Corvus

Why don't you ask people for help? Why don't you open a thread on "our experiences are incoherent"? We have been through this in this thread and your thread to a good degree. I don't see a point in repeating myself.

P!nk - Try

That's a false dichotomy. Here's a link to an article that has many references to current physical theories on emergent spacetime. — jkop

The fundamental entities from which time emerges are either dynamic or static. In the first case, we are dealing with my argument. In the second case, we are dealing with strong emergence and I have to say a big no to it.

P!NK - U + Ur Hand



P!NK - Don't Let Me Get Me

Time is the fundamental variable of any physical theory therefore time cannot be an emergent property of such a physical theory since time cannot be the fundamental variable and emergent property at the same time.

That's what I read from the philosophical text books. Not making it up from the thin air.
Clarification on the concepts is part of the philosophical investigation and analysis. — Corvus

I mean if X, my cup of tea has a location, is the case that only X is the case and Y, Z, etc. which refer to my cup of tea having other locations are not the case.

I wasn't asking for help. You seem to be distorting the facts. — Corvus

I don't think that I am distorting the facts.

I was just pointing out on the wrong use of the concepts. — Corvus

People apparently understand what I mean by the coherence in the experience so I don't think that I am using the concept wrongly.

Then you are contradicting yourself. Since before you had said that the brain, the subject, the experience made of what the senses give us something coherent. — JuanZu

I didn't intend to argue for the brain in this thread since that is the third substance and I don't have any argument for it now. I just commented on the brain since people asked for the mind and body interaction. The picture including the brain is simple: We have the brain, the object, and the mind. The brain in the case of perception receives sensory input and processes it. The object and the brain are interacting with each other so the object is affected by processes in the brain. The mind then perceives the object and experiences the content of the object namely Qualia.

And you did so by denying that you were talking about a tabula rasa. — JuanZu

I don't understand why you are talking about tabula rasa. Our experience of course has texture so-called Qualia.