Papa Roach - Last Resort

How can will be without thoughts? — Gregory

The will is aware of thoughts made by the intellect. It can stop a thought or let it go. By the will being blind I mean that it does not know where a thought leads to.

Have you considered Platonic Forms? — Gregory

I agree with Plato about the Froms, what I call the Absolute Truth.

Pearl Jam - Even Flow

The Roots - The Seed

Thinking is based on faith? — Gregory

Yes. When we think about a subject we have faith that the idea we are trying to develop may be correct. It is however through the processes of thinking that we may reach a correct conclusion.

Hegel said that in his latter lectures on the proofs for God. — Gregory

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Will has control over the intellect though, which is one reason i think the intellect is not the superior faculty... — Gregory

Correct.

Will is never blind. There is a certain innate knowledge pure will by itself without input from the intellect. — Gregory

I don't think that there is such a thing as innate knowledge. What we call thinking is a trial and error process. We take one root and proceed. It might be fruitful or we might reach a dead end without any conclusion. Therefore, will is blind.

I was thinking faith was of the will, not the intellect. — Gregory

The act of intellect is due existence of faith. Persistence in intellectual activity is due to the will though.

:100: :up:

To me, faith refers to a mental phenomenon, a thought for example, that can be right or wrong.

I distinguished between the laws of nature (which are ontological) and laws of physics (epistemological; best guesses based on available data). Newton's law of gravity (which implied instantaneous action at a distance) is (or was) a law of physics - and was never a law of nature. — Relativist

I don't understand your distinction between the laws of nature and the laws of physics here. To me, the laws of physics refer to regularities in physical processes only whereas the laws of nature encompass all regularities including biological, chemical, etc. processes as well. I think that physical processes are fundamental and can explain biological, chemical, etc. processes though. What I am trying to say here is that the laws of physics are not universal because there are an infinite number of different candidates available.

So there may be different laws of physics (what we would have guessed at) but they would be due to the same, fundamental laws of nature - assuming reductionism (as I do). — Relativist

You have to explain what you mean by the laws of nature then. Could you give an example of it?

On this semantical account, you would apparently deny there are laws of nature, because all causation is "vertical"- a consequence of the universal mind. — Relativist

I cannot deny the laws of nature as I don't understand what it is yet.

You could accept "laws" of physics as instrumentalist descriptions of observed behavior, but you have to be open to the universal mind choosing to operate differently. — Relativist

That is possible if we accept that the Mind has the capacity to decide. One however can only decide when there are options available for the decision. The options are the realization of two states in which both states are accessible. If you have no option then you have to deal with your only option and act accordingly.

That universal mind is remembering the properties and creating them afresh. That is not an ontological preservation; it is a duplication. — Relativist

Yes, it is a duplication. That is what I mean by causation/creation.

This is inconsistent with your claim that the universal mind recreates your brain ex nihilo at every instant.

You still haven't explained what YOU are. You just began to exist, ex nihilo. — Relativist

What am I? I am a person with a body and at least two minds (with a small "m" rather than a capital "M"). A mind is a substance that exists in space, opposite to the Mind that is Omnipresent in space. There are at least two minds in MOK, one I call the subconscious mind and another one the conscious mind. I cannot tell what the subconscious mind experiences since I don't have access to its mental contents. I can only talk about the conscious mind and its experiences. The conscious mind perceives many ideas, such as memorized thoughts, psychological time, perception of a simulation of reality, etc. from the subconscious mind. It has very little memory so-called working memory which is registered in a part of the brain temporarily. The main duty of the conscious mind is to construct new thoughts with the help of the part of the brain that it has access to. The conscious mind does not directly produce thoughts though. The thoughts are the byproduct of neurobiological activity in a part of the brain. The conscious mind just perceives thoughts. It however can decide when there is a conflict of interests. For example, you might have two different thoughts and you are not sure how to proceed because of the conflict of thoughts. That is when the conscious mind comes into play and decides which thought to be considered and which thought to be discarded. Both thoughts are however registered in the subconscious mind for further analysis in the future. It is through the constant exchange of information between the subconscious mind and conscious mind that we can develop coherent thoughts, write a sentence, learn new activities, etc.

Exactly! It's interactions with its environment are clear but its locality or other such properties which are not merely tagged on by virtue of our measurement devices or senses is but a different matter. — substantivalism

The particle's location is well defined, as one can see its slow motion in a cloud chamber. I am not interested in the other properties of particles here.

You agree with them because the collapse of a wave function is an open problem and whether an electron is all there at the screen or not depends on the analogue model you use (or interpretation if you like that word better).

Whether it's the Cheshire cat collapse of Copenhagen or something more extended as in Bohm wave theory or even more peculiar and non-precise as in a full fledged quantum field theory. — substantivalism

I think De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics is the right one since it is paradox-free.

Many interpretations actually deny just that. Some say an electron travels all the possible feynmenn paths and others ascribe an indisputable extension out to infinity for an electron seeing its wave function as a fundamental part of it. — substantivalism

The Feynman path integral formulation although is a very strong formulation for calculation is incoherent. If we accept an electron as an entity then it cannot travel in different paths with different weights. The same for particle-wave duality in the Copenhagen interpretation. All problems are resolved if we accept the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation as a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. The particle in this interpretation has a definite position in space in terms of time.

Well you are not going to find those in the atomic or sub-atomic as those are where the least amount of agreement is localized. — substantivalism

They are localized according to observation, cloud chamber slow-motion for example. Physicists think that elementary particles have no definitive position because they cannot explain diffraction patterns in the double-slit experiment by considering an electron as a particle only. I don't understand why they resist De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation. I know that Feynman's path integral formulation is an easy and elegant way of calculating physical properties and functions but that does not mean that it is a correct interpretation.

When you say these states X and Y are they in the past/present/future respectively? — substantivalism

X exists at now and Y exists at the immediate future.

As a naive presentist would say, if any of these states are in the future/past then they are made up fictions which correspond to nothing. Past things or future things don't exist but we can play the game of pretending they are real but imagination is not coincident with the real. If they are present then they exist in an intuitive fashion but there isn't a different 'real' state to compare its change to as no other state exists to compare it to. What now? — substantivalism

Presentism is false since it cannot explain change and cause and effect. Accepting presentism means that cause and effect exist at now. Cause and effect however cannot lay at the same point in time since the cause and effect become simultaneous and there cannot be any change therefore if we accept that the cause exists at now then the effect must exist at the immediate future.

Disturbed - Ten Thousand Fists

The White Stripes - Seven Nation Army

Survivor - Eye Of The Tiger

You're sidestepping the issue. You need to explain to what extent you are the same person, and how you account for this, given that MoK begins to exist ex nihilo at every instant of time. — Relativist

Each morning that I wake up, I, my conscious mind, am feeded by several types of information from my subconscious mind. This information includes different sorts of perceptions of my surroundings and my body. I also become self-aware and that is due to the activity of the conscious mind. It is through self-awareness that I can know that I am a person. When it comes to the question of whether I am the same person as yesterday, then I need to be informed by the subconscious mind since all memories of my past experiences are stored in the subconscious mind.

Regarding the causation of my brain and how it is preserved please see below.

You believe in ontological emergence, which I deny. Ontological emergence is contrary to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The PSR entails reductive physicalism. — Relativist

Not at all. I don't think that ontological emergence is possible at all and I am not talking about it here.

The PSR entails reductive physicalism. Reductive physicalism entails a fundamental basis for the laws of physics, and all possible alternative laws of physics. — Relativist

If you accept there are possible alternative laws of physics then it follows that our universe could be different therefore the laws of physics are not universal.

You're contradicting yourself again: perpetual creation of everything ex nihilo entails no preservation of properties. — Relativist

It does since the act of causation is supported by experience. If there was no experience then we would have a problem with how the intrinsic properties of parts of the brain are preserved. I already commented on how the intrinsic properties of an electron are preserved. The intrinsic properties of an electron are nothing but the specific mode of vibration of a string. The Mind experiences the string and its vibration without it, it would not be possible to create another string later that has the same mode of vibration.

If you want to be pedantic then, however, technically, those properties you ascribe an electron such as mass or location could also therefore be just as neurologically created. — substantivalism

The trace of motion of an electron in a cloud chamber is real but we cannot observe it until we look at it.

If you've canvassed the philosophy of spacetime not everyone will agree on the reality of location being a real mind independent extrinsic property. — substantivalism

Ok, I read about that a long time ago I have a faint memory of that right now.

The same with mass which is characteristic of an interaction and there is literally a whole philosophy that asks whether these sorts of features in fact exist independently of or not of other things. That is, whether mass is even an intrinsic property at all or merely a mass relation. Although that skepticism could extend to all known quantities that one ascribes things including charge, length, temporal durations, etc. — substantivalism

Ok, thanks for the reference. I will look at it later.

You call what they detect an electron but beyond that you can't truly, confidently, ascribe properties to the electron unless you make your language clear as to where you analogue models or metaphors end to when you are talking directly about an electron. — substantivalism

We have an electron gun, two slits, and a screen in the double-slit experiment—the electron gun works based on the photoelectric effect producing electrons with a specific speed. Electrons affect the screen producing different spots each spot is related to the contact of an electron with the screen. These are basic stuff. I don't know what to say if someone wants to deny these.

Yes, the screen gives detections. What specific properties this implies you ascribe to electrons INDLCUDING INDIVIDUATION is a WHOLE different matter which is epistemological in nature and skepticism can always creep in. — substantivalism

I am not interested in discussing other properties of an electron here, but its location. There was a point where an electron was emitted from the gun, it then traveled and hit the screen. So there are two points in time where the electron was in locations L1 and L2. I don't see how one can deny that.

Then your time may be an abstraction, as a good number of other philosophers have claimed, from psychological time and not as 'real' you think it is. — substantivalism

My time is different from psychological time and it is necessary for any change. I have an argument for it as follows: Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise these states occur simultaneously and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on different points of a variable, let's call these points tx and ty. ty, however, comes after tx to allow Y to come after X. This variable is called time.

That is why I say you should weaken your position otherwise your arguing something which has been argued to death for some thousand years. The scientific realism vs. anti-realism discussion and you should make you argument independent of that. — substantivalism

All I need is an example of a physical that everybody agrees with.

Oh yeah, that is one of my favorites as well.

Bob Seger- Turn the Page


Bob Seger- Against the Wind

Which is irrelevant. Is it grammatically the case in ordinary language that we use the word color to ascribe a relation or property? — substantivalism

An object just seems to have a property such as color. An object is made of elementary particles each has a set of intrinsic properties, such as mass, and extrinsic properties, such as location. The color therefore is neither an intrinsic property nor an extrinsic property of the elementary particles. An object, therefore, does not have any color. The color is just the result of the neurobiological process in the brain. These processes are due to the existence of the sense vision. The vision is the result of the interaction of light with the retina. The light is however emitted from an object. So it is the light that is emitted from an object that determines what color we are going to perceive.

Technically, your job is actually tremendously even more difficult as you have to define what it means to be physical. Numerous approaches to doing so have they own deficits: — substantivalism

I gave several examples of instruments that detect electrons, such as the screen in the double-slit experiment or cloud chamber, but they wanted an example of something that they could only directly see!

Via negativa - Is to define the physical in terms of what it is not which is a fruitful enough approach but some would say it doesn't tell you much. . . and it doesn't because it avoids direct positive clarification. — substantivalism

I don't think that tells much either.

Ordinary objects - This is the intuitive direction many go initially seeing the physical as a cluster concept of sorts but then its still plagued by some peculiar web of decisions as to what you include in the definition of the physical. Causation, spatial location, solidity, interpenetration, etc. Which has notoriously changed over time. — substantivalism

The ordinary object could be useful but it has its own problem since the motion of the object is perceived in psychological time which is not the time that I am considering that an object exists in the different instants of it.

Theory based conceptions - These are the popular attempts at defining the physical in terms of the entities postulated from future ideal theories or our best current ones. Course, this is met with easy objections from the purview of something like Hempel's dilemma. — substantivalism

I have enough training for this approach but this approach is heavily based on the experiments that they constantly deny. They just want an example of something they can see! I feel very frustrated sometimes thinking that it is hopeless to discuss things with these individuals!

Approach it from the angle of pure math. Make some axiomatic assumptions and then argue their consequences. This doesn't excuse you from needing to make them as specific as possible or making explicit what axioms you do need to get to where you need to go. — substantivalism

I may do that.

. . . but those relational properties are dependent on the frame of reference and its sort of peculiar to assign them casual powers or any mind independent existence at all. — substantivalism

Correct. But I have to deal with what I have.

Under a theory of everything (TOE), the hypothetical different forces and particles would be local manifestations of that TOE. — Relativist

What do you mean by this?

The TOE would be the fundamental law. — Relativist

No, as I explained there is no such thing as universal/fundamental laws. The theory of everything applies to particles and forces in our universe. We still don't know why we have such a physical that moves according to such the laws of physics. As I demonstrated our universe could be different by this I mean it could have other sorts of particles and forces.

No, I'm talking about personal identity over time. It appears you deny that you are the same person you were yesterday. — Relativist

I said, "Therefore, I think that we are not the same person to some extent as yesterday since a part of us is subject to change." I know for sure that my mood changes from day to day so in this sense I change over time. I am generally a very patient person though and I think that is part of my genetics so in this sense, I don't change over time.

Your claims about different parts of the brain relating to personality, and the role of genetics are inconsistent with your claim that the brain at t1 was created ex nihilo. — Relativist

Let's consider an electron, for example. An electron has some intrinsic properties, such as mass, spin, and charge, and some extrinsic properties, such as location. The intrinsic properties are preserved by time whereas the extrinsic properties are subject to change. These properties can be explained in terms of the vibration of the string. So the intrinsic properties of an electron are not subject to change since they are related to the specific mode of vibration of the string which is not subject to change over time whereas the location of an electron is subject to change and that is related to another mode of vibration of the string which is subject to change over time. I think that the Mind experiences these modes of vibration of the string as a result creates another string at different points in time. The content of the experience of the Mind determines whether something, different modes of vibration of the string, is going to change or not. Once we understand an electron and its motion, we can understand a brain since the brain is made of electrons and quarks.

Use a different example of a possible monadic property that you can ascribe time to. A quick example would be color. — substantivalism

Are you talking about the color of an object? An object does not have a color. The color is the manifestation of neural processes in the brain.

Maybe the spin of a particle because under certain interpretations or understanding of that its not literally a spinning magnetic top it just has an inherent magnetic moment intrinsic to it. — substantivalism

I don't think that spin is a good example since I have difficulty convincing people that an electron is an example of a physical!

Appeals to non-relational properties as paradigmatic examples to bolster changes over time. That would help. — substantivalism

Non-relational/intrinsic properties are preserved during the time so I need relational properties to explain a change.

Those are relative changes — substantivalism

Ok, I got your point and I agree.

When you say electron and list its properties are you talking about those properties that a fictional analogue model ascribe to it or those which are mind-independent? — substantivalism

I am talking about the mind-independent entity that exists and has a set of properties. Whether an electron is fundamental or not is another question.

Correct, it's not identical, but there is a causal relation between consecutive temporal parts. No other object in spacetime has this unique series of temporal parts. — Relativist

Correct.

You agree that object identity does not endure in time, so you need to somehow account for the intuition that are the same person you were yesterday. — Relativist

I think you are talking about personality here. Our personalities are partly due to our genes and partly due to what we have experienced. I studied psychology a little but I can tell that different parts of the brain play different roles when it comes to personality. To my understanding, some parts of the brain are hard-wired because of our genes and some are not and change depending on our experiences. Therefore, I think that we are not the same person to some extent as yesterday since a part of us is subject to change.

Not knowing what the actual laws of nature ARE, does not imply there aren't actual, immutable laws of nature underlying everything. The sought-after "theory of everything" depends on it. — Relativist

The theory of everything is a unified theory of four forces, namely electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. The theory of everything is not universal though since we know from string theory that the laws of physics are one instance among many many other instances. Our universe could be a different universe in the sense that there could be different forces and particles.

Ok, let's consider a moving baseball for the sake of discussion.

Relative to what!? — substantivalism

I wanted to discuss the relative motion with him later. We know by fact that Earth is a moving object though since it rotates around its axis, it moves around the Sun, and the Sun moves as well in the Milky Galaxy. etc.

Which doesn't excuse you from not being able to understand the difference between reality and the metaphors you use to talk about it. — substantivalism

What metaphors are you talking about?

Nature is composed of no more billiard balls and water waves than economics is really a bunch of tubes filled with water because you can easily model it as such. — substantivalism

I don't understand how the cited book is relevant to our discussion. Do you mind elaborating?

Ergo, you need to make it expressly clear how you understand where your concepts end and reality is meant to begin. — substantivalism

Reality is what the mind indirectly experiences through our senses. However, it exists independently of the mind. Concepts are experienced directly by the mind and constructed by neurobiological processes in the brain.

Such a literal reading of the highly abstract creation/annihilation operators in quantum mechanics is not the only interpretation or language one could potentially use to talk about them. — substantivalism

Could you give me an example of another interpretation you have in mind? I am aware of Bohmian's interpretation and others if that is what you have in mind.

You need to demonstrate if physical objects change on their own. Or at least explain, what you mean by that statement. — Corvus

We have a long way to get there. First, let's see if we agree on motion of a physical in time.

Earth is off-topic for this thread. The topic is "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change". — Corvus

It is not off-topic if we accept that Earth is subject to change. That is an example of a physical that is subject to change and does not a need a mind to observe it. So again, Earth is subject to rotation all the time whether one observe it or not? Yes or no?

So Earth is subject to rotation all the time? Yes or no?

One can only access one's own perception. But the rational and logical analysis on the contents of perception is the basis of object knowledge. — Corvus

So, according to you, that is the Sun that moves around Earth? That is the only thing that you perceive! So please explain how you could conclude otherwise!

If one misuses rational analysis on the contents of the perception, then he misunderstands the world. I was just pointing out the misuse and misconception of your analysis and claims. — Corvus

Do you have faith in what other people, experts in other fields of study, say?

Perception is the origin of knowledge. But without perception, you are a blind and deaf. — Corvus

Correct. But I talk about your perception rather than perception in general. Do you think that you can figure out everything alone?

The point is not just about perception. It is about rationality and logic in the argument. — Corvus

But your perception is limited so your arguments could not be rational or logical if you depend on them.

Are you willing to learn anything new except what your perceptions tell you!?

I discussed my view (perdurance) earlier. Here's an article in the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. — Relativist

Ok, let's focus on your definition. Accepting that the the brain is made of parts then we say that brain A is identical to brain B IFF their parts have the same intrinsical and relational properties. In this sense, the brain at t0 is not identical to the brain at t1 since the relational properties of the parts of the brain are subject to change all the time.

Because they instantiate universals. Laws are relations among universals. — Relativist

The laws of physics to the best of our understanding are not universal. The standard model contains three forces from four forces in nature. It is a quantum theory of three forces. The string theory is a theory of the last force so-called gravity as well as other forces. We still don't know, the proper theory that explains our world and physical laws since there are many many theories in string theory. The number of theories is estimated to be $10^{500}$. That means that the laws of physics are not universal but it is only one instance from many many possible instances.

You are confusing between denying and telling that earth rotation cannot be directly perceived. — Corvus

So, you cannot tell that the Earth is moving because you cannot see it moving. Is it a correct statement? How do you explain the motion of the Sun in the sky then?

How can you tell a movement without perceiving and observing the movement? Are you guessing? or meditating? — Corvus

I am arguing against what you said: "Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind.". There was a period when there was no life on Earth but Earth was moving. Are you denying that?

We are not talking about the ball in the earth. We are talking about the ball on the desk. — Corvus

But the table on Earth. Adding an extra object does not help you.

Scientific facts derived from the theories. They are not given to you by God. — Corvus

Are you denying that Earth is a moving object because you cannot see its motion?

Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind. — Corvus

That is a very wrong statement. Where did you take that from?

Linking the baseball movement to the Earth movement sounds not correct thinking, or trying to make things confused, rather than trying to see the real problem. — Corvus

I can show you have an understanding is wrong if you accept that you and baseball are on Earth and Earth is a moving object.

All scientific facts are to be falsified. If not, they are not scientific facts. They are the religious doctrines. — Corvus

I am not talking about scientific theories here, but scientific facts that everybody agrees on, like the Earth's being a moving object. Do you deny that?

Anyhow to me, the baseball does not move or change in time. To say it moves, is an illusion. — Corvus

Doesn't baseball which to you is not moving is on Earth by which Earth is moving all the time?

Yes and no. They are important, but philosophical mind takes nothing for granted. — Corvus

So, are you critical of what people say, such as Hume as well, or do you think he was absolutely right?

We try to see what is beyond the established beliefs. — Corvus

I am not talking about the established beliefs here but scientific facts.

Anyhow, to you, does Earth rotate around its axis and move around the sun?

I said it to indicate that the movement of the Earth is not directly perceptible. It was not an implication of anything else as you are imagining.

To say, outright the Earth moves, means that your knowledge is coming from the books, medias and the popular science and words of mouths from the vulgars. Not from your perception or observation. — Corvus

Sure, I cannot be an expert in all fields. That is why I trust experts' reports. I think that is a healthy practice, don't you think?

No, you said that Earth maybe moves.

I asked a question. Could you answer that?