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?

Because I don't see it moving. — Corvus

Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating?

Maybe it does. — Corvus

What do you mean by maybe here?

Pointing out your misunderstanding is not denying, but giving you the real truths and guidance to your learning journey. — Corvus

I am not going to continue such an exchange since it is not a debate!

According to your saying, everything on Earth moves. That is nonsense. There are definitely objects which are standing still. — Corvus

Doesn't Earth constantly move?

Trying anything more than that would probably cause a migraine. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, probably. I know that migraine can disrupt the conscious mind's ability such as thinking though.

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense. — Corvus

Why don't you criticize your knowledge constantly? Why don't you appreciate when you learn something new by saying ok I learned something new, instead of denying that you didn't deny anything?

But the baseball is sitting on the desk at the precise point which can be observed. The earth moving is not relevant to the baseball movement. — Corvus

You cannot observe any motion because you are an observer that exists on Earth. Anyway, we were discussing a baseball that moves relative to Earth.

You constantly deny things, such as elementary particles, subconscious minds, etc. You are basically denying science in general. When things are discussed with you to the depth, you then say that you are not denying anything at all! And I am going to ignore your insult! I am done with you!

I said that baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving!

I am done with you.

But we are talking about the movement of baseball here. Not Earth. You seem to think the Earth is the baseball. They are not the same objects. — Corvus

I am not saying that they are the same things!

Can you prove that? — Corvus

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. Moreover, the subconscious mind remains active even when we are asleep, constantly processing information and regulating bodily functions like breathing and heart rate, while our conscious mind rests.

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate. — Corvus

It is very related to the topic!

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time? — Corvus

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too.

It wasn't a big why. It was admittance of the intrinsic unintelligibly of the world. And what was considered problematic by Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Locke, etc., was motion. That's way simpler that consciousness. — Manuel

Or maybe the world including the Mind is intelligible.

But how can you say physical processes are deterministic? Some show regularity, others show randomness, and we see exceptions to rules quite frequently. — Manuel

Physical processes are deterministic once we agree that Bohmian's interpretation is the correct interpretation.

Free will is the ability to do or not to do something. That so called "physical processes" happen before we are aware of them only shows that most of our mental activity happens at an unconscious level, what we decide to do with that, is up to us. We can act on an urge or not. — Manuel

Free will is the ability to choose between options. The conscious mind becomes aware of options and this is due to physical processes that happen in the brain.

You have asserted that the mental cannot be physical. There is no argument given as to why this has to be so. It's a semantic argument that "the mental cannot be physical, because mental phenomena are not physical phenomena". — Manuel

No, I said accepting the definition of physical and experience they cannot be the same thing since the object and the subject cannot be the same thing.

But that does not solve a simple question: why can't mental stuff be physical stuff? — Manuel

The object and the subject cannot be the same thing.

metaphorically speaking, yeah. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok.

But also, I don't have a problem with what you're trying to prove. I have considered similar notions, especially in the case of Eternal Recurrence... — DifferentiatingEgg

I am discussing the Mind here. What does it have to do with Eternal Recurrence?

Thought you were saying you made an argument for God. Because I thought you made it as a parallel to say this this thus that (about God). — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not making an argument for the existence of God here.

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings? — Corvus

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these.

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? — Corvus

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind.

The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects. — Corvus

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged?

I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not. — 180 Proof

I think people have the right to have faith in whatever they want provided that the faith is the subject of constant criticism by reason.

Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct. — Corvus

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from?

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now. — Corvus

Did you know that the conscious mind has limited memory so-called working memory? At any given time, it can access only three to five items. If the answer to this question is yes, then where are the rest of the memories held? Moreover, accepting that the rest of memories are held somewhere that I call subconsciousness, how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind?

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge. — Corvus

See above.

Faith if it is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" is necessary otherwise humanity could not reach the current stage of achievement in many fields of science, mathematics, philosophy, and spirituality. That is true since a person cannot be an expert in all fields so that is when the faith given the definition becomes important. Faith is also important at the personal level when we want to achieve something or become certain about things using reason. As I said: Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way!

Do you believe in ghosts? :wink:

I would advise you reading K. Popper's books in full, if you are into science. — Corvus

I don't think I need to read his book!

I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me. — Corvus

So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either.

Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far. — Corvus

No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. For example, the Newtonian theory works well in macroscopic limits but it cannot account for the quantum force which only becomes important at the microscopic level. That is why we need quantum mechanics to describe quantum phenomena. We however don't use quantum mechanics when we want to design a car. We use it only when we want to design a quantum device. So every theory has its own use.

Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears. — Corvus

I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. There has been too much research on the topic of the subconscious mind since then. Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting.

Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates. — Corvus

That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you?

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. — Corvus

You said it here:

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No? — Corvus

No. Why is it relevant to our discussion?

It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that. — Corvus

It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it.

The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. — Corvus

Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory?

No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious. — Corvus

Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time!

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus

So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well!

Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for reference on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper? — Corvus

Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume.

Philosophers read everything not just science. — Corvus

Good for them. You should do the same.

Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense. — Corvus

Exactly!

Where do they exist? — Corvus

Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain.