It wasn't denying. — Corvus

So do you think that things like electrons, quarks, subconscious minds, conscious minds, etc. are real?

It was just a clarification saying , that they are irrelevant to philosophical debates. — Corvus

Philosophy and science go hand in hand without science you cannot do good philosophy and vice versa.

So they require the body to interact with reality? — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes. Even the Mind requires physical otherwise It cannot experience anything therefore It cannot cause anything at all.

That's why it creates physical? — DifferentiatingEgg

What do you mean by "it" here?

Why would the mind need to create a body if it already exists? — DifferentiatingEgg

I said that minds have existed since the beginning of time not bodies. Bodies are physical therefore they are the object of experience and causation/creation all the time.

Your OP is convoluted to me, a muddle of poor reasonings which you defend to insanity. — DifferentiatingEgg

How could you judge my OP as a poor form of reasoning? Do you understand it? If yes we are on the same page. Otherwise, you cannot say that it is a poor form of reasoning.

So I wanted the plain words of what you're asserting. — DifferentiatingEgg

I cannot explain it to you if you cannot tell me where you lack understanding.

Conscious or subconscious mind is actually psychological concepts. — Corvus

Yes, they are concepts but these concepts are based on extensive study of the brain. Why do you stick to the idea of perception when I already refute it? Why don't you study a little psychology? It is necessary when it comes to time!

They are irrelevant to knowledge or reasoning. — Corvus

They are very relevant to knowledge and reasoning. People with Alzheimer cannot function well, cannot think, and cannot recall memories because a part of their brain is damaged.

So Hume was right not to say a lot about them. — Corvus

He couldn't possibly say a lot about them since there was no knowledge of them in his time. He was false! Therefore, you are false.

Conscious or subconscious mind means the degree of being awake from sleep. They don't provide you with any knowledge at all. — Corvus

Why don't you study a little bit of psychology so you can back up your thoughts? You deny physics, psychology, and science! All things you know are outdated knowledge which is false.

But if you don't trust your own perception, then where does your knowledge come from? — Corvus

I think that Hume did not understand the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. The conscious mind mostly perceives things but it is the main source for the generation of thoughts. These thoughts then are stored in the subconscious mind for further analysis in the future. It is through the constant exchange of thought between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind that we can develop consistent thoughts, whether a thought is true or not is the subject of investigation of the conscious mind.

Is your knowledge based on your imagination and blind faith? — Corvus

It is based on the collaboration between my conscious and subconscious mind. And it is not blind faith!

So there are disembodied minds floating about in our 3d space... where are they? — DifferentiatingEgg

The Mind, the subject of focus of this thread, is Omnipresent in spacetime as I argued in the OP. And yes, other minds are floating in space. They are in the place where your body resides.

Or are they only found after the birth of a body? — DifferentiatingEgg

They have existed since the beginning of time.

By the way, do you agree with the OP? Why do you bring something unrelated to the OP? I am not going to discuss off-topic with you anymore unless I see that you agree with OP!

Hume has a mistaken premise, that sense perception consists of a "succession" of distinct perceptions. This is not consistent with experience, which demonstrates that we actually perceive continuous motion and change with our senses. This renders the quoted argument from Hume as unsound. — Metaphysician Undercover

Things cannot be mere perceptions since there are mental phenomena, thoughts for example, which are consistent. This consistency is because any thought resides on other thoughts, etc. This consistency however requires something that thoughts reside within, what we call the brain, therefore saying that things are mere perception is false!

If the mind is uncaused, then does it require a body? — DifferentiatingEgg

The mind is a substance that exists within spacetime. Please read my first, second, and third arguments for further illustration.

Did you read my responses to your objections in the first part of this thread? Yes or no?

So you're just talking about disembodied minds that exist pre growth of the body? — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not talking about minds here but the Mind. I might open a new thread in the future to discuss different sorts of minds like conscious and subconscious minds. This is off-topic so I am not going to discuss it here!

I am not talking about God here! Did you read my responses to your objections? If not there is no point in pursuing further!

Don't you think so? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I think that the synapses change all the time. The memory however is stored in a chunk of synapses so it is a collective thing. Any neural net however has a capacity for memorizing things. If you enforce a neural net with limited capacity to learn new things which is beyond its limit then a part of memory is erased as a result.

I think I was arguing the opposite. What I was saying is that despite talking about memories as if they are fixed objects, stored somewhere, they are never truly fixed. The plasticity means that they are always changing with each recollection. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, any memory is stored in a chunk of synapsics. Changing one synapse does not necessarily remove the memory but if you insist on changing more synapses then there is a point at which changing one more synapse destroys the memory.

Did you read my responses to you in this thread!?

You NEED the argument to BE... because you have NO FAITH in your beliefs... — DifferentiatingEgg

What do you mean by "You NEED the argument to BE..."?

Things are being learned and memorized at every moment in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, the synapses change accordingly to allow for memorizing things in time.

Memorizing is not a one time thing. Each time a person recollects, and memorizes, one does this in a new situation, under new conditions, therefore a new thing is memorized each time. Notice that to memorize something requires repeating the same thing over and over in the mind. The strength of the memory is dependent on the quality of the repetition. Whenever repetition is done under different conditions it is not really "the same thing" which is repeated. because of the new conditions. Plasticity allows that the memory can be strengthened or altered depending on the conditions of the repetition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you disagree that memorizing requires synapse plasticity?

They're there, what you can't see them? They're an uncaused cause, you gotta find em bro... — DifferentiatingEgg

I spend my time reading all your posts and my answers again. I think to be fair I answered all your objections. If you think otherwise, please go through our discussion and tell me where I failed to provide a proper answer to your objections.

Already have...your hubris is thinking you're the smartest mind in the history of the world..
Fucking absurd really... — DifferentiatingEgg

Where are your objections that I didn't answer?

If you could make a logical argument for a mind outside the body then you've done the one thing that all greater minds than you could not do... — DifferentiatingEgg

I did it. Please read the OP.

create a logical argument for God. Consequently no logical arguments for God exist. — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not going to discuss God here since it is off-topic.

And you're nowhere close. — DifferentiatingEgg

I am done with my argument for the Mind. I haven't changed it yet so feel free to attack it.

Put your argument up at a university. Do it. — DifferentiatingEgg

People here have academic education in different disciplines.

But there was no change of the baseball of S1 at t1 (5PM), and S2 at t2(10PM) as seen by the observation. How do you explain that? Time passed, but there is no change. — Corvus

Yes, time passes always, even if baseball does not change, since many other things are subject to change. Moreover, the baseball is on a location on Earth, Earth is subject to motion, and therefore the baseball is subject to motion.

Baseball was flying to the wall, hit the wall and dropped to the ground. No time was supplied or known. But the baseball moved to different location. Time was not even considered here. — Corvus

If baseball is subject to change then time is required to allow the change. Please reread my argument.

You need the time variable for further calculating the energy value, but you must measure time for that while the ball is moving. This measuring action of time is not required for the ball to move. — Corvus

It is required. Please reread my argument.

Show it to me.

We are going in a circle until people understand that the OP is correct!

I didn't ask about intrinsic properties being preserved, I asked about how identity is preserved. It's relevant to your first premise:

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change

You said a brain at t1 has been caused to exist ex nihilo, so nothing has changed, and it appears that NOTHING is actually subject to change in your view. Change is what occurs to an object that persists over time. — Relativist

Then, you need to tell me what you mean by identity. Although the brain looks the same at different moments in time, it changes constantly because the particles that construct it move constantly.

I'm a law-realist: I believe laws of nature exist, and these account for causation. You have not suggested the brain is unique, so I infer that all causation is of the same nature: the mind creates all objects anew at each instant of time. If so, then there are no laws of nature - there's just the practices of this mind. If I'm right, that you deny the existence of actual laws of nature, then that is yet another reason for me to reject your claims. — Relativist

Could you answer why the physical obeys the laws of nature?

This depends on a specific ontology of time. My view is that time is a relation between events; it is not an existent. Only existents change, and they can only change if there's some object that persists across time that CAN change.

So it seems that your arguments depend on some specific assumptions. It fails as a proof because I don't accept your assumptions. So you don't really have a "proof" of anything. The question remains as to whether or not you even have a coherent framework. Since you haven't been able to explain it without contradicting yourself, it appears to me that you do not. — Relativist

I wanted to open a new thread on the topic of time but since you asked then I answer you here. Any change requires subjective time. 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 X to come after Y. This variable is called subjective time.

I got my baseball out, and put it on the desk at 5 PM. Now 10 PM, 5 hours later, nothing changed. The baseball has not changed at all 5 hours later. No movement, no breaking and no flying anywhere. It sits exactly same spot as it was 5 hours ago. Therefore time cannot cause physical to change. Physical changes only by force or energy. — Corvus

I didn't say that time causes physical to change.

If I pick up the baseball, and throw it to the wall, it flies to the wall, and hits the wall, and drops to the ground. No time is required. Only energy of throwing the ball is required.

Therefore physical changes only when force or energy was applied to it. No time is required. Time only emerges if and only if I measure it with the stop-watch. Correct? — Corvus

No. It is not correct. Time is required for any change. 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 X to come after Y. This variable is called time.

Yes. But the point is that we have no intuition as to how this is possible. That was Newton's famous "it is inconceivable to me" quote was all about. — Manuel

So you are asking the big Why!

That's personal preference, I have no issues with you choosing Bohmian interpretations as opposed to many worlds or relational interpretations. — Manuel

It is not a matter of personal preference or taste. Bohmian interpretation is paradox-free so it is the correct interpretation.

There's no evidence for any of them though, so we should not make arguments concerning freedom on the will on these things. — Manuel

Concerning free will, we need to agree on one thing only: The options are real. The options are however mental rather than physical. Any mental is however the byproduct of physical processes in a brain for example. Then, the important problem is how we could have mental experiences where therein options are real while the the physical processes are deterministic. I think the solution to this problem is that we are dealing with neural processes. So I think the result of neural processes in the brain can lead to the existence of options as mental phenomena. Think of a situation in which you are in a maze. Although the neural processes are deterministic in your brain they can give rise to a mental representation in which options are real when you reach a fork. We know for sure that options are real when we reach a fork in a maze so what is left is to understand how neural processes in your brain give rise to the experience of options.

Suppose that for the reasons you gave, that it is not possible in practice to do this experiment, then somehow, classical physics is deterministic. How does that say anything about free will? Sure, we are creatures of nature, but it's safe to assume that the laws of nature do not have imagination, yet no one doubts we do. — Manuel

Please see the above.

We are part of the physical world.

Saying that the mental is outside the physical world is like saying there is a distinction to be made between cows and animals. — Manuel

No, I think we already agree that experience which is a mental phenomenon can not be considered to be physical. We also agree that the mental has causal power as well. That is all I need to make my argument.

I think you'd need to say what is it about the physical that cannot lead to the mental, necessarily? Once the necessity is established or defended, there is little to do but accept it. — Manuel

What I am arguing here is that experience and physical are subject to change, which is P1 in the first argument in the OP, and the experience is due to physical and the change in physical is due to experience, which is P2 in the first argument in the OP. Once we agree on P1 and P2, then the rest of the argument follows naturally. What I am defending here is a new version of substance dualism that not only resolves the Hard Problem of consciousness but also resolves the problem of Epiphenomenalism as well.

Cool, please only read the second argument, mate!

None of that says anything about existence of electron, and what it looks like. They are all manipulated in the laboratories using the measuring instruments. None of them are actual images of electron. You need to point out where in the world, we can see electron, and how it looks like. Not the photos of the simulations manipulated with electricity, and some equations measuring the currents and voltages of electricity. — Corvus

You cannot have a photograph of an electron. You can only see its trace that produces some effect in the environment like the screen in the above example or the cloud chamber.

Baseball could be a physical object. Yes, we can see the baseballs. I used to play baseball. It is a physical object. Electron is not a physical object. — Corvus

Then please consider baseball as an example of a physical and read the argument.

In regards to the OP, I don't need to discuss how the intrinsic properties of the physical are preserved. I also don't need to discuss the laws of nature here. Regarding time, I think that there are three types of time: 1) Objective time (B-theory of time or block universe), 2) Subjective time (growing block universe), and 3) Psychological time (what we experience which is the byproduct of the processes in the brain). I will address how the intrinsic properties of the physical are preserved once we agree on the OP. Do you agree with the OP?

Non sequitur, non-responsive, incoherent. It appears that's all you got. I will not be responding further, as it is clearly a waste of time. But you might consider that I'm a thing that exists in time and I experience time. — tim wood

You are something that exists within time and cannot experience time. Did you understand the relevance of my thought experiment?

But if something is real and exists, then it must be visible, touchable and has smells and textures. I have never seen electrons anywhere in the universe. Have you seen them? Not talking about in the books and videos and drawings of course. — Corvus

Please see the section "Interference from individual particles" in this article if you want to see how a single electron can affect the screen producing something visible to our eyes.

I have never seen a chair with electrons and quarks. Chairs exist. I am sitting on it now of course.
But electron is an imagined object. You only have the effects of what electricity does, and they postulated the imaginary substance, and named as electrons. It doesn't exist in reality.
See, this is difference between science and philosophy. Science has many imaginary objects which don't exist, but keep naming them as if they exist. In that sense, science is another form of religion and mysticism. Philosophy corrects them, and tells them no, this is what really exists with truths. — Corvus

Please see above.

Yes, please. — Corvus

Ok, if you are happy with the example of the baseball then please consider it as a physical object and read the argument.

It is no good to use Physics or Math as some sort of authority to push your ideas in the arguments. You will be blinded in the sea of illusion when doing that. — Corvus

The electron, quark, etc. are real. It is through physical investigations that we accumulate such a body of knowledge. Can you break a chair into electrons, quarks, etc. by hammering it? Sure not.

What else do you need to do for knowing what a chair is made of? What can Physics do for more knowledge? — Corvus

Physics tells you what a chair is made of, irreducible entities such as electrons, quarks, etc.

Why ask a silly question? It is also relevant question. Computers are not the topic of our discussion. — Corvus

I am asking this question to make sure whether we can agree that physical objects exist or not!

It seems to be clear that you don't know what electron is. — Corvus

Sure I know, I am a physicist by education and I studied particle physics in good depth.

Saying electron is physical is not meaningful or intelligible statement at all. — Corvus

That is not correct.

Then tell us what the difference between the two, and what electron is. Does it exist? — Corvus

An electron is an elementary particle that has a set of properties such as mass, charge, and spin.

Unknown objects cannot be used in the premises of arguments. The premise with unknown concepts will not be accepted as worthy of further investigation. Hence you must clarify any unclear and unknown concepts you are using in the premises of your argument before progressing to the next stage. — Corvus

The electron is a known object. If you are not happy with it I can choose the example of a baseball that is subject to change/motion.

We don't need physics to know what chair is made of. — Corvus

Sure we need.

It is a commonsense knowledge. You know what it is made of, just by looking at it :) — Corvus

No, looking at a chair just gives you an idea about what it looks like.

No we are not talking about computers here. — Corvus

Why don't you answer my question? We cannot go anywhere if you deny its existence?

We are talking about electron in D1. — Corvus

An electron is just an example of a physical. There are other things that I call physical, such as the chair that you are sitting on now. Such objects are however reducible whereas an electron is not.

I only told you electricity, because of your confusion between electron and electricity. — Corvus

I certainly do not make such a mistake.

No, we are not talking about chair in the OP. Remember? You added electron to D1. — Corvus

That was just an example of physical!

You need to ditch physics in order to arrive to real truths. :) — Corvus

We cannot ditch physics if we want to know what a physical, such as a chair, is made of.

You are confusing electron and electricity. They are different. — Corvus

I didn't talk about electricity but your computer. So again does your computer exist? Yes or no?

If you don't know what electron is, then you must first prove what it is, and if it exists before progressing. — Corvus

How about the chair that you are sitting on right now?

I read D1, and you now added "electron" for your physical in S1 and S2. Does electron exist? — Corvus

Sure it exists according to contemporary physics.

Can you prove electron exist? — Corvus

Are you denying objective reality? Are you denying that the computer that you are using now does not exist?

How do you know electron is in S1 and S2? — Corvus

That is just a definition. It is required to define a change, please read D2.

I don't think that's accurate. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is accurate.

Memory is attributed to synapse regulation, which works through synapse plasticity. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. The synapses only change when a new thing is memorized or learned.

So memory is a feature of this plasticity, which is a feature of synapse regulation, not the synapse itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, memory is only a feature of synapses.

To understand memory is to understand how synapse plasticity is regulated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, without synapse plasticity we just cannot memorize a new thing.

But if memories are simply neural activity, then they are not "held" anywhere. — Metaphysician Undercover

The memories are stored in the synapses. Synapses are the junctions between nerve cells. They change when we memorize something new.

They are something which happens, and it happens only when the memory is present to the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean with the mind here? If by the mind you mean a substance, rather than physical, that ideas, such as thoughts, feelings, psychological time, etc. are present to it then I have to say there is a mind with the ability to experience the ideas. The ideas are however the manifestation of the neutrals' activities.

If it is the case, then memories are not things stored in the subconscious, and your post is pretty much irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I call the part of the brain where the main part of memories, long-time memories, is held as the subconscious mind.

What if memory is like I suggested, a pattern of neural activity which is repeated? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't deny that.

No, because it leaves too much to the imagination. You need to describe: — Relativist

No, I don't need to describe all these items since a few of them are off-topic. We need to first agree on the OP.

- how you account for identity over time: what makes you the same person your were yesterday. — Relativist

Off-topic. I will however answer that later when we agree on the OP.

- what are particulars/existents/objects, in terms consistent with the above. — Relativist

The object/physical is the substance which is the object of experience and causation. The Mind is a substance that experiences and causes the physical. The Mind is Omnipresent in spacetime therefore it does not change so it is the same particular. The physical however is caused so it is different particular at different points in time.

- how you account for causation, in general. — Relativist

There is only vertical causation. If you are asking how a person can cause something then I am not going to answer that in this thread since it is off-topic.

- how the mind fits into your general account of causation. — Relativist

I already explained that in the case of the Mind. The rest, see above, is off-topic hence I am not going to answer that in this thread.

- the ontological nature of time. — Relativist

Please read the OP, the second and third arguments.

Here's a good example. Your statement is nonsense on its face. Clarify it, prove it. — tim wood

Is this the only statement that you have a problem with? If yes, then I am not making nonsense over nonsense!

Anyhow, consider a building with two identical rooms so similar that you cannot distinguish them from each other when you are inside one or another. Suppose you are held in one room, which I call room one for the sake of discussion. Suppose that the building owner moves you from room one to room two when you are asleep. Can you tell me whether your room has changed when you become awake?

Sorry, you're making it up on the fly. And thus this not an honest discussion, but instead an exercise in whatever you can claim to maintain your ideas. The primitive form of the simplest reduction of which is simply, you're wrong, therefore you're wrong. — tim wood

Why don't read my comments and try to understand them? Did you understand what I said? If yes, then what is wrong with my comments? Saying that I am wrong does not help at all unless you pick up an error in my comments or argument.

Granted that you're wrong, the reasoning is impeccable. Your particular variation, again reduced, is, "I'm right, therefore I'm right." — tim wood

Or maybe granting what I said is right and you lack understanding of what I said.

Now, a baseball cares nothing for a clock, knows nothing about time, knows nothing about anything. — tim wood

Sure.

But the baseball does have its internal processes, those of decay and eventual disintegration. — tim wood

I assume by internal processes you mean the change in the state of parts, electrons, quarks, etc. of the baseball.

And the outward manifestation of these the means by which you may distinguish one from another baseball. — tim wood

Are you talking about a baseball at two different points in time?

These all occur in time, on time, wrt time, and by some standards a measure of time. So to say they "cannot experience time" is simply meaningless nonsense. — tim wood

That is correct that things exist in time. The very fact that things exist in time means that things cannot experience time.

Now you may specify that as a condition - a presupposition - of your argument and try to work out any consequences. You can do that. But if you build on those, then you're merely building nonsense on nonsense. — tim wood

Huh? It is clear to me now that you didn't understand my argument and comments.

You can believe that if you like, but that's all you can do with it. Anything beyond your affirmation of your belief becomes nonsense, which quickly becomes dishonest if not yielded. — tim wood

Why don't you try to read my comments a few times and let me know where you lack understanding so I can elaborate?

All I am saying is that the Mind experiences the physical, let's call it P1, at time t1, and creates another physical, let's call it P2, at time t2 later! Do you have any problem understanding this?

I changed the OP accordingly to include your objections!