mind as a product of material causation, as is everything else. — Wayfarer

I am not sure if mind as a product of material causation is a proper term or description. First of all, body is not just a material. Human body is a biological organism functioning under the evolutionary frame. Mind is feature and function of a living body. They are not exactly in the cause and effect relationship as in the mechanical or material objects in the world. Because every mind is unique, private and inaccessible by all other minds, as well as perceiving, reasoning, feeling and inferring on the world, other minds and the self etc etc.

Mind needs body to exist and operate, however, body doesn't cause mind for its operations.
Body is another object of mind's perception.

I would imagine this can be proposed as a sort of argument against a classical theistic god — Brenner T

Yes, it sounds a good idea. :up:

Philosophers of biology are asking whether life and mind are two aspects of the one phenomenon, and whether it is causal in a different way to physical causation. — Wayfarer

Of course they are different causation. Body gives the biological basis to mind, and that is all there is to it. We can see bodies with no mind i.e. the unconscious or sleeping folks, but we can never see mind without body unless you are into the psychic esoteric occult world.

Once mind comes into consciousness, it is caused by various other mental operations such as perception via sensory organs, reasoning and inference, memories, imagination and reflection. Once mind is operational, it also perceives bodily states and conditions, which can be cause for the mental events such as anxieties, joy and fear, pleasure and pain etc.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

It depends on what the definition of God is.  If it were like me, my definition of God is, a word in English which spells GOD, and has many meanings and many types depending on what religion or concept it comes from. Hence it is quite straightforward to prove the existence of God under the definition.

Whenever I type G O D, a word God appears on the screen GOD.  Here is a God. Here is another God.

You are seeing two Gods on the screen.  An object can be said to exist when it is visible to the perceiver in space and time.  I am seeing the word God in the space where the monitor is located at this particular moment.

Therefore it is conclusively true that God exists.

If your definition of God is different from mine, you would have a different method of proof. Whatever the case, your mileage may vary.

Before the existence of mind, there must have been a body which gave rise to the mind. Therefore, mind always reside in the body, which logically implies that there is no mind without body. A normal human body is equipped with the sensory organs, hence mind is presented by the contents of the senses.

It follows that mind without sensory organs is impossible. Even if the body falls asleep, mind still perceives the state and condition of the body via the central hub of the sensory organ i.e. brain.

I see many people who like Kant or Hegel because it's a badge of honour to have read their supposedly difficult books. But basically they are bad writers! — Swanty

You could be correct on this point.

Could there be other factors involved in perception apart from the the object of perception, sensory organs, memories and experiences? — Corvus

How would we perceive them? — ssu

What is your definition of "perceive" "perception"? Could inference, introspection, retrospection, imagination, predictions for the future, and remembering past be type of perception? These mental activities don't rely on the sensory organs, but they still come to knowledge, belief and experience.

Yes, it is a Kantian point of view. I know that scientists claim that time and space are external entities, but as I said previously, I tried to explain that my argument was not under that frame but another perspective. The basic premise is that we try to determine a basic sense or notion, and for this reason we tend to discard dreams for several reasons. Nonetheless, we usually dream with past experiences, people, and places, and I wouldn't name these dreams as 'illusions' because I literally experienced this in the past. Otherwise, I had to admit that what I lived in the past is somehow not plausible. — javi2541997

It seems to suggest that mind can work with no external excitement or regulation. When the external objects, time and space are unavailable to the mind, it goes back working with the past memories, intuition and imagination perceiving the random images. Some are meaningful and intelligible to the dreamer, some are not.

Hume and Kant were correct in saying that the principle of causality, space and time exist in mind rather than in the external world.

However, the ascetic perspective is more radical, challenging the common viewpoint. The ascetic views the world as a kind of addictive drug: the more you engage with it, the more entangled you become. The attachment grows, and it grips you more tightly. True liberation, from this perspective, comes from withdrawing and reducing engagement with what ensnares us. Thus, the usual wisdom that advocates social engagement becomes, paradoxically, like a drug- poisonous over time. — schopenhauer1

But can you also be addicted to the ascetic practices? You might have thought you are detaching and liberating yourself from the world, but you find yourself you are addicted and attached to yourself and all the ascetic practices which paradoxically supposed to free yourself from the world? You are still in the trapped space of the addiction. Just in different form of addiction.

Give me more than an overused cliché about escape—show me there’s substance behind your argument. Present to me that you know what Schopenhauer (or Buddhism if you want) says about asceticism and then debate the point. — schopenhauer1

I have nothing to criticise on either Buddha or Schopenhauer. But again the point is, that because their claims are not supported by objectively verifiable concrete evidence, therefore there is not much to argue against their points and claims, apart from making personally opinionated views on them, which may sound like cliches. You either take it or leave it from your own personal judgement, or have chat about it.

Ok, what about it? You can't escape from yourself is not a response to the idea I am proposing. Are you familiar with ascetic practice? Schopenhauer et al? — schopenhauer1

When you are suggesting even fasting and starvation for the bare minimum bodily existence, you are escaping from yourself too. Schopenhauer was into Buddhism. That is what the Buddhists practice, and their aim is escaping the world, and even try to escape from their own existence too.

That being said, I claim that the best course of action in almost all cases as a human to comport with the best life, is to live a life of withdrawal. — schopenhauer1

I did read it. The title "withdrawal", and your comments in the OP like above give strong impression that you were suggesting the best way to live your life is escaping from the society, avoiding social activities, the world, and withdraw from even your own existence.

Yeah sorta my OP. What’s your point other than cliches? Read my op as I don’t think you grasped what I was conveying, — schopenhauer1

The point is that, your seeking to withdraw from the world, society and yourself will be futile and unrealistic.

You can withdraw from the world, but you cannot withdraw from yourself and your own existence.

But this is not true with respect to consensus reality. Also the physical world, which everybody would agree "exists" because it is self-evident, has a relative (illusory/dreamlike) appearance to whatever organism is conscious of it. — Nils Loc

Are we ever be able to come to understanding and agreement on what the world truly is? Is the physical world, all there exists? Can there be non-physical worlds which we don't / cannot perceive?

Withdrawal is preventative, but also a statement about not allowing oneself to inflict harms upon others — schopenhauer1

But if everyone withdrew from the world, then would they not be harming each other even more? All the jobs to be done for others wouldn't be done, and the world will degenerate into chaos e.g. rubbish bins won't be collected, no running water and no electricity due to everyone withdrew from the world and their duties in the works, and the shops, schools, and hospitals shut.

Because the human mind has the capability for creativity. Creativity often comes about by taking bits and pieces that belong to one thing, and then applying them to another. Think of a unicorn for example. Its a horse with a horn on its head. Now make a duocorn. That's a horse with two horns on its head. Keep going. That's why you can dream of things you've never seen before. — Philosophim

Does it mean that the perceived images are created by us, our creativity rather than the images excite our sensibility and perception?

Not only was this ungrammatical, but it makes no sense. Kant never argued this at all—not even remotely. — Bob Ross

I was just giving an inferencial scenario of a case from real life, if Kant were alive here today, so that you could come to better understanding of the concept of TII. Obviously you seem to have misunderstood it as if it were from a real life story from CPR.

If you don't expect today to be sunny, then it is same meaning as you expect today to be not sunny.
They are same meaning. Just the sentence is in different form. They are both negating.
~A = ~A

It is not saying, A=~A or A ->~A, which is a contradiction. If it was that, then yes of course you should commit it the flames under the basis of not accepting a contradiction in any philosophical argument. There is no point going any further trying to find out whether an argument was valid, invalid, true or false from a contradictory premise or statement.

It has all the editions in it, as far as I understand, and it is translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn. — Bob Ross

You should make note which version of CPR you are quoting i.e. 1st or 2nd. They have many different contents on what they are saying.

The former is a thing-in-itself, which is just to say they are synonyms in this sense, but the latter is not a thing-in-itself at all. — Bob Ross

It depends on what context he was talking about. As I said, you must make notes which version of CPR you are quoting and for your points.

Kant is painfully clear in the CPR that a thing-in-itself is the thing which excited your senses as it were independently of how it excited those senses and what got sensed—viz., something excited my senses such that, as an end result, I perceived a cup: whatever that is, is the thing as it were in-itself. — Bob Ross

Kant is never clear in CPR, because he says totally opposite things in the other parts of CPR, and 1st and 2nd edition of CPR sounds totally different. You should read some of the academic commentaries on CPR too. Not just CPR, because anyone just reading and quoting CPR only would be usually in total confusion and contradictions on what he talks about.

No, you are demarcating an invalidly stricter set of real things as things-in-themselves; which are really just supersensible things—which would be noumena in the positive sense (at best).

Whatever excited your senses such that you see here a cup, is a thing in reality which exists in-itself in some way—that’s a thing-in-itself. A thing-in-itself could also, in principle, if you want, include noumena in the positive sense; if by this you carefully note, in your schema, that a thing-in-itself is just a real thing as it were in-itself and a noumena a thing-in-itself which cannot be sensed—but, then, most notably, you are still incorrect to say that things-in-themselves are not that which excite our senses but, instead, right to say that some things-in-themselves cannot excite our senses. — Bob Ross

If all the daily objects you perceive in the external world had their Thing-in-itself, then the world would be much more complicated place unnecessarily and incorrectly. For instance, when you had a cup of coffee in a cafe, the cafe maid will demand payment for 2 cups of coffee. Why do you charge me 2 cups of coffees when I had only 1 cup? You may complain, and she will retort you, "well you had 1 cup of coffee alright, but remember every cup of coffee comes with a cup of coffee in Thing-in-itself, which must also be paid for. Therefore you must pay for 2 cups of coffee although you may think you had only 1 cup." You wouldn't be pleased with that, neither would had Kant been at the barmy situation

No. You are misunderstanding. The objects which excite your senses in the external world has nothing to do with Thing-in-itself.

The negation "don't expect" means that we don't have the expectation. Yet you say that I "expect God to be not real". You omit the negation and thus misrepresent my claim. — jkop

If you don't expect God to be real, then is it not same meaning as you expect God to be not real?
Are they different meaning?

I'd say my visual experience is real to me when I have it while it's not real to you, obviously, when you don't have it. But like now when we both see this dark coloured text, then we both have the same visual experience, i.e. the object that we see is the same. — jkop

This sounds absurd. Because, I don't see jkop, but I only see what jkop wrote in text on the computer screen. Just because I don't see jkop, if I claim that jkop is not real, but the text is real because I see the text in front of me, then I must be silly.

I claim that jkop is real even if I don't see him, because I infer that jkop is sitting somewhere in this world, reading, thinking and typing and sending the texts to the forum.

That’s the whole point of a thing-in-itself: it is whatever was sensed—and that is the limit of what we can talk about it. Viz.,: — Bob Ross

Thing-in-itself is not available to your senses, ergo there is no sensation of it. If you have sensation of Thing-in-itself, then you would perceive it like you would see chairs, tables and cups. But you cannot have sensation of Thing-in-Itself.

Because some thing excited your senses; otherwise, you are hallucinating, which is absurd. That thing which excited your senses, was a thing, whatever it may be, as it were in-itself. — Bob Ross

There are things that is unavailable to your senses, so there is no excitation from the things. But your reason can infer the things which exists outside of the boundary of your senses such as God, spirits and souls.

Because the way your senses sense is a priori. — Bob Ross

Some of the concepts are A priori. Senses are not A priori.

It's a fact that there are different types of real objects in the world. — jkop

We agree that there are different type of "being real", and each objects are real in different ways.

All the questions were asked to you because you said,

If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop

ergo you claim that God is not real to you because you don't expect God to be real.

But this sounds empty and groundless because you claim that God is not real because you don't expect God to be real. You didn't explain why you expect God to be not real. You just claim that you don't expect God to be real.

When you say X is not real, you must explain in what ground and reasons X is not real, because there are different "real"s in this world. OK, you said you don't expect God to be real, but why your expectation God is not real is unknown, hence it cannot be accepted as a meaningful claim.

You seem to suggest that there are different type of "real" objects in the world. Why Casper, the friendly ghost is real while the other ghosts are not?

You just say somethings are real, while others are not. But you need to give reasons for what makes something real. For instance, you say money is real, but ghosts are fiction. But who is to say the ghosts in fiction don't exist or is not real?

In ancient times before the civilisation, the cavemen didn't have money. They went out and hunted for their food, and there was no shops or money. At the time, was money real? What are the properties / qualities which makes something real? What is the real real? If something is real to me, then is it real to you too?

No they are not at all. The word “noumena” is used in a double-sense in the CPR, and Kant is very explicit about that. E.g.,: — Bob Ross

Which version of CPR are you reading? There are different accounts for the concept in different versions of CPR. Is it 1sr or 2nd edition? Who was the translator?

You should also bear in mind that Kant has written his summary on CPR and explanation on the concepts in Prolegomena to any future Metaphysics too. There are several passages where Kant uses noumena and Thing-in-itself synonymously.

Phenomenon, in the Kantian tradition, are sensations of things-in-themselves; which are thusly not the thing-in-itself but, rather, conditioned sensations of them. — Bob Ross

If thing-in-itself is unknowable and unperceivable, how could you talk about sensations of thing-in-themselves? When you have sensation of something, does it not mean that you can perceive and know them?

That would be a noumena, in the strict sense that Kant talks about it sometimes. A noumena is an object of thought which cannot be sensed. — Bob Ross

Numena and Thing-in-Itself are described as the same thing in CPR.

A thing-in-itself is sensed insofar as it is what excited the sensibility in the first place but necessarily is not migrated over into the sensations. — Bob Ross

That sounds like a tautology. How does it get sensed? Why isn't it migrated over into the sensations?

Imaginary, nonexistent, or nonactual things such as ghosts are not real in the sense that molecules are real, nor in the sense that colours are real. Ghosts are fiction. — jkop

When you say ghosts are not real, does it mean that there are the real ghosts? If there is no real ghosts, then how do you know ghosts are not real? To know "not real", you must know "real". Would you agree?

Are each of us numerically identical to an animal? — NOS4A2

We are undeniably animals in bodily nature having the biological functions, desires and system.
However, we are also different from the other animals in respect of having sophisticated language and reasoning capacity .

Intelligence is not same as being rational. I was in deep shock finding out that some folks think those are the same in the other thread here. A dog can be intelligent in doing some tasks and chores and tricks when trained. But no other animals than humans can be rational. And even some humans aren't rational.

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

Being aware of one's own inevitable death sometime in the future.

entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

Desiring to be morally Good.

Hmmm, you don’t perceive a thing-in-itself: it is, logically, the thing which your senses produced sensations of; and your understanding cognizes those sensations—not the thing-in-itself. — Bob Ross

You got it upside down here. Your senses don't produce sensations, but sensations are caused by the external objects, which are phenomenon. Thing-in-itself is not sensible entity, but cognisible entity via reasoning. It is the entity from the reasoning point of view, which must exist, but is unavailable to your senses, hence unknowable via normal perception. It is the entity that must be reasoned, and postulated. It is a different type of perception you need to perceive Thing-in-itself.

You CHOSE words and COMBINED them together to make sentences. — night912

Yes, I did. But I chose the words consciously reflecting the contents of my thoughts. In dreams, I have no consciousness of real world, hence things appear without my choice, and I have no control of the dreams.

Happy? — night912

Philosophical discussions are not about being happy. It is about trying to come to the agreed conclusion via good arguments.

They experience days and nights following previous days and nights, not the time in which they follow each other. — jkop

If they say, we are going to meet in the cafe in 1 hour, how do they know when to meet, if they don't perceive time?

They see the Eiffel tower, its extension and relations to other buildings, not the space that its extension and relations occupy. — jkop

Every part and corner of the space is mapped with the co-ordinates, so drones can pin-point the objects in them, and airplanes can reach the location. If space is not perceivable, how can it happen?

If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop

When you say "they are real", what do you mean by that? What do you mean by "we can experience systematically"?

Thanks, but no thanks.
Thanks.
No thanks.

Kant begins with the presupposition that our experience is representational and proceeds to correctly conclude that knowledge of the things-in-themselves is thusly impossible. — Bob Ross

Isn't Thing-in-itself a postulated existence, rather than perceived existence? Hence you need faith to perceive it, rather than knowledge?

You think in a democracy you get decent, good people in charge?!? You get thugs. Sophisticated thugs. You get in charge those who want to be. Good people don't want to be in charge. — Clearbury

:up:

What exists for us to experience of God, souls, spirits etc. are our own and other people's descriptions, pictures, sculptures, plays performed by actors, movies with special effects, churches or art museums designed specifically with an ambience that tends to evoke sacred or otherworldly experiences. — jkop

But how do we experience the real God, souls and spirits? Not other people's descriptions, pictures, sculptures, plays performed by actors, movies with special effects.

Time and space may not be objects of perception, but we can use our knowledge of descriptions and theories of them in order to evoke relevant experiences of duration, extension etc. — jkop

If time is not an object of perception, how do they know today is a Saturday night? If space is not an object of perception, how do they know where the Eiffel tower is located?

And from a contradiction, anything and everything follows. This is the principle of explosion.

That is to say, "1. A -> not-A" is impossible; when the impossible can happen, anything can happen. — unenlightened

Impossible cannot happen, therefore nothing can happen?

Our empathic ability. It's the ability to mentally construct, visualize, and actually feel things that we are not directly exposed to. So if you know what it feels like to see things, then you probably have the ability to evoke the same or similar feeling when you don't see anything. The same areas in the brain are activated when you see something and when you imagine seeing it. — jkop

Does it mean that we could mentally construct, visualize and actually feel the image and existence of God, souls, spirits too? What about time and space? How do we perceive them?