This argument is long and dense so please bear with me. — MoK

Your criticisms and input as always are welcome. — MoK

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change
P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience
C1) Therefore, physical and experience cannot be the cause of their own change because of overdetermination (from P1 and P2)
P3) The experience is not a substance so it cannot be the cause of physical
C2) Therefore, there must exist a substance so-called the Mind with the ability to cause physical (from P1, C1, and P3)
P4) Any change in physical at least requires two states of physical
P5) These states of physical are however related
C3) Therefore, the Mind must have the ability to experience physical (from P4 and P5)
C4) Therefore, the Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause physical (from C2 and C3) — MoK

Up to here, I establish that the Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause physical. Now let's focus on the subjective time.

P1) The subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in physical
P2) Any change requires the subjective time
C1) Therefore, we are dealing with an infinite regress since the subjective time is required to allow a change in the subjective time (from P1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, the Mind experiences and causes the subjective time (so subjective time is a substance too) — MoK

Up to here, I establish that the Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause physical and the subjective time. Now let's focus on motion as a type of change in physical and the subjective time.

P1) Physical are subject to changes such as motion (by motion here I mean a move of physical from one point in space to another point)
C1) Therefore, the Mind is Omnipresent in space since that is the Mind that causes motion in physical
P2) The subjective time is subject to changes such as motion (by motion here I mean a move of the subjective time from one point in the objective time to another point where the objective time has a beginning but no end and it is not subject to change)
C2) Therefore, the Mind is Omnipresent in the objective time since that is the Mind that causes motion in the subjective time
C3) Therefore, the Mind exists in the spacetime (from C1 and C2)
C4) Therefore, the Mind is changeless (by Occam's razor, one can assign properties to the Mind that change in spacetime but that is not necessary)
C5) Therefore, the Mind is the uncaused cause (by Occam's razor, one can assume that another substance sustains the Mind but that is not necessary) — MoK

P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience — MoK

It's a Hegelian argument, what do you expect? : ) — Arcane Sandwich

There's nothing to criticize or input — Arcane Sandwich

It's a Hegelian argument, what do you expect? : ) — Arcane Sandwich

Oh, I didn't know that! — MoK

There's nothing to criticize or input — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for your confirmation. — MoK

This argument has a Hegelian structure:

P1) First Thesis
P2) First anti-Thesis
C1) Therefore, First Synthesis (from P1 and P2) = Second Thesis
P3) Second anti-Thesis
C2) Therefore, Second Synthesis (from P1, C1, and P3) = Third Thesis
P4) Third anti-Thesis (1st New Thesis)
P5) First analysis (1st New anti-Thesis)
C3) Therefore, 1st New Synthesis (from P4 and P5) = Fourth Thesis
C4) Therefore, Third Synthesis (from C2 and C3). — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for your input. I was not aware of this. — MoK

I will read more on Hegel when I have time. — MoK

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian. — Arcane Sandwich

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Your criticisms and input as always are welcome. — MoK

This part is a summary of the old debate between idealism and materialism. — Arcane Sandwich

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK


Not at all, I don't mind at all. Here you go:

Affirmation: Synthesis.
Negation: Analysis.
Negation of the Negation: Affirmation of the Affirmation.

The last one is the polemical one. ; ) — Arcane Sandwich

Why think that all physical changes are due to experience? — wonderer1

Hmmm... do I believe you? : )
Should I believe you? : D — Arcane Sandwich

Is that a promise?
If so, is that a promise to me?
Or to yourself? — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for introducing Hegel to me. — MoK

Not at all, I don't mind at all. Here you go:

Affirmation: Synthesis.
Negation: Analysis.
Negation of the Negation: Affirmation of the Affirmation.

The last one is the polemical one. ; ) — Arcane Sandwich

It is now necessary that I read more on Hegel. — MoK

Nah. You'll be fine. You're under no obligation to read Hegel, in any way, shape, or form. — Arcane Sandwich

I prefer Mario Bunge, but people don't like him : ) — Arcane Sandwich

When the subconscious physical neurological analysis completes, consciousness experiences the result, which experience becomes an input to the physical neurological, updating (changing) its state, qualia-wise, as well as already having an updated state from producing a result, then more analysis happens, and so forth. — PoeticUniverse

The physical also directly understands what goes into the experience, in its own terms, since it is what made it, which suffices, in case of there being no qualia experience global broadcast to it. — PoeticUniverse

Rather, each is the cause of the other, in turn, sequentially. — PoeticUniverse

Conscious experience comes too late in the process to be causing anything directly, but, it seems that indirectly it could be used for future input to what subconscious analysis comes next, or it should simpler be that the subconscious analysis just keeps on going forward, for it depends on what the internal language of the brain is (such as if qualia are a kind of short-cut language). — PoeticUniverse

In either case, all the happenings would seem to be physical, although there is still the Hard Problem to figure out, yet we still know that the physical is always followed by the experiential of it, as if information always exists in those two ways, and so it is already a feat accomplished by the brain. — PoeticUniverse

Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience — MoK