An object whose motion is subject to change does so because it experiences a force. This force is due to the existence of a field, a gravitational field for example. — MoK

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.

To me, the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics since it is paradox-free. The universe evolves deterministically in this interpretation though. — MoK

That's personal preference, I have no issues with you choosing Bohmian interpretations as opposed to many worlds or relational interpretations. There's no evidence for any of them though, so we should not make arguments concerning freedom on the will on these things.

That is just a thought experiment. It seems paradoxical because it assumes that one can put a particle exactly at the top of the dome. This is however not possible since one in reality cannot put a particle on the exact point at the top of the dome. — MoK

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.

Physics is true in the sense that explains the changes in the physical world. It is however incorrect when it assumes that the only things that exist are physical. That is why I endorse a new version of substance dualism in which not only physical changes are explained but also mental phenomena are considered as well. — MoK

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. 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.

In regards to the OP, I don't need to discuss how the intrinsic properties of the physical are preserved. — MoK

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.

I also don't need to discuss the laws of nature here. — MoK

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.

Now consider your next "P1":

P1) The subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in physical — MoK

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.

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.

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.

You realize that just because you say "No" to other people doesn't mean you've made a defense of things right? Funny you're still going on in circles here...

Obviously you think the mind is prebirth. Nothing to argue here with that.

It's like saying I have a phantom penis the size of a whale that noone can see or verify...it was prebirth too.

It was an uncaused cause.

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

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... create a logical argument for God.

You're just proselytizing at this point.

Show it to me.

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

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

And you're nowhere close.

Put your argument up at a university. Do it.

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.

Where are your objections that I didn't answer? — MoK

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

I did it. Please read the OP. — MoK

Lmao... no.

Fact is you're proselytizing an illogical argument for God because of your lacking faith in God... hence the need of an argument for God.

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.

I got a Categorical Syllogism for you:

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought (which you still dont have)

A logical argument for God is an attempt to provide reason-based thought.

Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God.
..

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

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..."?

What's funny is that you're arguing that God is the uncaused cause and experience is physical... Thus God as the uncaused cause has no experience... lmao

And if you try to argue, God is everything... I really hope you do cause then we get really fun fallacies to throw at you with the basis that God is now physical mind and experience all as 1... which then goes back to my initial argument here...which you so vehemently denied

I don't want to strip you of your beliefs or faith. That's the thing as to why I'm even frustrated with you. You refuse to accept after everyone here has given you good reasons to doubt your bad reasoning. Reasoning you don't even need as it defeats the purpose of faith.

Ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity?

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

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

Same difference. Realm of 0 evidence.

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!

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

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.

The mind is a substance that exists within spacetime. — MoK

So there are disembodied minds floating about in our 3d space... where are they? (Mind before Body)

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

I can't follow your argument it's like an ironmaiden on my mental faculties...

But that could be cause I don't really understand what you're trying to say in plain words...

Or is the mind like "mana"? How mana is this pre body substance?

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!

Your OP is convoluted to me, a muddle of poor reasonings which you defend to insanity. So I wanted the plain words of what you're asserting.

And yes, other minds are floating in space. They are in the place where your body resides. — MoK

So they require the body to interact with reality? That's why it creates physical?

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

Curious mostly.

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.

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.

you need to tell me what you mean by identity — MoK

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

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

Because they instantiate universals. Laws are relations among universals. (See: this).

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. — MoK

This seems to be saying time entails an order, but it doesn't answer my question. Is time an existent? Is it a relation? Is it a property?

Why do you call it "subjective? Is it not objectively real? Is this just reference to special relativity?

My view is that time is fundamentally a relation between states of affairs. An event is a state of affairs (a point of time).

Dr Jung: "Yes, he has lost the body. You know, from the primitive's point of view the spirit that is always about with no body is forever seeking one, and as soon as they touch a body they go into it and imagine that it is their own. But they only cause possessions. Spirits crave food in order to be active in this world. Therefore, in Homer, Ulysses kills the sheep and pours out the blood for the ghosts; and only those to whom he wants to talk does he allow to drink of it. And as soon as the ghosts have drunk blood, they can speak with an audible voice. They become active. They make themselves understood. They are tangible, visible when they add material substance to their spiritual existence. Now, all spirits want bodies; they are crazy without bodies."