The emergence of a car: Weak or strong? The emergence of awareness: Weak or strong? — MoK

Under reductive physicalism: both are weak. Are you accepting that non-reductive physicalism has no problems?

I don't need to rephrase my argument. — MoK

You asked me to comment on your Op argument. I did. I established that the 1st premise is ambiguous. If you want further analysis, remove the ambiguity. Up to you.

Are you saying the Mind recreates MoK's brain ex nihilo at every instant of time, rather than effecting a change to MoK's brain?!
— Relativist
I already mentioned that physical including MoK's brain does not exist in the future. Therefore, physical must be created to allow a change in physical. And by creation, I don't mean the creation ex nihilo. — MoK

If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? If you say "brain at t0" then we're back to (brain at t0 plus other factors) causes (brain at t1), because brain at t0 is a material cause.

Under reductive physicalism: both are weak. — Relativist

Then reductive physicalism is false since it does not realize that the emergence of awareness is strong.

Are you accepting that non-reductive physicalism has no problems? — Relativist

I am saying that non-reductive physicalism has serious problems to deal with. That is not only the emergence of consciousness but also how consciousness could have causal power when the state of the physical is determined to change based on the laws of physics.

You asked me to comment on your Op argument. I did. — Relativist

Thanks for reading my argument and commenting on it.

I established that the 1st premise is ambiguous. If you want further analysis, remove the ambiguity. Up to you. — Relativist

I already agree that change in physical is because physical has properties. To establish the argument I however only need to accept that physical and awareness/experience exist and they are subject to change. Please read more. Your criticisms as always are welcome.

If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? — Relativist

The creation ex nihilo refers to creation when there is nothing at all but the creator, then the act of creation, and then something plus the creator. Here, I am not talking about the creation ex nihilo then. There is however an act of creation. But this act is related to the experience of the former state of physical first. So, the Mind experiences physical in the state of S1 and then creates physical in another state, S2, later.

But I was talking about the emergence of awareness which is a strong emergence. — MoK

So you don't have a problem with non-reductive physicalsim?

Prove it.
— Relativist
So you think it is a weak emergence? — MoK

I lean toward reductive physicalism. If it could be established that there is actual ontological emergence, I would accept non-reductive physicalism.

I already agree that change in physical is because physical has properties. To establish the argument I however only need to accept that physical and awareness/experience exist and they are subject to change. Please read more — MoK

No, not unless you remove the ambiguity. If I were to do it myself and identify another problem, you could blame it on my misinterpretation.

If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? If you say "brain at t0" then we're back to (brain at t0 plus other factors) causes (brain at t1), because brain at t0 is a material cause.
If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM?
— Relativist

The creation ex nihilo refers to creation when there is nothing at all but the creator, then the act of creation, and then something plus the creator. Here, I am not talking about the creation ex nihilo then. There is however an act of creation. But this act is related to the experience of the former state of physical first. So, the Mind experiences physical in the state of S1 and then creates physical in another state, S2, later. — MoK

You didn't answer my question: If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM?

If you say "brain at t0" then we're back to (brain at t0 plus other factors) causes (brain at t1), because brain at t0 is a material cause.

You didn't reply to me but since you attacked me and my knowledge then I challenge you! — MoK

I'm not surprised that you interpreted my comments as an attack, but no one can be an expert on everything. So I'd say it is more like I pointed out that you are human and your misconceptions are understandable.

Couldn't you wonder that it could be you who doesn't have the proper knowledge to comprehend the MoK's argument? — MoK

Sure I can wonder, but you demonstrate throughout this thread that you don't have much understanding of phyisical causality. I, on the other hand, am a 62 year old electrical engineer making my living on the basis of my expertise in understanding physical causality.

Can you provide any reason for me to think that your intuitions regarding this topic are better than mine?

So you don't have a problem with non-reductive physicalism? — Relativist

I do have problems with non-reductive physicalism as well. I generally have a problem with physicalism which is a sort of monism whether reductive or non-reductive.

I lean toward reductive physicalism. If it could be established that there is actual ontological emergence, I would accept non-reductive physicalism. — Relativist

I don't think that strong emergence is possible at all so I won't buy non-reductive physicalsim.

No, not unless you remove the ambiguity. If I were to do it myself and identify another problem, you could blame it on my misinterpretation. — Relativist

Ok, here is the first premise: P1) Physical and awareness/experience exist and they are subject to change (these changes are because physical and awareness/experience have certain properties).

You didn't answer my question: If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? — Relativist

I did. I explained the creation ex nihilo. Did you get it? And the Mind creates MoK's brain at time t1. The Mind has the ability to cause/create but that requires the experience of the physical first.

I'm not surprised that you interpreted my comments as an attack, but no one can be an expert on everything. So I'd say it is more like I pointed out that you are human and your misconceptions are understandable. — wonderer1

Yes, no human can be an expert on everything. I however don't think I have any misconceptions about the subject of this thread.

Sure I can wonder, but you demonstrate throughout this thread that you don't have much understanding of phyisical causality. — wonderer1

I do understand physical causality but I think that physical causality (what I call horizontal causality) is false. I discuss this partly in another thread and partly here.

I, on the other hand, am a 62 year old electrical engineer making my living on the basis of my expertise in understanding physical causality. — wonderer1

I am a retired physicist too. :smile:

Can you provide any reason for me to think that your intuitions regarding this topic are better than mine? — wonderer1

Yes, I already mentioned the problems of physicalism in this thread that you ignored. I also have another thread on physical causality.

You didn't answer my question: If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM?
— Relativist
I did. I explained the creation ex nihilo. Did you get it? And the Mind creates MoK's brain at time t1. The Mind has the ability to cause/create but that requires the experience of the physical first. — MoK

Your evasiveness is frustrating. If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something. What is that something? Answering "not ex nihilo" is not an answer.

You seem to be unwilling to admit you were wrong when you denied
(Brain@t0 + other factors) causes (brain@t1).

Your evasiveness is frustrating. If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something. — Relativist

It was not created from something. The Mind has the ability to cause/create physical. The creation ex nihilo however refers to God who created the universe from nothing. I am not talking about God and creation ex nihilo here.

It was not created from something. — MoK

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.

Now this is a problem, not an explanation. — J

I disagree with your semantic jugglery here, J. I may come back to this "problem" when I have more time later.

I looked for a juggler emoji but couldn't find one! So I'll just smile :smile: I hope you do come back to this discussion. Obviously I don't think I'm doing anything semantically dodgy, but happy to hear your thoughts, which are always interesting.

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this. — Relativist

I differentiate between God and the Mind.

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.
— Relativist
I differentiate between God and the Mind. — MoK

So if God creates from nothing, it's ex nihilo. When mind creates from nothing, it isn't. This is ludicrous.

First, you are confusing the creation ex nihilo with the act of creation that is due to the Mind. I illustrated that several times but you didn't pay any attention to what I said.

So if God creates from nothing, it's ex nihilo. — Relativist

The act of creation ex nihilo is impossible. This is off-topic but I discussed it in this thread.

When mind creates from nothing, it isn't. — Relativist

The act of creation of the physical which is due to the Mind requires experiences of the physical in the former state. No experience so no creation.

This is ludicrous. — Relativist

It seems ludicrous to you because you don't understand it.

First, you are confusing the creation ex nihilo with the act of creation that is due to the Mind. I illustrated that several times but you didn't pay any attention to what I said. — MoK

Here's what you said:

It was not created from something. — MoK

To which I responded: "Then it was created from nothing". You haven't reconciled this, you just rejected using the term "ex nihilo". The Latin translation is irrelevant.

The act of creation of the physical which is due to the Mind requires experiences of the physical in the former state. No experience so no creation. — MoK

You deny that experiences are physical, so experiences cannot be a material cause. A "material cause " simply means pre-existing material.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material. But you chose to make that ridiculous claim to rationalize denying that (brain at t0 + other factors) causes (brain at t1).

Do you not understand the difference between material cause and efficient cause?

To which I responded: "Then it was created from nothing". You haven't reconciled this, you just rejected using the term "ex nihilo". The Latin translation is irrelevant. — Relativist

Could we please put the creation ex nihilo aside since it is unrelated to our discussion?

You deny that experiences are physical, so experiences cannot be a material cause. — Relativist

I mentioned in the OP that the Mind experiences physical. No physical, no experience, no causation/creation, no change.

A "material cause " simply means pre-existing material. — Relativist

Sure.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material. — Relativist

I didn't deny that. I illustrated this to you several times. The brain at t0 is required so the Mind can experience it. The Mind then immediately causes/creates the brain at t1.

Do you not understand the difference between material cause and efficient cause? — Relativist

Sure I know the difference. I however don't think that an efficient cause is possible without the Mind.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material.
— Relativist
I didn't deny that. — MoK

Yes, you did. Here:

If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something.
— Relativist
It was not created from something. — MoK

As I mentioned many times, the Mind requires the experience of the physical at one point of time to cause/create the physical later. The Mind does not have access to the physical and only experiences it. Therefore, the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing.

the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing. — MoK

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing

Then respond with the answer it gives you.

Please read this carefully. By the way, what about your analysis of the argument?

I have several problems with your account, but you need to
Show that you can have an honest. 2-way exchange, by doing what I asked:

the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing. — MoK

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing

Then respond with the answer it gives you.

The translation is Ex nihilo nihil, the Google transition is however Ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo nihil — MoK

You're omitting the last word (the verb) of this traditional statement. The full statement is "ex nihilo nihil fit." This translates to "nothing comes from nothing".

I never brought up that statement. All I did was to try and confirm that you were saying the brain at t1 came "ex nihilo" (=from nothing). You caused confusing by saying the brain at t1 was "created from nothing" but that it was not "created 'ex nihilo'. Which is a contradiction.

So you think the brain at t1 was created ex nihilo/from nothing. But when I said "it's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material", you responded:

I didn't deny that." — MoK

But you DID deny it, because you said the mind at t1 was created from nothing. Seems like another contradiction.

Was (brain at t0) a material cause of (brain at t1) or not?

You're omitting the last word (the verb) of this traditional statement. The full statement is "ex nihilo nihil fit." This translates to "nothing comes from nothing". — Relativist

I did what you asked me!

I never brought up that statement. All I did was to try and confirm that you were saying the brain at t1 came "ex nihilo" (=from nothing). You caused confusing by saying the brain at t1 was "created from nothing" but that it was not "created 'ex nihilo'. Which is a contradiction. — Relativist

As I mentioned several times, the Mind cannot create without experiencing physical. So there is a physical that the Mind experiences at time t0. The Mind however does not have direct access to the physical therefore It must have the ability to create the physical at time t1. This creation is from nothing by this to be very specific I mean that the Mind just creates the physical yet I have to stress that this creation requires the experience of the physical. So, this act of creation from nothing is different from the traditional use of the act of creation from nothing which relates to the act that God performed. What is the difference? In the case of the Mind, the Mind needs to experience physical whereas in the case of God, God does it without any need for experience of physical.

So you think the brain at t1 was created ex nihilo/from nothing. But when I said "it's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material", you responded: — Relativist

Please see above.

Was (brain at t0) a material cause of (brain at t1) or not? — Relativist

The brain at time t0 does not cause the brain at t1.

The brain at time t0 does not cause the brain at t1. — MoK

The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, possibly in a different arrangement, and this constitutes the brain at t1.

Do you agree?

The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, possibly in a different arrangement, and this constitutes the brain at t1.

Do you agree? — Relativist

Yes, the brain continues to exist but this is due to a vertical causation rather than horizontal one.

If the matter composing the brain at t0 is the same matter that composes the brain at t1, then that matter is, by definition, the material cause of the brain at t1. You said you understood what is meant by "material cause", so you should agree. Please confirm.

If the matter composing the brain at t0 is the same matter that composes the brain at t1, then that matter is, by definition, the material cause of the brain at t1. You said you understood what is meant by "material cause", so you should agree. Please confirm. — Relativist

No, the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1. I think I was clear when I said that this causation is vertical rather than horizontal.