Change is the effect of a Cause. And we detect Change in the same way know Meaning ; by measuring the Difference in form : Information. By comparing prior Form to latter Form we infer the Cause of the Change. And my name for the cause of all change in the world is EnFormAction, which is analogous to Energy. So, Change is Transformation. That may not answer your question, but it may give you something to think about. :smile:Some say that we have a change when a thing has a property at one time that it does not have at another. However, that either doesn’t tell us what change in itself is - it just tells us when we typically recognize there to have been a change - or it is a circular and so tells us nothing. For it appeals to a change in temporal properties. — Bartricks
In theory, that may be the case. But in reality, there may be multiple causes for a single effect. In my information-based personal paradigm, I call the power of causation "EnFormAction". It's the cause of all changes in the world, both physical and mental. That general power to cause change (to enform) is also the source of all meaning (need to know) for our bodies and minds. It's analogous to both Energy and Willpower. Anything else you need to know? :smile:Is everything we need to know about an effect already present in the cause? — Joshs
So what, then, is change in itself? Well, it seems to me that a good place to start is to think about how we detect it (even though it is an egregious mistake to confuse one's detection of something with the thing itself). — Bartricks
On grandest scale change is the norm. — Cheshire
Or it's the subtext to greasing yet another slide into a creationist agenda. — Cheshire
There you simply express a prejudice: you believe any analysis is false that implies the existence of a god, yes? Why? — Bartricks
I'm going off pure pattern recognition. Change is an interesting topic and fertile ground for some new ideas I imagine. But, when it's creationism being served under a guise I end up sifting through 300+ posts to find a position I wouldn't have invested in refuting. If I'm wrong, then there is no concern. Motives matter in the sense a life is finite.How is there an exception? Either an argument is sound, or it is not. At no point do the motives matter. — Bartricks
sensations can resemble sensations and nothing else. — Bartricks
Sights resemble sights, sounds resemble sounds, smells resemble smells and so on — Bartricks
From this it follows that change itself is the sensation of a single mind. — Bartricks
↪Cheshire You don't seem to grasp the point — Bartricks
But, we can generalize change to sensation and make any number of statements? What is the motivation for this slight of hand?we can’t appeal to another change as then we are trying to explain change with change — Bartricks
If so, it's not a causal relationship, but an inert (no change) relationship? For example, you might have a static geometric or positional relationship, without any change in either factor. :chin:↪Gnomon
That's not true - one can have a cause and effect relation without there being any change. — Bartricks
This is certainly a very restrictive definition -- it doesn't cover the subject of change.Some say that we have a change when a thing has a property at one time that it does not have at another. — Bartricks
OK, but I don't think that seeing change via sensation helps us a lot. It's a restrictive way of identifying change. OK, we can "feel" change. Then what?I suggest that we first detect change by way of sensation. — Bartricks
In simple terms, change is "An act or process through which something becomes different" (Oxford LEXICO) — Alkis Piskas
Heraclitus described "change" in a superb way with his "Everything flows" and "You cannot step in the same river twice". What else should one need to understand change? — Alkis Piskas
Change is movement. — Alkis Piskas
OK, but isn't it in the same way that we perceive anything in the physical universe? So, the sensation/perception of change doesn’t really gives us --or at least, adds-- any insight on change. — Alkis Piskas
Reality potentially. Depends on whether reality is a sensation or not. In order to say that sensations represent sensations and only sensations, given that sensations represent reality, you must assume that reality is a sensation. — khaled
Your conclusion is assumed in your second premise. I’m sure you know what that means. — khaled
The problem with your proof is the same as the problem here:
Barkley argued that cats resemble X. Assume that’s true.
Cats resemble cats and only cats.
Therefore X are cats.
The validity depends on what X is, let’s assume “X” is “dogs”. Then the conclusion is clearly false, so where was the error? Either premise 1 or 2 is wrong. Let’s trust Barkley for now. So premise 2 is wrong, cats must not resemble cats and only cats given that cats resemble dogs. That or premise 1 is wrong and cats don’t resemble dogs.
So this type of argument doesn't work for any X. What makes you think reality is such an X that it works? — khaled
↪Bartricks
From this it follows that change itself is the sensation of a single mind.
— Bartricks
And this doesn't follow either. Why single? Why not a coalition of minds?
If we sense changes and changes are sensations, then are we "sensing sensations"? What does that even mean? And the sensations that we're sensing, what's the source of those? Other sensations?(infinite regress) — khaled
There is no argument to dismiss. — Cheshire
Your example is quite a stretch, so it is not much of a distraction -- more like a paradox or riddle. :joke:Anyway, do not be distracted by that example. For this thread is about change, not causation — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.