Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist

It is necessary since a change indicates a going from one state at one point in time to another state later. So the knowledge of the proper time that the causation is due to, t2 in this case, is necessary.

A physical what? — fdrake

I mean the stuff like objects, a cup, a chair, etc. for example.

The physical what? — fdrake

The stuff that is subject to change and discussion.

But they are indexible by distinct time points t1 and t2 by the presumption. — fdrake

Yes, two states of physical are indexed by two points in time. This indexing is necessary to define a change in the physical. I am however arguing that change in the physical is not possible within physicalism because the physical does not experience the change in time therefore it cannot know the proper time, t2, to which the causation is due to.

Which means awareness, whatever you mean by it, is distinct from influence and indexicality. — fdrake

By awareness, I mean the ability to experience, in this case, the ability to experience the change in time.

Influence - because a change occurs from t1 and t2, and indexicality, because labelling the states s1@t1 and s2@t2 was sufficient to denote the change. — fdrake

s1@t1 to s2@t2 denotes a change. I am however arguing that this change is not possible if you endorse physicalism.

What does it mean for "a physical" to be "aware" or "not aware" of the passage of time? — fdrake

By aware of the passage of time here I mean have a perception of change in time. To experience the change in time if that sounds better to you.

Also the passage? Passing? — fdrake

By the passage of time I mean that time is subject to change.

Are you intending to refer to time as a substantive - having some influence or relevance, a basis in what is - even though "a physical" only references an indexical time? Puzzling. — fdrake

Yes, time is real to me without it change in physical is not possible.

You've then got three inferences, three "therefores", which seemingly follow from your terms with only contextual definitions in the OP, and you've not clarified their relationship. Awareness, physical, passage of time, cause power... — fdrake

By causal power I mean it can cause. So when I say that the physical in the state S1 has a causal power to cause the physical in the state S2, I mean that the physical in the first case can cause the physical in the second case.

I'm sure this realisation was significant to you, but you can't tell much of what you mean at all by reading your words. — fdrake

I tried my best to define the terms you requested. Please let me know if anything is unclear. I would be happy to elaborate.

No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so. Words have to follow the world as servants and let the world dictate to them. Only then do they begin to be meaningful. All else is fiction, nonsense, confusion, or magical thinking. — unenlightened

Do you have any objection to my argument? I would be happy to hear them.

Consider physics... then your argument physically falls apart... — DifferentiatingEgg

My argument clearly shows that physicalism is false therefore one has to endorse substance dualism which explains reality well. By the way, this argument is a support for another topic that I am currently discussing entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause". Physicalism also suffers from other problems, namely the Hard Problem of consciousness, epiphenomenalism, etc. so I don't see any point in supporting physicalism at all!

More or less you're trying to make a hilariously bad argument that God is everything. — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not talking about God here.

Rather than cluttering TPF with feverdream thoughts that don't logically proceed the next. — DifferentiatingEgg

My arguments follow logically. If you think otherwise please find a flaw in my argument here.

I also love how you're suggesting that physical can KNOW, cause some how it's got a mind of its own... — DifferentiatingEgg

What is the mind to you here?

which destroys your own prior argument... "the mind is the uncaused cause..." even here you admit I was right... — DifferentiatingEgg

As I promised I am not going to discuss that topic with you anymore. You don't know that a syllogism is valid because of its form rather than its context.

Though... it is kinda funny to look about this room I'm in and think about all the physical things here having 0 properties that interact with physics. — DifferentiatingEgg

I didn't say that physical has no properties.

Thus the potential for change is already prejudged within the physical body... — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not declining that physical has no potential but arguing that change is not possible within physicalism.

But, considering I can't even understand where you're coming from, these are simply my objections to your truths. — DifferentiatingEgg

You didn't provide a valid objection at all yet. I am open to them but that means that you need to find a problem within my argument first.

Carry on if you will it. Just because I can't understand your perspective doesn't really mean I ought to attempt to refute it. — DifferentiatingEgg

You seem trying to refute my argument without having a valid objection.

I had assumed I understood where you were coming from. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think otherwise. You seem to not understand what I am arguing here.

From considering the evidence, I don't think it's possible for this to be a one way causation, of the subconscious causing, or granting, what is experienced by the conscious. As demonstrated by the randomness of dreams, the subconscious could present the conscious with almost any possible experience. However, the consciousness normally rejects the inconsistent absurd presentations, allowing them only in times of sleep. This means that in times of being awake, the conscious mind must be actively suppressing the subconscious, and exercising causal control over it, to ensure that it provides only presentations which make sense to it.

This cannot be merely a filtering of the subconscious presentations, the conscious part must be actively controlling the way that the subconscious formulates its presentations, to ensure that whatever is "granted" from the subconscious is coherent and consistent with the way that the conscious understands things. Otherwise the subconscious would be continually slipping into incoherent, and inconsistent presentations, like it does in dreaming. So this effort which the conscious part of the mind must make, in order to exercise control over what the subconscious is presenting it with, manifests as the effort of staying awake when a person gets sleepy. In general, this would be the essence of tiredness, weakening of the capacity to exercise that control. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that the conscious mind has such a causal power. I experience hallucinations all the time. I see things and hear things that other people cannot see or hear. People say that I have schizophrenia but they cannot explain the phenomenon at all. It is also well known that hallucinatory substances such as LSD and magic mushrooms cause hallucinations. People who use such substances see things differently. I had a friend who reported that he could see the motion of water in a tree when he was using LSD. So either what the conscious mind experiences is filtered in our daily life when we are in a normal state and reality looks different from what we experience or there is no way to explain the hallucinations such as the one my friend and others have when they are under the influence of LSD for example.

I've heard speculations, that actually everything anyone ever experiences is put into one's memory. — Metaphysician Undercover

You need a substance to put memory into it.

And, all the problems we have with memory are due to our ability to retrieve what is there in the memory. — Metaphysician Undercover

If that is true then the memory should be registered in a substance that is not physical because we are aware of the shortage of physical memory and problems related to memory loss due to brain damage.

Have you ever heard of "Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory" or hyperthymesia? — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore, such a memory must be registered in another substance other than physical. Perhaps soul! Who knows?

A mind is a resulting process of sensory inputs and decisions. — Philosophim

What is sensory input to you?

The mind can be intelligent, unintelligent, conscious, or unconscious. — Philosophim

You are talking about consciousness here. How consciousness is possible if we accept that only the physical exists and the physical intrinsically unconscious?

Merely physical? :) Everything is physical MoK. Do you have your consciousness in another room or your head? Is your mind in your head or in your feet? Its tied to a physical location, therefore is physical itself. "Merely" does not diminish the amazing quality of a mind either. Physical reality is amazing. — Philosophim

See above.

No, that's not the hard problem at all. — Philosophim

The Hard Problem of consciousness is the philosophical question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience.

We can evaluate brain states and objectively determine certain areas of consciousness. — Philosophim

That only means that there is a correlation between neural processes in the brain and experience. The correlation does not necessarily mean that the neural processes are the cause of experience.

We also don't fully know what its like to subjectively be a molecule, quark, etc. — Philosophim

According to physicalism physical process is governed by the laws of physics. Within physicalism physical does not experience anything at all. That is why the Hard Problem of consciousness becomes relevant. Are you saying that electrons, quarks, etc. can have experience? How something can be an object and subject at the same time?

I am following your posts and reading them carefully. I think we can agree that experience is a phenomenon that cannot be explained within physicalism. Therefore, there exists a mind with the capacity to experience. I however don't think that thinking is a faculty of the mind.

In all cases I was simply responding to you. In my very first post, I brought up the issue of how "experience" is defined, noting that one COULD define it in a way that included a boulder rolling down the mountain. You later seemed to want to limit the discussion to MENTAL experiences, so at that time I began focusing solely on mental experiences. — Relativist

I am aware of that. However, I have a problem with it because, to me, physical processes, whether they occur in your brain or a stone, are governed by the laws of physics. Objects however have different properties these properties are the result of the composition and arrangement of physical in objects.

But you defined mental experiences as non-physical, which precludes physicalism with a definition. — Relativist

I didn't define mental experience at all. That is your definition. I just defined experience. I agree that the experience or awareness precludes physicalism given my definition of experience. See below.

I'm fine with applying different terms to mental experiences (m-experiences) and non-mental experiences (nm-experiences). — Relativist

There is only one sort of physical process and that is governed by laws of physics.

Let's also define non-physical experiences (np-experiences), because you are claiming that m-experiences=np-experiences. Your burden is to show this is necessarily the case. — Relativist

I cannot agree with your definition of np-experience, m-experience, and p-experience since to me there is only one sort of experience that I equate to awareness. I am not claiming that m-experience=np-experience so there is no burden on me.

My contention is that there are no np-experiences, because physicalism can account for m-experiences just fine. You put forth an argument that entails physicalism being false, so you have the burden to show that it is impossible for physicalism to be true. You would presumably do that by proving there are np-experiences. — Relativist

I equate experience to awareness. It was your misuse of terms that caused us all trouble. You define experience as the process in physical. The experience as I mentioned is related to another phenomenon that has a clear definition in the philosophy of the mind.

Agreed. I hope you can recognize that it would have been easier if you had simply said that in the first place, instead of asking. — Relativist

Cool. So we finally agree on awareness (presence of experience) and unawareness (absence of experience). How could you accommodate awareness in physicalism considering the basic ingredients of any objects, electrons, quarks, etc. are unaware?

You're deflecting. This part of the discussion dealt with your theory of mind, which I pointed out seemed incoherent. — Relativist

I am not evading at all. I am talking about problems that cannot be addressed in physicalism. Could you address them? Yes or no? If yes, please address the problems. If not, that is you who are ignoring the mentioned problems. By the way, I developed another argument against physicalism last night. You can find the argument here. Please feel free to discuss the argument in the related thread.

I anticipate that you're strategy is to make an argument from ignorance: find a reason to reject physicalism, and then conclude "...therefore dualism must be true". No, you have to show you have a superior alternative. An incoherent theory is not superior. You DENY that it's incoherent, but you haven't been able to address my objections. — Relativist

Please see above.

You seemed to agree that MoK's brain t1 was caused by (MoK's brain at t0 + other factors). The question is: is the mind one of those other factors. Please answer it. I anticipate that either answer will contradict something you've already said, but we'll see. After you've shown your theory is coherent, then we can further discuss your issues with physicalism. — Relativist

MoK's brain t1 was not caused by MoK's brain at t0 + other factors. Please see above.

This is on the right track of where the op is pointing. But the question is, how can the subconscious so thoroughly deceive the conscious, so that the conscious doesn't even know that it's not awake when the subconscious is producing dreams. — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind just experiences a simulation created by the subconscious mind. It takes the experience granted to be real in the dream since it cannot analyze whether the dream represents something real or not. We can however have lucid dreams in which we are aware that what we experiencing is a dream. We can even have control over our actions in lucid dreams. I have lucid dreams from time to time.

Maybe there is no conscious mind when a person is dreaming, maybe it's all subconscious, and that's why the conscious doesn't know that it's just a dream, because the consciousness is completely absent. But then where is the consciousness at this time, and how can we account for the discontinuity? — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind has very limited memory. This memory is also temporary. Anything that the conscious mind experiences therefore must be registered in the subconscious mind to recall it later. So, either the subconscious mind playing a game with the conscious mind, or the dream is a supernatural phenomenon in which we, the conscious and subconscious minds, are immersed within.

Change was not denied here. — Corvus

So, do you agree that change is real? If change is real then what is the subject to change?

The actual change itself cannot be captured by physics and math. — Corvus

Correct. We however experience change. It is through the experience that we act accordingly. For example, do you step into the street when you see a car moving very fast in the street and it will hit you if you step into the street?

No, I am not an idealist. I think I told you before, but you seem to have forgotten already. I am a bundle of perception. — Corvus

How could you have any perception? Are you denying that you have a brain and your perception is due to physical processes in your brain?

No. Again wrong. Time is a concept. Time doesn't allow anything. Change and motion can be described in time. — Corvus

So you are confirming what I said and at the same time saying what I said is wrong!

That is an illusion from your latent memory. — Corvus

So do you step into the street when you see a car moving very fast and it will hit you if you step into the street?

Change takes place in an instance physics and math cannot describe, capture or understand. The moment of change takes place in co-existing moment of unchanged state and change. — Corvus

I already discuss that. What you are referring to is a simultaneous process. There cannot be any change in a simultaneous process.

What is the difference between psychological time and subjective time? — Corvus

Subjective time allows physical change whereas psychological time regulates our subjective experiences.

Can you mix time? Time is not liquid or powder. You cannot mix time. — Corvus

Sorry, I mean you are confusing the subjective time with psychological time.

:up:

We have experience, we infer the rest, call it what you will. I don't see why they both can't have an underlying cause, outside stipulation: physical things only change physical things, mental things only change mental things. — Manuel

That is a version of parallelism. The problem is how physical and mental correlate with each other to such a fantastic precision. Some believe that God made it happen. Some believe that it is a coincidence! etc.

Why leads you (or anyone) to say that we know enough of either (physical or mental) to conclude that they can't include each other? — Manuel

What do you mean?

No, the mind is a result of the brain, not equal to it. — Philosophim

Could you please define the mind?

You have to understand that neuronal activity results in a picture, and then your adjustment based on that picture is more neuronal activity. — Philosophim

When we are talking about the mind we are also talking about consciousness. If we accept that the neural process is merely a physical process then no room is left for consciousness. Could you deny consciousness and its contribution to how a conscious agent does? If not, how consciousness could be causally efficacious if the laws of physics determine the physical process?

The computer you use is completely run on electrical gates that turn on and off. And yet from that, you're able to interact with and change what you see on the screen. — Philosophim

The computer is a weak emergence. There is no explanatory gap in understanding a computer and how it functions. When it comes to consciousness, there is an explanatory gap, so-called the Hard Problem of consciousness. The problem is related to the fact that how something intrinsically is unconscious, electrons, quarks, atoms, molecules, etc. could become conscious when they form a brain.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that complex events cannot come from the build up of many simple things. — Philosophim

Are you talking about weak or strong emergence here? Weak emergence is possible, but strong emergence is not possible.

Yes, you did: — Relativist

Ok, mistake on my part.

Given your insult, I now gather that you weren't asking me for a definition, but that wasn't clear. Communication is a 2-way street. Accept responsibility for conveying what you mean, and that your words may not be interpreted in the way you have in mind. — Relativist

I didn't mean to insult you at all. I am very sorry if my words hurt your feelings but I didn't intend to do so. When I ask you what is the experience you answer that as a set of processes in the brain. Please call a set of processes in the brain another thing since the experience refers to another phenomenon I tried my best to explain it to you but you constantly denied it. When I discuss whether Rock experience as well, then you changed experience in the case of the brain to mental experience. The physical processes are governed by the laws of physics whether it is in a brain or a rock. What makes a brain different from a rock is the composition and arrangement of physical, so one is neuroplastic and another solid. And now we are discussing awareness. I think I was clear with what I mean by awareness by now. I mean the opposite of darkness where the physical processes go into the dark. We can distinguish between the state of anesthesia and awareness, in the first case we are not aware of anything at all while in the second we are not only aware of things but we can also report things.

I just demonstrated that I pay close attention. — Relativist

Thanks for the clarification. I hope that this discussion will be fruitful for both of us, mate!

Absolutely things can happen to us, and/or to our brains, without our being aware of it. Examples:
-surgery under general anasthesia
-Developing cancer prior to symptoms
-hair growth
-brain damage caused by sudden trauma. — Relativist

I didn't ask for examples of cases that we are not aware of things. I was trying to reach an agreement that what awareness is when we are in a normal state. Anyhow, I am glad that you brought up the example of anesthesia. Have you ever been under anesthesia? If yes, then you realize what I mean by awareness here. Are you aware of anything at all when you are under anesthesia? Sure not. That is what I mean by being unaware. Opposite of the state of unawareness is the state of awareness. So, could we agree that there is a difference between being unaware and aware? To me, awareness refers to a state in which we are conscious of mental activities, such as perceptions, thoughts, feelings, etc.

You're alluding to some particular theory you have about the nature of individual identity, and to a presentist conception of time. That would be fine, but it impedes communication when you make statements that allude to some theory you haven't described. In this case, it seems possible we largely agree, but maybe not -since you haven't explained. I'll nevertheless try, but contain your anger if my basis isn't consistent with yours. Instead, respond by explaining what you mean. — Relativist

I already mentioned in OP that the argument is dense and long. I agree that I didn't define the experience, physical, change, etc. in OP. These concepts, such as experience, physical, and change are however well known. I agree that some people may not be familiar with these concepts. The purpose of this thread is to discuss things in depth so we can fill the gap in the knowledge and reach an agreement if that is possible.

I embrace presentism, but also recognize that a past existed and that it caused the present, and that there will be a future that will come into being as a consequence of the present. In terms of the identity of objects, I embrace the identity of the indiscernibles: A and B are the SAME object (same individual identity) IFF they have the exact same set of properties (both intrinsic and relational). It follows from this that MoK's brain at time t0 is not identical to Mok's brain at time t-1. Nevertheless, it is also true that MoK's brain at t0 was caused by (MoK's brain at t-1 + other factors). We can identify MoK's brain as a "perduring identity": a temporally connected series of point-in-time MoK's brain. A point-in-time MoK's brain can also be considered a "state" of MoK's brain; hence my issue. — Relativist

That is the part that I disagree. That is true that MoK's brain at time t is related to Mok's brain at time t-1 plus other factors but that does not mean that MoK's brain at time t-1 plus other factors causes MoK's brain at time t. I think there are three issues here: 1) The Hard Problem of consciousness, 2) Epiphenomenalism, and 3) The fact that change in the physical is due to experience (we have to agree with what it is meant by experience or awareness first).

First issue: The Hard Problem of consciousness refers to the problem of how physical that it is intrinsically unconscious could become conscious in certain configurations such as what we find in the brain. By consciousness, I mean a state in which we can have any sort of experience. I think that philosophers of mind agree with this definition.

Second issue: Accepting that we can one day find an answer to the Hard Problem of consciousness, we are still dealing with the problem of epiphenomenalism. Epiphenomenalism in simple words states that consciousness has no causal power when it comes to the real world since the state of the physical at one time defines the state of the physical later. We however observe a fantastic correlation between conscious state and physical. For example, you know for sure that there is a correlation between your thoughts and what you are typing. This is something that physicalism fails to answer. If the state of matter is defined to change by the laws of nature then typing meaningful words should happen on its own and you could have any sort of conscious state which is not related to physical.

Third issue: We know for sure that experience affects physical. For example, if someone punches me in the face then I say Ouch. That means that feeling the pain is the cause of saying Ouch. And not only that. If you asked me whether I was punched in the face because of the inflammation you see on my face, I can report yes, I remember the person, the reason why he punched me, etc. That means that what I experienced is registered in my brain without experience I could not possibly report any of these and I could not say Ouch too. For this, we need to agree on my definition of experience though.

These issues if not more are serious threats to physicalism. My formulation which is a new form of substance dualism answers all issues simply.

Then your response didn't answer the question I asked. I haven't disputed that "the brain is caused", but I'm pointing out that the brain t0 was casused by the brain @t-1 + other factors. Was the mind among the "other factors" or not? — Relativist

The Mind causes the change in the physical. If we accept that physical causes physical then we have to deal with the above-mentioned issues.

Ah! The mind is causing something after all! — Relativist

I mentioned that in OP. Please see the C2 in the first argument.

Be specfic: what is it causing? — Relativist

The Mind causes physical, and by causing I mean the Mind creates physical.

So rephrase this in more specific terms. Also explain how something that is unchanging has selective temporal points of interference - and how they are selected -given that the mind isn't learning or anticipating, since it's unchanging. — Relativist

That is a very good question! The Mind is unchanging. It however experiences the state of physical at now and that is the only thing that the Mind experiences. Let's say, that physical changes by this I mean physical state changes from one state to another state, S1 and S2 respectively. It is the S1 state that dictates what the S2 state should be. The Mind cannot interfere with what the state of S2 should be. The only thing that it does is to experience S1 and cause S2 and for this, the Mind does not need to have any knowledge of what time is.

I question whether you can provide a coherent account, because you may be treating time inconsistently: from both a presentist viewpoint and a block-time viewpoint. But that's just a guess. It's your burden to make sense of it. — Relativist

I discuss the block time, what I call objective time, and subjective time in my second and third arguments. I don't know what you don't understand and what is your issue with it. Please let me know and I would be happy to answer.

The rock at t1 was caused by (the rock at t0 + other factors). Those other factors did not include my sitting and rising from the sofa. If the mind is existing outside spacetime, it is not "experiencing" events in space time. — Relativist

The Mind exists within spacetime. Please see my third argument, C3 to be very specific.

From its perspective, does spacetime exist as a 4-dimensional block? — Relativist

The mind exists within spacetime, a 4D block in other words. Things are moving and exist in the Mind.

Alternatively, does the mind exist like a photon traveling at the speed of light - from its perspective, it exists simultanously along all spacetime points along its path - but also with no intereractions with anything else along that path (an interaction would entail a termination of the path). — Relativist

No, the Mind exists within spacetime. The Mind only experiences things, physical and subjective time, at now because they exist at now.

MoK, the problem with your argument is that it ignores basic science about the brain. Your mind is caused by your brain. — Philosophim

Within physicalism, the mind is equated to the brain or the brain process. What is the definition of mind to you and how could be caused by the brain? How the mind can affect the brain if it is caused by the brain?

That's a pretty well established fact at this point in history. Philosophy has to be constructed on the science and current understanding of the day or else its just logical fiction. — Philosophim

I think it is the opposite. That is the philosophy that guides science to see what would be the subject of focus.

The subconscious mind creates what the conscious mind perceives whether what is perceived by the conscious mind is a dream or a simulation of reality.

No. I was suggesting time is a concept. It is a way to describe changes, motions, movements, and durations and intervals too. — Corvus

How could deny change as a mere concept? It exists in the natural world. Are you an idealist?

Because time is a concept, it cannot cause any physical objects or events to change. It can only capture them in perception, and describe them. — Corvus

Time does not cause a change. It allows the change.

The physical changes take place in a slice of moment, where the cause and effect co-exist in the window of the change. — Corvus

No, physical changes take place in continuous time.

Lumping them altogether, and seeing them as process or continuity would be categorical illusion from the latent memory in the brain. — Corvus

You are mixing psychological time with subjective time. There is also objective time.

Are you suggesting that time is discrete? If yes, then there is a gap between two points in time. Accepting that physicalism is a correct view then physical in one point of time cannot cause physical in another point of time later because of the gap. Therefore, the change is impossible. Change exists. Therefore time is continuous.

What is awareness? Awareness entails developing beliefs about some activity or state of affairs. This could be from direct perceptions (a perception is a belief), by being told (as when a surgeon describes what he did), or hearing about something indirectly (such as from news sources). — Relativist

I didn't ask for your definition of awareness which as usual is unrelated and unnecessary. You need to pay attention to my argument and definition of words. So again, why don't your brain's physical processes go in the dark? You are aware of thoughts, sensations, feelings, beliefs, etc. By aware here I mean that the opposite of the dark. You are not living in a dark state. Are you? You are aware of things. You can report what you are aware of too.

The brain already existed. Do you mean a new brain state was caused? If so, what caused the brain to change states? — Relativist

Any physical including the brain does not exist in the immediate future. Phsycail exists at now. The subjective time however changes and this change is due to the Mind (please read my second argument in OP if you are interested). So there is a situation where the immediate future becomes now. Physical however does not exist in the immediate future so it cannot exist in the situation when the immediate future becomes now, therefore the Mind causes/creates the physical at now.

#2 referred to your statement "I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something" Are you saying you were wrong? — Relativist

You need to read the rest of my sentence: "I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something but the brain is caused." This was a response to you that you said the brain is caused to do something...

Then your ignoring the cause-effect. What I challenged you to do was to explain the cause-effect relationship between mind and brain. On the one hand, you seem to deny there is one, but in that case, the mind isn't involved at all with what we do, nor with our experiences. — Relativist

The cause and effect in the case of Mind is the experience of physical and causation of physical. By this, I mean that the experience in the Mind is due to the existence of the physical. The existence of the physical is however due to the existence of the Mind since that is the Mind that causes physical in the subjective time. So we are dealing with vertical causation by this I mean that the physical in the state S1 causes an experience in the Mind. The Mind then causes physical in the state S2. The Mind then experiences physical in the state of S2 and causes physical in the state S3, etc.

Here's what I mean by involvement: 1) a causal involvement, in which the mind causes something to take place in the brain. — Relativist

No, the Mind causes the brain. It doesn't cause something to take place in the brain.

You deny this causal role; 2) the mind is impacted by something in the brain (e.g. by sensory perceptions), but this would entail a change to the mind - which you say is changeless. — Relativist

The Mind experiences physical. This however does not mean that the Mind changes. The Mind does not have any memory of what has experienced in the past. It just experiences and causes physical immediately.

You said the mind is unchanging. Any sort of learning entails change, and it entails some sort of memory. So you're saying the mind does not learn in any sense at all, right? — Relativist

Yes. Please see the last comment.

Suppose there's a rock sitting under my living room sofa. It is present when I sit on the sofa, and when I get up. It has no causal role and isn't changed during my sitting and changing. How does an unchanging mind with no causal role differ from the rock? — Relativist

Any physical changes even those that seem to be unchanging. The rock is on Earth, Earth is moving so the rock. The particles that make an object are in constant motion even if the object is in space and has no motion. The Mind is Omnipresent in spacetime so it is changeless as I argued in my third argument.

Sure, I think you are seeing the change as unbroken continuity. — Corvus

Correct.

I am seeing change as continuity composed of slices of moments. — Corvus

Time is made of moments but time is continuous.

Change is composed of momentary continuity. You must be able to see the moment of the actual change, not the pseudo changes you describe (which is the illusion you see when seeing changes). — Corvus

I explained the change.

There cannot be any change in the case of a simultaneous process. Change exists. Therefore, the states of physical are not simultaneous.

But obviously they cannot see the moment of coexistence of breaking and unbrokenness of the glass. — Corvus

There is no such thing!

Time is temporal continuity composed of moments. Not seeing it, means physics and math cannot capture the true nature of time or physical changes. — Corvus

Mathematics and physics can explain what a continuous change is.

It seems physics cannot capture the moment of coexistence of the glass breaking and unbreaking. — Corvus

There is no moment that glass is broken and unbroken. The change is continuous.

I pointed out in my first post that "experience" could be defined in a way that includes rocks; — Relativist

Well, you said that experience is a physical process. That is all I need. Do you think that this physical process or experience in the case of the rock goes in the dark? Yes, or no? If yes, why the physical process in the brain does not go in the dark? Why things are not dark for you instead they have some features that you are aware of. Could you say that you are unaware of things that happen to you? What is awareness to you?

We subsequently honed in on "mental experiences", which entails mental activity. Rocks do not have a structure that produces mental activity. So the answer is: no, unless we broaden the definition. — Relativist

What do you mean mental here? Experience is a physical process for you and any physical undergoes a physical process so I don't understand what you are going to gain here.

You obviously forgot we were discussing mental experiences. — Relativist

No, we were only discussing experience and not mental experience.

1. The brain... goes from one state to another state later. — Relativist

Correct.

2. I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something — Relativist

The brain is caused since it changes.

3. it [the brain] is caused when it changes. — Relativist

Correct.

4. The mind is Omnipresent in spacetime as I argued in the third part of the argument in OP. — Relativist

Correct.

#1 entails a change of states. Change entails a cause for that change. — Relativist

Correct.

#2 implies there is no cause of the state change. That's incoherent. — Relativist

#2 is incorrect.

#3 makes no sense. What is the cause, and what is the effect? — Relativist

By cause I mean it is created if that is not obvious.

Your assertion about the mind (#4) is unrelated to 1-3. — Relativist

It is not unrelated considering that motion is a change in matter. Please read the third argument.

This contradicts #2, above. You now seem to be suggesting the mind is causing the brain to change. — Relativist

I didn't say #2. I said clearly in OP that physical is caused. By this, I mean that the physical is created.

If that is what you mean, then there must be a causal connection to the brain. Describe the nature of this connection. — Relativist

The Mind experiences and causes physical, whether it is a brain or a stone.

If the mind never changes, then why does it interfere with brain function when it does? — Relativist

Because physical cannot change on their own because of overdetermination.

The mind hasn't learned anything to base it on, because learning entails change. — Relativist

The mind does not learn anything in the sense that we are learning. The Mind just experiences by this I mean it is aware of states of physical. It does not have any memory of things that experienced in the past. It just experiences a state of physical in one state and causes physical in another state immediately.

I agree. — 180 Proof

Cool.

Non-sequitur. As I said:

An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories). — Relativist

Do you think that a rock experiences as well? There is a physical process within a rock as well. If not, what makes a brain different from a rock?

Of course not. You defined it in a way that's inconsistent with physicalism. You haven't identified anything that is necessarily non-physical. By contrast, my definition is neutral, and covers all associated, uncontroversial, facts. — Relativist

Your definition is at best incoherent. See above.

This is ridiculous! I already did! — Relativist

See above.

This is incoherent. If the brain is not caused to do something by the immaterial mind, then the mind has no role in an account of experience, and no role in behavior. — Relativist

It is not incoherent. You need to read it carefully.

You've just contradicted yourself. — Relativist

There is no contradiction. I argue in favor of it in OP.

If it is independent, there is no causation in either direction. — Relativist

There is vertical causation with the difference that the Mind is not subject to change whereas the physical is subject to change.

Then there has to be a causal connection between mind and brain. You gloss over this by making vague claims. — Relativist

There is vertical causation here. See above.

I am done with you.

Such a waste of time. I am done with you and I am not going to discuss this topic with you anymore.

You have no argument is the point... — DifferentiatingEgg

I do. By changing the words in the argument you cannot show anything until you define the words that are used in the argument. Are you interested in a fruitful discussion? If yes you need to define what you mean by mental and experience. And yes, I can change the experience by X and physical by Y and my argument still follows, whatever X and Y are.

You can change the argument the way you like. But you are skipping my questions. That is not fruitful. So again what do you mean by mental and experience?

To show you can substitute different words for physical and end up with with the same conclusion... thus not an argument... — DifferentiatingEgg

I noticed that. I however asked you what you mean by mental and experience. You need to define them.

What do you mean by mental and experience?

Those are not my premises. Could you please answer my question here?

Let's discuss P1 in the first section. Are you denying that physical exists and you don't have any experience?

Your premises are theory not yet established. — DifferentiatingEgg

Which premises?

Ok, it seems that you are not interested!