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.

This does not address the problem. You said: "The conscious mind owes all its experiences to the subconscious mind". This implies that in both dreaming and awake, the consciousness "only experiences a simulation constructed by the subconscious mind". — Metaphysician Undercover

I should have said: The conscious mind owes most of its experiences to the subconscious mind". This is now an accurate statement.

Now you have simply asserted that in the awake condition the simulation is the result of sensory inputs, thoughts and feelings. But these are things experienced in the consciousness. And, you have in no way answered my question, which was how do you account for this difference. If the conscious mind owes all of its experiences to the subconscious, why, and how, would the subconscious be creating these two very distinct types of experience for the consciousness, the asleep experience, and the awake experience? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know the purpose of dreams. There is however a collaboration between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind and that is necessary. The conscious mind is fast but it has access to its memory which is very limited. The conscious mind works on its memory and can produce a thought for example if that is possible. When the thought is produced as a result of the work of the conscious mind then there is nothing to work on anymore so the conscious mind stays silent unless it receives the new input from the subconscious mind.

You are being inconsistent. If the consciousness owes all of its experience to the subconscious, as you claim, then it is inconsistent to say that the conscious mind can create something itself (new thoughts). — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Please see my first comment and thanks for your comment.

And if we allow that the conscious mind has such a creative capacity, then we need principles to distinguish between what is created by the conscious and what is created by the subconscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. The conscious mind has the capacity to create thoughts when the person is awake. The subconscious mind can also create thought and it is intelligent as well but the most of thoughts are created by the conscious mind. The subconscious mind is intelligent because it knows what sort of input the conscious mind requires when the conscious mind focuses on a topic. The subconscious mind can create thoughts as well. It occurred to me on several occasions in my life that I was thinking about something very hard without reaching a conclusion. An idea then just popped up into my conscious mind when I was resting and the idea was very enlightening for what I was thinking. I think that such ideas are created by the subconscious mind.

Without such principles, one could argue, as Cartesian skeptics do, that everything supposedly presented from the subconscious, along with sense data, are a creation of the conscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I have discussed the responsibilities of the conscious and subconscious mind to a good extent by now.

I don't understand what you are saying. You explain the circadian rhythm as something completely independent from the senses, yet you claim that being awake is partly due to the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is both circadian rhythm and senses that are involved when we become awake.

Again, this doesn't address the issue, which is the following. If the subconscious is always active, therefore always providing something for the consciousness, why would it at sometimes provide sense data, and at other times not? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because the conscious mind needs to rest for a period of time, what we call sleeping.

If things are as you say, that the subconscious is always in complete control over what the consciousness receives, and the consciousness has no causal influence over this, then how does the subconscious turn off and on the sense input, when it appears to be the opposite, because it is actually the consciousness which goes to sleep and wakes up? — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind has control over things, such as the creation of thoughts, decisions, etc. when the person is awake.

Since the consciousness is what goes to sleep and wakes up, it appears obvious that the consciousness itself turns off and on the sense data. — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind does not receive any sense data when the person is asleep. It however receives hallucinations so-called dreams when the person is asleep. The situation is different when the person is awake.

Then how would you account for the difference between awake experiences, and dream experiences? — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference is that when a person is awake, his conscious mind experiences a simulation of reality that is the result of sensory inputs -- he also experiences thoughts, feelings, etc., whereas when he is asleep, he only experiences a simulation constructed by the subconscious mind.

If each is the subconscious presenting experience to the conscious, in the exact same way, why is there a difference between the two? — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference between the two is that the conscious mind can only function properly when a person is awake, while the subconscious mind is always active. The conscious mind is also responsible for creating new thoughts based on what it perceives from the subconscious mind. These new thoughts then are registered in the subconscious mind's memory for further analysis in the future.

We can't simply say that the senses are active in one case, and inactive in the other, because we need to account for whatever it is which activates the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct.

The senses do not activate themselves. — Metaphysician Undercover

Becoming awake is partly due to senses (from Google): People wake up at a certain time in the morning primarily due to their "circadian rhythm," which is essentially the body's internal clock located in the brain's hypothalamus, that regulates sleep-wake cycles by releasing hormones like melatonin based on light exposure, causing us to feel sleepy at night and alert in the morning when light hits our eyes; essentially signaling the body to wake up.

Nor does it appear like the subconscious activates the senses, or else they would be activated in dreams. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I mentioned, the subconscious mind is always active otherwise it could not construct dreams.

But in most cases, when a sense is activated (a loud sound for instance), it coincides with waking up. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct.

Why don't you get involved in my threads and try to find flaws in my arguments? I would be happy to know your opinion and criticism. Insulting is not constructive!

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

I differentiate between God and the Mind.

I got that. What about it makes it right, or the right time? — tim wood

There is harmony in the physical change. This means that the change must occur at a proper time.

What does right have to do with anything? — tim wood

By right in here I mean proper.

What, exactly, do you imagine is subject to change? — tim wood

Physical.

What, exactly changes? — tim wood

Physical properties.

Yes, I did. I'm done. You seem incapable of having a rational discussion. — Relativist

You only had one valid objection which I answered using my thought experiment. The rest of your objections were about the existence of change in physical that I do not deny but as I argued several times it cannot be due to physical itself.

Prove it. — Relativist

Read OP.

I've shown you at least twice. Read through my posts. — Relativist

I read them carefully. You didn't find any error in my argument. You also didn't reply to my thought experiment. I offered that thought experiment to show the only objection you had in my argument so far is not valid.

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.

In as much as your terms are not well defined, it's not worth thinking about. — tim wood

What term is not well defined? I would be happy to elaborate.

And n a question about logic, what would the experiment matter? — tim wood

It helps you to understand how one can go from this "Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2." to this "Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.".

In your OP you mentioned the "right time," what is that? — tim wood

The time that the causation of the physical in the state of S2 is due to.

We're discussing the error in your op that I exposed. Keep up. — Relativist

Where is the error? Could you please show it to me?

Examined as a whole, the universe at t0 is the cause of the universe at t1. Physical throughout. — Relativist

False.

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.

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.

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.

1. I have to interpret what you mean by “physical is not aware” because that’s not normal English. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that physically cannot experience time.

I assume you are trying to note that rocks are not conscious. I can accept that. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that a rock cannot experience the passage of time.

2. Therefore, [physical things] in…S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause…S2.
I can accept that, even though some physical things (like human beings) could know. — Fire Ologist

Correct. Humans can experience psychological time but they cannot tell what is the current time.

3. Therefore, the physical in S1 cannot cause S2.

There is no necessity that anything about effects, like S2, be previously known by S1 in order to come to be.

That is what you need to argue before you get to 3. — Fire Ologist

I don't understand. You already accept 2. We just need to find out how we can go from 2. to 3. Here is my thought experiment that could help you to realize that 3. follows from 2.: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?

I have no suggestions for you on how to do this. You are grappling with the appearance of cause and effect in nature, and the appearance that cause and effect is only a form of thought (a knowing agent). Hume showed there is no necessity in nature between cause and effect, and Kant showed we have to think in terms of cause and effect in order to think about change. Maybe they were both misinformed. — Fire Ologist

I agree with Kant.

But your argument doesn’t even show any recognition of these observations which have been noteworthy in history before your argument. Aristotle used potential and actual to help describe the coming to be of changes from S1 to S2. Your argument doesn’t address such things either. — Fire Ologist

I read about Aristotle's argument. I however do not think that talking about potentiality and actuality can resolve the issue at hand since physical in the state of S1, being in the potential state, is not aware of the passage of time therefore it cannot cause physical in the state of S2, being in the actual state.

Bottom line, I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you want to reword things and explain them more precisely, I can’t move past number 3. The word “therefore” in number 3 refers back to nothing that would necessitate a “therefore” statement. So I need not address anything further. — Fire Ologist

3. follows from 2. Please consider my thought experiment.

In 4, you seem to be saying, like Parmenides, that physical change is not possible. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. I don't agree with Parmenides though. I think the change is real.

Are you arguing that change doesn’t happen, or that change in physical things only happens because of influences of non-physical things? — Fire Ologist

I am not denying change. And yes, I think that change in physical happens because of the Mind.

But you need to work on 3 and see if there is a way to get beyond it to 4 or later. — Fire Ologist

Please consider my thought experiment since 4. follows from 3.

I’m trying to show you that I’m taking this seriously and offering specifics that I think need further work. But generally, I don’t think this will be workable. — Fire Ologist

Thanks for your contribution. I think that the argument is sound and valid. I will take you there.

Prove it. — Relativist

Read the OP.

Change entails a cause for that change (per the PSR). — Relativist

Sure, I am not against this at all. I am however arguing that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. This thread is in support of another thread entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause". As I discussed in another thread I think that change in physical is due to vertical causation rather than horizontal causation. In this thread, I am arguing that horizontal causation is not possible at all. So, what causes a change in physical? The Mind. The Mind not only is aware of the passage of time but also experiences and causes time. So, all the problems are resolved!

Apparently you do not understand the difference between logic and argument. — tim wood

I do know the difference.

As to whether I can tell time absent a clock, most, or many, folks can tell time to astonishing accuracy, as with waking up within seconds of an exact time. How, I do not know. But while this does not directly refute your argument, it does render it so imprecise as to be useless. — tim wood

It is unrelated but there is a scientific explanation for how this occurs (from a Google search): People wake up at a certain time in the morning primarily due to their internal biological clock, called the circadian rhythm, which is regulated by a part of the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). This clock is highly sensitive to light, meaning exposure to morning sunlight triggers the release of hormones like cortisol, essentially signaling the body to wake up.

As to the logic, e.g., MP is a very specific form of syllogism, and as such is either exactly right or all wrong. Yours is all wrong. — tim wood

It is not. Did you think of my thought experiment? If you cannot perform the task then how do you expect that physical does it?

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.

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2). — Relativist

We assume this all the time but that is false.

S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor. — Relativist

That is a mere change and I am not denying it at all.

Because was an example of a functional entity. — Relativist

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

Prove it. — Relativist

So you think it is a weak emergence?

I do know the difference. Proceed with your proof. — Relativist

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

Rephrase your argument accordingly. — Relativist

I don't need to rephrase my argument. All I need to accept is that physical and awareness/experience are subject to change.

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. The Mind in fact experiences physical in time first to create/cause physical later.

P: the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
Q: Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

I proved that P does not entail Q:
S1= Rock on a ledge at to
S2= Rock on the ground at t1
Cause: tremor (there is no knowledge involved). — Relativist

You are just claiming that change exists. That is not what I am denying. I am claiming that physical cannot be the cause of its own change.

I know you weren't talking about functionalism, but it IS the answer to your question - and to many other objections to physicalism. — Relativist

If so, then why did you bring up the example of a car that is a weak emergence?

It means you can't simplistically deny physicalism on the basis that mental phenomena aren't exhibited by simple objects (rocks; particles). You need to consider functional entities. — Relativist

I am talking about the emergence of awareness which is a strong emergence.

Then let's agree to disagree. It can neither be proven nor disproven. We each draw our conclusions about it on subjective grounds. Your fundamental error is in thinking your subjective grounds are objective facts. — Relativist

Cool. Let's agree to disagree.

No. You're reversing the burden of proof. Provide a formal proof that physicalism is impossible, with clearly stated premises. — Relativist

I cannot prove it to you unless you understand the difference between the weak and strong emergence. Therefore, it is due to you that study emergence first.

Physical THINGS exist and engage in physical ACTIVITIES. Anything that changes is no longer the same thing (including any nonphysical objects that may exist). But your statement makes more sense if we treat objects as having both essential and contingent properties. Change would then entail the object's set of contingent properties changing. — Relativist

Sure. Anything that changes is no longer the same thing. And sure, physical are subject to change since they have a set of properties.

"Experience" can refer to an act, or to the effect of an act. An act occurs; it is not an existent. SoI conclude you're referring to the effect: the memory. — Relativist

Please replace experience with awareness since you are not happy with my definition of experience. Again, by awareness, I mean being conscious of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc.

It implies that it is highly unlikely that physicalism is provably false. — Relativist

It is. Think of the example of Galileo Galilei!

Prove it. — Relativist

Please read on the weak and strong emergence first.

Then it's true that (MoK's brain at t1) is caused by (Mok's brain at t0 + other factors), because "other factors" includes mind's experience of Mok's brain at t0. — Relativist

No, MoK's brain is directly caused by the Mind and not by MoK's brain in former time.

To understand that Q follows form P you need to consider the following thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?

You had asked, "How could you accommodate awareness in physicalism?" My answer: "functionally". — Relativist

I was not talking about the functionality of the brain which in fact can be explained by the laws of physics. I was talking about the awareness that as we agreed is a state of being conscious of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, etc. You gave the example of the car but a car is a weak emergence whereas awareness is a strong one. If you cannot understand the difference between the two then I cannot help you. It is due to you to study the topic of weak and strong emergence.

I'm defending physicalism, which can either be reductive physicalism or non-reductive. The former entails, the latter allows for ontological emergence. — Relativist

I think all sorts of physicalism are false. Please see above.

1) I answered your question; — Relativist

You certainly didn't. See my first comment.

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

It seem worth noting that a scientifically informed physicalism explains MoK's incredulity. — wonderer1

Then please provide a solution to the Hard Problem of consciousness. Please explain how the mental could have causal power on the physical considering the problem of Epiphenomenalsim.

With the understanding that MoK's intuitions are a function of the training of the neural networks in MoK's brain, and that MoK clearly hasn't done any deep investigation into physical causality, it is unsurprising that MoK's intutions result in incredulity as they do. — wonderer1

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

P is #2. Q is #3. Q follows from P. Please consider my thought experiment to see how Q follows from P.

I think I explained this already. The conscious part of your mind must have the ability to cause the subconscious part to present things to it in a sensible, rational way, or else the subconscious would be doing it in a random way like when we dream. So it is the ability to think rationally, and in a more general sense the ability to stay awake, which is the conscious mind exercising causal power over the subconscious.

For instance, you say that what is learned is registered in the subconscious. Let's call this a memory, and we'll say that the subconscious has a whole lot of memories. When the conscious mind thinks in a rational way, it needs to recall memories from the subconscious which it uses in that activity. Therefore it must have causal power over the subconscious, to cause the subconscious to present these memories to it in a way which makes sense. If the conscious did not have causal power over the subconscious, the subconscious would be presenting things in a random way, like in a dream. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that the conscious mind has such a causal power at all. The conscious mind owes all its experiences to the subconscious mind. It has very limited memory so-called working memory. It can only work on a very limited scope because it does not have access to the memories that are stored in the subconscious mind. It is also not necessary to have access to all memory when it comes to a topic that is the subject of focus. When the conscious mind focuses on a topic it requires the related knowledge of what is experienced in the past. This knowledge is registered in the subconscious mind's memory. The conscious mind does not have direct access to this memory and this memory is delivered to the conscious mind by the subconscious mind.

I consider "memorizing" to be an activity of the conscious mind, not the subconscious. It is a repetitive practise of recollection. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you have access to all your memory at once? Sure not. A specific memory just pops into your conscious mind and this is due to the subconscious mind delivering this memory to you. Anyhow I was commenting on people who have memories of their past lives. I was arguing that such memory is not stored in the brain since such individuals do not own the same body. So I don't understand how your comment is related to what I was arguing.

I missed to reply to this.

Non-sequitur, and you're ignoring that I answered your question. I regret indulging your reversal of your burden of proof. — Relativist

You need to read about the strong and weak emergence to see that the example of the car is a weak emergence whereas consciousness is a strong emergence.

By what rule of logic? See: https://cse.iitk.ac.in/users/cs365/2012/rulesLogic.html — Relativist

Modus Ponens. Let me give you an example of another argument I developed here with the help of @Arcane Sandwich:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
C1) So, there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
C2) So, the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

"Cannot" implies it is impossible. That's a strong claim that needs to be supported with a proof. Provide it using only mutually acceptable premises.

The reality is that you simply can't imagine how physicalism could account for awareness and m-experience. You're committing the fallacy argument from incredulity, also referred to as "argument from lack of imagination". This is the underlying problem with what you're doing, and it entails reversing the burden of proof - that I must prove to you that physicalism CAN account for something. I will accept that burden if I choose to try and make a persuasive argument for physicalism. But this is your thread, your argument, and your burden. — Relativist

Then please read on the Hard Problem of consciousness. The problem to me is related to a belief that the strong emergence is possible. By this, I mean that a system can have a property that is not a function of the properties of parts or it is not reducible to the properties of parts. I have an argument against strong emergence. I am planning to open a new thread on the topic of strong emergence but I am very busy now so I leave this to the early future when I am done with my current threads. Anyhow if we accept that the Hard Problem of consciousness is not a problem and one day we can resolve it we are still left with the problem of Epiphenomenalism which I already discussed with you and you didn't provide any input on it. There are other problems too that I discussed with you.

I will deal with those if I choose to argue physicalism is true. In this thread, you have the burden of showing you have a coherent theory, since you put forth a proof. — Relativist

Then please read the OP and let me know what you think of it. The proof is there.

In philosophy, "experiences" correspond to what I've defined as m-experiences. It most certainly does not entail being non-physical. Here's an extract from the definition of experience in the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:

Experience: In philosophy,experience is generally what we perceive by the senses (sensory experience), what we learn from others, or whatever comes from external sources or from inner reflection....in philosophy, the relation between experience as a state of consciousness and independent objects of experience becomes a focus of debate. There must be something given
in experience, yet the status of the given is very controversial. Different answers respectively ground
positions such as realism, idealism, and skepticism. The different ways of understanding the given also
involve different ways of understanding the notion of sense-data. There is also debate about the relation between experience and theory. — Relativist

What is perception here? It is not defined. The rest does not provide anything significant that helps us to understand what experience is. Anyhow, I think we agree on the definition of awareness so let's start from that. See below.

There is no part of this that is inconsistent with physicalism. Further proof that your wrong: over 52% of phillosphers "accept or lean toward" physicalism. See this 2020 survey of philosophers. A 2009 survey had similar results

This should give you some pause in thinking physicalism is so obviously false. — Relativist

Physicalists are wrong. The fact that the majority of philosophers believe in physicalism does not prove anything.

I was indulging you by giving a physicalist ACCOUNT of awareness. The account is consistent with the defintion of awareness. — Relativist

Please let's stick to my definition of awareness as I put too much effort into convincing you that it is a correct definition. Physicalism cannot explain the awareness. This is related to the Hard Problem of consciousness. The consciousness is a strong emergence. The strong emergence is impossible (I have an argument against strong emergence). Therefore consciousness is not a strong emergence.

I've now concluded that I shall stop indulging you. I've given you enough to know that physicalists can account for things you didn't think possible. If you are reasonable, you'll now understand why I say you're making a fallacious argument from incredulity. — Relativist

I simply disagree.

But you also made this seemingly contradictory statement:
MoK's brain t1 was not caused by MoK's brain at t0 + other factors. — Relativist

No, it is not contrary at all. MoK's brain at t1 is due to MoK's brain + other factors at t0 but the MoK's brain at t1 was not caused by MoK's brain + other factors at t0. MoK's brain at t1 was caused by the Mind after experiencing MoK's brain + other factors at t0.

Mind would qualify as "other factors". Explain this apparent contradiction. I'll defer re-asking the other related questions until you reconcile this. — Relativist

There is no contradiction. See above.

Definition? I mean there is standard use "physical thing", sure, that usually means something we can touch.

But in epistemology it means "physical stuff", the stuff of the world. The mind is a part of the world, the part we know with most confidence, but I don't see the necessity of saying that physical has to be stuff you can touch. — Manuel

Please let's put the mind aside until we reach an agreement that experience and physical refer to two different phenomena. Within physicalism, the physical is believed to change on its own based on the laws of physics without any need for experience. Given this, I think we can agree that the experience is not physical since physicalism cannot accommodate experience as a physical thing. The existence of experience and mental phenomena challenged physicalists for a long time. Some physicalists even deny the existence of experience and mental phenomena!

Very well said! The Hard Problem of consciousness is not the only problem that physicalism suffers from. For example, we also have the problem of Epiphenomenalism. We are sure that our mental activities correlate with physical activities. For example, I can explain my thoughts by typing the words. So the typing is due to having certain thoughts. This is however a vertical causation which is different from horizontal causation which physicalists believe that physical change according to it. There is a problem of memorization of events as well. Our experiences are stored in the brain and that also requires vertical causation. For all these reasons I think that vertical causation is a correct view to explain reality rather than horizontal causation. That is the material that supports P2 in the first argument.

Have you ever considered that perhaps your mind might be somewhat lacking in this causal power which other people have with their minds, and this is why they say that you have schizophrenia? — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind is very passive. Its function depends on the constant flow of information from the subconscious mind since it has very little memory. The conscious mind's main duty is to think and learn different tasks. What is learned for example a thought is then registered in the subconscious mind. I also think that the subconscious mind is intelligent since it knows what kind of information the conscious mind lacks to produce a thought. It is through this collaboration that we can think, learn different tasks, etc.

Isn't what I said, 'a deficiency in that causal power', actually an explanation of the phenomenon? You do not accept that explanation, for whatever reason, but that doesn't negate it as an explanation. It just means that you do not believe it as an explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just perceive things unconditionally. My conscious mind does not have any power to even complete a sentence without collaboration with the subconscious mind. I cannot think either without the help of the subconscious mind as I illustrated above. So I don't understand which kind of causal power I have over the subconscious mind. Do you mind elaborating?

If I understand correctly, a specific memory consists of a specific pattern of neural activity. To remember something exactly as it was experienced, requires an exact recreation of that specific neural activity. Theoretically, therefore, we could remember everything experienced, by reproducing the necessary neural activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

We cannot remember everything that we experienced in the past since that information is huge. When it comes to memorizing the subconscious mind is very selective and just memorizes things that are necessary for the future. Anyhow, regarding remembering past life, I am arguing that this memory should be registered in another substance since people who report such memories do not have the same body.

The issue of memory then, is not a matter of substance, but a matter of repeating neuronal activity. But this produces the further question of what it is that is performing this repetition, on demand, as remembering. Is it the soul which does this? — Metaphysician Undercover

If we accept reporting past life as a fact then we have to accept that this memory is stored in a substance such as soul since such individuals do not own the same body.

The argument makes a mistake of assuming that for a physical system to cause a change in itself, it must know when to do so. — Wayfarer

The physical of course must know when to do cause otherwise physical motion would be incoherent. And that is an important point and it is not a mistake.

Let's focus on a thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?

At best, as far as I can tell, you've expressed nothing but a half-arsed verson of "Zeno's paradox" (that's been debunked for millennia). — 180 Proof

My argument has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

Maybe something's lost in translation – English isn't your first language? — 180 Proof

I don't think that anything is lost in translation. English is not my first language though. If any sentence is not clear to you, please let me know and I would be happy to elaborate.

We disagree that your arguments work. — Fire Ologist

You cannot simply say that my argument does not work. If you think my argument has a problem, let me know where.

You haven't clearly shown anything yet to us. That should give you pause, and send you back to the drawing board. — Fire Ologist

What is the thing you don't understand? We can go from one sentence to another one and I would be happy to explain things that are not clear to you.

fdrake gave you a lot of content to assist with a revision. — Fire Ologist

He didn't ask for a revision. He just asked for definitions of terms used in the OP, which I tried my best to answer.

Seems you are trying to say that change can't occur if only physical things exist. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that physical cannot be the cause of its own change, the title.

The point you are trying to make can't be so simple as your one paragraph OP, but aside from that, your one paragraph OP is not a valid argument. Work on it. — Fire Ologist

My argument works. If you think that there is a problem in my argument then please let me know and I would be happy to fix it.

Make those arguments again. Revise them. Define terms more carefully and clearly for us. — Fire Ologist

The Hard Problem of Consciousness, Epiphenomenalism, etc. They are off-topic so for now let's focus on the current argument.

1. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.
2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
4. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change.

#3 does not follow from #1 and #2. — Relativist

#3 follows from #2 only. To understand that you need to contemplate my thought experiment which you have never answered!