Depression is evil. It is a sort of experience that you cannot explain to others who have never experienced it. Evil is a feature of reality; good is another feature. Good and evil are fundamental and necessary. Why a person experiences depression is the subject of discussion!

Are substance, stuff and matter all made of atoms and molecules? — ucarr

Matter, for example, is made of strings. Other stuff, we don't know.

What about mind? What’s it made of? — ucarr

The minds are not made of anything else. That could be understood from the fact that free decision is due to the mind; otherwise, one has to deal with an infinite regress that is not acceptable!

What's the relationship between substance, stuff and matter? — ucarr

By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause stuff. Matter is an example of stuff.

Me too. It is a great opportunity to know and understand this group!

Consider the phrase, "I am politically nonbinary.". Do you discern the speaker's intent differently if they are liberal or conservative? — David Hubbs

If your orientation toward a political form is defined, you know your position. There is, however, a spectrum between liberal and conservative.

I thought you were talking about the Mind, not God. What is the difference anyway? — Harry Hindu

The Mind is the sustainer of the stuff, matter for example, excluding minds, whereas God is the creator of everything.

What is the nature of God, or Mind, if not physical themselves? — Harry Hindu

The Mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause the stuff. The Mind is free, by free I mean It can decide in situations when there is a conflict of interest in choices. The nature of God is unknown; by unknown, I mean that we humans and other creatures cannot comprehend or perceive since God's nature is very vast. It knows all forms and has the ability to appear in all forms as well.

How does something non-physical interact with the physical? — Harry Hindu

The Mind, as it is stated in the first comment, has the ability to experience and cause physical for example.

Les Claypool's Frog Brigade - Pigs (Part Two)

Les Claypool : Riddles Are Abound Tonight

I am glad that you liked it. Feel free to listen to other songs by Les Claypool and enjoy their unique music!

Les Claypool's Frog Brigade Pigs (Part One)

This seems to be part of the same problem. If minds are needed to change matter, what got the first mind going? It's a infinite regress of minds, just as we have an infinite regress of decoherence. — Harry Hindu

I am talking about the Mind, not God. There is a beginning for time. Either the stuff (the physical, for example) existed at the beginning of time and evolved to form life, or there was a God who created what was necessary. What was necessary is the subject of discussion. I have an argument about "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" (which can be found here), so the first case is discarded; therefore, there is a God.

So, you deny mind emergent from brain? — ucarr

In that thread, I deny that the matter is efficacious to cause a change in itself. The mind is a substance, so we are dealing with a hard problem of how a mind could be emergent from matter. Even if we accept that the mind could be an emergent substance, then we are dealing with the tension between what the mind wants to do and how matter evolves following the laws of nature.

There's a mind somewhere making hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water? — ucarr

There exists a Mind that is omnipresent in space and time, responsible for change in matter everywhere. I have a thread on this topic here.

His approach to science - the gay science. Meaning, each step towards "knowledge" must be made with an awareness that we are likely fooling ourselves. Seek the truth, but never claim truth is the only, highest goal, and never assume the truth you find may not one day be made false. — Fire Ologist

Finding the truth is the duty of philosophy. Science only deals with the current state of existence. Physicists, for example, are trying to find the laws of physics. And there is more, the Art. So it is not only about science.

You sound like you’re drawing from idealism and Kantian philosophy — Jacques

I only studied Kant on morality, and I disagree with him. Generally, I am against any form of Idealism. The problem with any form of Idealism is how ideas could be coherent in the absence of a mind. I would be happy to see if Kant ever mentioned the mind in his books or gave a definition for it.

maybe with a libertarian view of free will—is that how you see it? — Jacques

I think that free will in the libertarian form is the ability of any mind.

I have a thread about "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" (you can find the related argument here); therefore, the mind is needed for change. So, the mind cannot be a byproduct of physical.

Part of the reason why I have not written more in the thread which I created is because I do see the 'end' of time as problematic. — Jack Cummins

I explained why the spacetime cannot have an end in that thread as well, here.

There are four features involved when it comes to a person, namely instinct, logical thinking, intuition, and wisdom; they come in order in a person. Free will is the ability of the mind to choose freely. It is required to decide in a situation when there is a conflict of interest.

A central question might be "Why do I like the philosophy that I do?" — Moliere

Because you are a curious person.

Do you think that aesthetics in philosophy is a thing? Should it be? — Moliere

The philosophy of art is a branch of philosophy. The elegance in philosophy is in writing concisely.

Why are you more drawn to particular philosophers, schools, styles, or problems? — Moliere

Almost everything. Questions in all fields of philosophy with the aim of finding an answer to them.

If Satan was not created perfect, then that is God's fault. One God, one religion; otherwise, God even failed to convey his message to His creation as well, which is not acceptable from a God who is perfect. Therefore, the question of why the creation is like this is a central question. So, either God is imperfect, or the mighty person who is in charge of everything is not known.

The subconscious mind holds all memories of a person. The conscious mind can focus on one thing at any given moment. Its duty is important, so it is given what is necessary in a given situation. I have a thread on the dependency of time on the mind here.

The whole, including time, cannot have an end, as I argued in this thread.

The laws of nature are required to make the proper change in things with the aim to reach the final goal.

I have a thread about "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" (you can find the argument here); therefore, the mind is needed to cause the change.

I have two threads in favor of divinity, you can find here and here.

The laws of nature are the observable regularities in natural phenomena that happen and can therefore be formulated.

I would argue that perhaps you have this backwards. I think of time as a unit of measurement for change. — MrLiminal

What do you mean by time being a unit of measurement for change?

If nothing changes, there is no way to tell time. — MrLiminal

If nothing changes, then you perceive time!

The Qualia is the object's property that the mind directly perceives (this is discussed here). The object and neural processes directly interact. Therefore, what the mind perceives is indirectly caused by the neural processes. It is possible to make a correlation between Qualia and neural processes, but it is impossible to measure what Qualia is to the mind.

I can understand the existence of an experience is due to the change in state of physical, in that the existence of my experience of sorrow is due to the change in the physical state of my dog from living to dead. — RussellA

By P2 I mean that your experience is due to neural processes in your brain.

A clock shows 2pm and then the clock shows 3pm. There is a physical change in what the clock shows.

You say that physical change requires subjective time, and subjective time is caused by the Mind.

In what sense is the physical change in the clock first showing 2pm and then showing 3pm caused by the Mind? — RussellA

The mind not only causes subjective time but also causes the physical (this is discussed in my other thread here), so it is no surprise that there is synchrony between the passage of subjective time and changes in physical.

Objective time and psychological time are sufficient. Subjective time is a redundant concept. — RussellA

As I mentioned in the OP, any change requires time, whether it is physical or mental. In the first case, we need subjective time, and in the second case, we need psychological time. Subjective time is caused by the Mind (capital M), whereas psychological time is caused by the mind.

The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Thanks for the elaboration. I distinguish between psychological/mental time and subjective/physical time, but I think that both have the same features. Although psychological time is caused by the mind, subjective time is caused by the Mind.

For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it? — Down The Rabbit Hole

As I mentioned in the OP, the subjective time is experienced by the Mind.

So why do they pull at the same time? — frank

Each individual experiences his or her psychological time only. The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them. That is why they can sync and pull at the same time.

It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object; — Down The Rabbit Hole

What does he mean by this? Do you mind elaborating?

It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't understand what he means by this. Do you mind explaining?

In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am sorry, but I don't understand how this follows.

Time cannot be an emergent thing. I discuss this in this post.

You seem to have smuggled in the concept of substance here. Does substance describe a thing, something that has objective existence? — Punshhh

Yes.

Or is substance a substance of mind, or intellect, or something immaterial? — Punshhh

I believe in substance pluralism in which the mind is an immaterial substance, whereas the physical is material substance.

Does something exist if it is an invention of thought? — Punshhh

All our experiences are due to existence of a substance that I call object for the sake of discussion. This is discussed in my other thread that you can find it here.

The infinite regress argument about subjective time requiring itself to change is intriguing, though it leans heavily on a metaphysical notion of the mind as a primary mover. I’d challenge the assumption that time must be a substance at all. Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity. — Areeb Salim

I discussed the problem with time being as an emergent thing elsewhere, so I just repeat myself: Three main theories of quantum gravity are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory.

Your thought experiment is clever for illustrating our inability to perceive subjective time directly. I think this would be a fascinating topic to expand with perspectives from process philosophy or modern physics. — Areeb Salim

Thank you very much for your understanding. That is not the only argument for our inability to perceive subjective time. We don't have any sensory system for it either.

Quite oppositely, time is needed for no change. — unenlightened

I have an argument for it. Please read it and tell me what you think about it.

Perhaps the only reason we recognize time as a separate entity is because it has a direction - past to present to future. — T Clark

We experience psychological time occasionally when our conscious mind is not busy. We live in the present. The past is part of our memory, and we await the future.

In general, the laws of physics do not require or specify this directionality. — T Clark

The time that is involved in the laws of nature is subjective time.

As I understand it, the explanation for this lack of symmetry is the second law of thermodynamics. Closed systems tend to develop from conditions of lower entropy to higher. — T Clark

The laws of nature are time-reversal. When it comes to a system with many parts, as you mentioned, the system changes toward a state with higher entropy.

Thank you very much for the reference. I will read it when I have time. I am very busy with many things right now. Could you please tell me what he is trying to discuss briefly?

Yet everyone on the team anticipates the same moment in time. — frank

Each person in the team has access only to his or her psychological time. As I argued in the OP, we cannot experience subjective time since we don't have any sensory system for it.