A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties so in this sense the information is not a substance. The information exists in a form in a substance and the form is the result of the substance having specific properties.

I accept that the laws of nature can explain the existence of life forms. — A Christian Philosophy

Cool.

But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first place. — A Christian Philosophy

I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind, but I wonder how this can be called intelligent design. In fact, I can argue that given any laws of nature and considering that the universe is infinite, one can expect a form of life soon or late so I wonder what the design is about.

The information is the texture of a substance.

Eternal punishment is also promised in Islam as well.

The universe is infinite and very old so any form of life is possible within!

Nor did I explicate that that's all which mind is, but these are certainly what I consider to be aspects of mind, rather than aspects of matter. — javra

I understand that but to me, the mind is a substance with the ability to perceive and cause the object. In this thread, I start with experience which is a coherent and informative conscious event, and conclude the substance dualism. Experience cannot be coherent on its own since it is only a conscious event hence there must be a substance so-called the object which is coherent. I then discuss that the object cannot directly perceive its content so I conclude the existence of the second substance hence substance dualism.

This then seems to me the crux of where we differ. — javra

Correct.

All these thoughts, ideas, percepts - which are immaterial rather than being mater - are themselves experienced by what else than awareness (be this awareness either consciousness or not)? — javra

Thoughts, ideas, percepts, and feelings are different forms of Qualia which is the result of the mind perceiving the object. The object and the brain are constantly interacting. It is through this interaction that the mind has indirect access to the result of neural processes in the brain.

The property dualism although it can explain bottom-up causation, the existence of experience for example, cannot explain top-bottom causation, for example, how a single experience like a thought you have can lead to you typing the content of your thought.

Again, no problem if the use of essence rather than that of substance doesn't work for you. — javra

It is all right mate. I am interested to learn new things through exchanging ideas.

But to address this quote: pure awareness would here be non-illusory essence which is that via which maya (illusory essence) is experienced. — javra

I think that is the Mind/mind that experiences the state of pure awareness and Maya. Pure awareness to me is a mental state so it cannot experience Maya. I think that substance pluralism is the correct worldview in which the Mind/mind perceives and causes other substances.

All that is not pure awareness - to include both mind (thoughts, ideas, percepts, etc.) and matter (rocks, atoms, etc.) - is thereby different aspects of the same maya as illusory essence - a sort of property dualism of maya. — javra

The Mind/mind to me is not a set of thoughts, ideas, percepts, etc. The Mind/mind is a substance that perceives other substances. These substances have properties so-called Qualia, what is traditionally called Maya by Buddhists for example, that are experienced by the Mind/mind. I think there are at least three substances, namely the Mind/mind, object, and physical. I discussed the Mind which is the uncaused cause in another thread here and here I am discussing the mind. The Mind perceives and causes physical whereas the mind perceives and causes the object. The object and physical are different substances to me so I don't believe in a form of property dualism where therein there is only a substance with different properties.

So yes, there is a duality of essences here, but it is not a duality between "different modes of experience": all experience of maya being contingent on and originating from the non-illusory essence of pure awareness (also termed "witness consciousness"). — javra

I am afraid to say that pure awareness is only a mode of experience that is the result of the Mind/mind perceiving a substance.

I'm not sure if anyone brought this up yet (haven't read the entire thread) but have you considered an "essence dualism" - this so as to avoid all the pitfalls of "substance dualism"?

Here is one possible example of an essence dualism; Here leaning on Hindu views as one example, one could then posit an essence of "maya (illusion or magic-trick in an ultimate sense of reality, which would in traditional views include both mater and mind)" and a separate essence of "pure awareness" (which is non-illusory actuality). — javra

To my understanding, Maya and pure awareness are different modes of experience, so essence dualism refers to a duality—maya versus pure awareness—whereas substance dualism is the fundamental model of reality.

Amy Winehouse - Stronger Than Me

Is energy "either dynamic or static"? — jkop

It depends on the model you use. In the standard model, most of the energies related to the forces are dynamic while the rest mass energy is not. In the string theory, however, all properties of elementary particles are due to the vibration of strings including the rest mass. Each model has however its own problems though. I, however, think that the problems of the string theory can be resolved eventually.

Its random fluctuations might seem "dynamic", but arise from the uncertainty principle. — jkop

Fluctuations are indeed dynamic things.

Perhaps it takes time to fluctuate — jkop

That is not an acceptable statement. Please read the last comment.

or perhaps the fluctuation is part of what generates time? — jkop

That is not an acceptable statement either. Please read the last comment.

Mass is generated by the Higgs mechanism — jkop

Correct in the standard model. The mass however explained as the vibration of strings in the string theory.

and now current research seems suggest that also spacetime is generated / emerges. — jkop

First I have to say that if someone finds a coherent theory of quantum gravity, then that would be like BOMB. There are three main theories of quantum gravity that 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 though.

Good and evil are fundamental features of our reality and are both necessary. Morality is about what is right or wrong to do in a situation. Everything is situational at the very end.

Very well said! :up:

When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help. — Corvus

You already mentioned what you mean with coherence and I mentioned that that is not what I mean by coherence.

Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning. — Corvus

Well, I already defined and gave examples of what I mean by coherence. None of that helped you. I also asked whether you could give an example of an incoherent experience that you ignored. So I cannot help you further.

Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread. — Corvus

As you wish.

Refer to
1) The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Edited by Ted Honderich
2) Philosophical Logic by Silbil Wolfram

for coherence concepts. Bye~~ — Corvus

Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence.

Same here! All the best.

I already gave examples so it should be clear to you by now what I mean by coherence.

I asked for example. Can you give an example of something which is incoherent, excluding our thoughts?

I have already given you a clear explanation on coherence here. — Corvus

I asked for examples.

Your way of argument is just keep denying everything blindly. You don't accept or see the rational points. — Corvus

You just repeating yourself not seeing the truth. Why Don't you open a thread on the topic that our experience could be incoherent?

I don't need help. You do need help. :D — Corvus

I don't think so. You should at least have a doubt when the majority of people agree on something. Having doubt is a useful practice. :D

Your seeing a cup in a location is a subjective visual experience. It has no truth value. It is just a perception. When you make up a statement "I see a cup.", it can be true or false, depending on the fact there is someone else witnessing the cup, heard your statement and agreeing with your statement. It is only true on that instance. Otherwise, it is a meaningless self talk or monologue, with no value of truth or falsity. — Corvus

Could you give an example of something coherent or incoherent?

Just keep denying blindly whatever has been countered, forwarded or pointed out, is not philosophical argument. — Corvus

Huh?

So whatever the majority believes is the truth? :roll: — Corvus

Why don't you ask people for help? Why don't you open a thread on "our experiences are incoherent"? We have been through this in this thread and your thread to a good degree. I don't see a point in repeating myself.

P!nk - Try

That's a false dichotomy. Here's a link to an article that has many references to current physical theories on emergent spacetime. — jkop

The fundamental entities from which time emerges are either dynamic or static. In the first case, we are dealing with my argument. In the second case, we are dealing with strong emergence and I have to say a big no to it.

P!NK - U + Ur Hand



P!NK - Don't Let Me Get Me

Time is the fundamental variable of any physical theory therefore time cannot be an emergent property of such a physical theory since time cannot be the fundamental variable and emergent property at the same time.

That's what I read from the philosophical text books. Not making it up from the thin air.
Clarification on the concepts is part of the philosophical investigation and analysis. — Corvus

I mean if X, my cup of tea has a location, is the case that only X is the case and Y, Z, etc. which refer to my cup of tea having other locations are not the case.

I wasn't asking for help. You seem to be distorting the facts. — Corvus

I don't think that I am distorting the facts.

I was just pointing out on the wrong use of the concepts. — Corvus

People apparently understand what I mean by the coherence in the experience so I don't think that I am using the concept wrongly.

Then you are contradicting yourself. Since before you had said that the brain, the subject, the experience made of what the senses give us something coherent. — JuanZu

I didn't intend to argue for the brain in this thread since that is the third substance and I don't have any argument for it now. I just commented on the brain since people asked for the mind and body interaction. The picture including the brain is simple: We have the brain, the object, and the mind. The brain in the case of perception receives sensory input and processes it. The object and the brain are interacting with each other so the object is affected by processes in the brain. The mind then perceives the object and experiences the content of the object namely Qualia.

And you did so by denying that you were talking about a tabula rasa. — JuanZu

I don't understand why you are talking about tabula rasa. Our experience of course has texture so-called Qualia.

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent. — Corvus

No, I don't mean that.

From the point of view, your use of coherence seems to be wrong, and misleading, which directed you to the misunderstanding. — Corvus

You are the only person who is trapped in P1. Other people understood P1 and asked other questions. To be honest I don't know how I can help you. Perhaps others can help you.

What do you mean by "coherent"? Can you explain "coherence" and "being coherent"? — Corvus

By coherent I mean that our experiences when we are awake are consistent. Take the example of my experience of the cup of tea. It is where I expect it. It does not appear or disappear. Etc. Quite oppositely, our dreamy experiences are not always coherent. Things appear and disappear. Etc.

The vagueness of "substance" is apparent in the discussion in this thread. — Banno

I already defined the substance in several posts. By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties or abilities.

There's the Bundle theory to dal with - if substance is what "holds" properties, what difference is there between substance and a bundle of properties? — Banno

The bundle theory suffers from the problem of compresence of the properties.

What is it that makes one substance different from another - and again, if it's just the properties they accept, why not just deal in terms of those properties? — Banno

Because those are the substances that interact with each other. This interaction is due to the properties of the substances.

And the problem I focused on, how is it that different substances are able to interact? — Banno

The substances interact with each other through the forces.

You say that experience is coherent because the object is coherent, but at the same time you accept that coherence is given from the subject. Which implies redundancy. Object coherence is no longer a criterion for inferring dualism of subtances, since that criterion is found in both subject and object don't You think? — JuanZu

My argument has two parts: 1) In the first part I argue in favor of the object that carries information and is coherent from the experience and 2) In the second part I argue in favor of the mind given the fact that the object cannot directly perceive its content, the information which is coherent. I am not arguing that coherence is given from the mind. The mind just perceives coherence in the experience.

As far as 'substance dualism' is concerned, for Descartes, mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) are of completely different kinds. The soul, res cogitans, is immaterial and lacking in extension (physical dimensions) but is capable of reasoning and thinking. — Wayfarer

To me, the mind is the substance with the ability to experience and cause the object only. The mind has the ability to freely decide as well when it faces options too. The mind does not have the ability to reason or think. It perceives the content of the object. The content of the object however is very rich in the case of humans, it could be a form of perceptions, feelings, thoughts, etc. Perception, feelings, thoughts, etc. are due to physical processes in the brain. The mind does not have direct access to the neural processes in the brain but the object. The object and brain are directly interacting. It is through this interaction that the object can mediate between the brain and the mind. The mind is mainly an observer but it can intervene when it is necessary, for example when there is a conflict of interest between thoughts, feelings, etc.

Matter occupies space but is devoid of intelligence. — Wayfarer

Matter occupies space but what we call intelligence is due to neural processes in the brain.

The problem for substance dualism is explaining how non-extended incorporeal intelligence interacts with non-intelligent corporeal matter. Descartes suggest that this was via the pineal gland, but it is generally agreed that this is unsatisfactory and it remains an outstanding problem for substance dualism. — Wayfarer

The mind does not have any physical extension but to my understanding can present in different locations of the brain by moving very fast. The mind directly perceives and causes the object. The object either is affected by the brain or affects the brain. It is through these interactions that the mind can indirectly affect the brain or be affected. As I mentioned before the object is a very light substance so it can only affect the brain very slightly. This affection however can lead to a significant change in neural processes when there are options or in other words the brain is in an undecided state.

I'm sorry to say that you're not demonstrating a clear understanding of the questions you're raising, and so I have nothing further to add at this time. — Wayfarer

I tried my best to explain things to the best of my understanding. Please let me know what you think.

Psychological state or personal experience cannot be ground for objective knowledge. — Corvus

Personal experience can be a solid ground to conclude that the experience is coherent. Our experiences when we are dreaming are mostly incoherent while they are always coherent when we are awake.

That is an idea of absolute idealist and solipsism. Problem with these ideas is that they cannot appeal to or share objective knowledge. — Corvus

I don't have an argument against solipsism and I am not endorsing it either. I have faith that other beings exist though. All I am saying is that we only have access to things through our private experiences.

Illusions are possibility in daily life of humans. Your seeing a cup in a location could have been an illusion. There is no proof you were seeing a cup. — Corvus

Here, I am not talking about the cup of tea but my experience of the cup of tea only.

The physical just has existed since the beginning of time. It is absurd to ask what was before the beginning of time hence it is also absurd to ask what caused the physical before the beginning of time.

The point is not about living in a reality, but private experience is not objective ground for coherence. — Corvus

The private experience is an objective ground for coherence. We don't have any other tools except our private experience anyway!

Again, not the whole experience is illusion, but there are parts of experience which could be illusion. — Corvus

Can you give me an example of something you experienced in the past that was an illusion?

Seeing a cup in a location is your private perception. It lacks objective ground for anything being coherent. — Corvus

We couldn't possibly live in a reality that is not coherent.

It makes more crucial and important part of your experience is excluded from your premise, while relying on your personal subjective seeing a cup as ground for your belief on the contents of your experience being coherent. There is always possibility what you are seeing could be illusions. — Corvus

We couldn't possibly depend on our experiences if what we experience is a mere illusion.