No, you said that Earth maybe moves.

I asked a question. Could you answer that?

Because I don't see it moving. — Corvus

Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating?

Maybe it does. — Corvus

What do you mean by maybe here?

Pointing out your misunderstanding is not denying, but giving you the real truths and guidance to your learning journey. — Corvus

I am not going to continue such an exchange since it is not a debate!

According to your saying, everything on Earth moves. That is nonsense. There are definitely objects which are standing still. — Corvus

Doesn't Earth constantly move?

Trying anything more than that would probably cause a migraine. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, probably. I know that migraine can disrupt the conscious mind's ability such as thinking though.

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense. — Corvus

Why don't you criticize your knowledge constantly? Why don't you appreciate when you learn something new by saying ok I learned something new, instead of denying that you didn't deny anything?

But the baseball is sitting on the desk at the precise point which can be observed. The earth moving is not relevant to the baseball movement. — Corvus

You cannot observe any motion because you are an observer that exists on Earth. Anyway, we were discussing a baseball that moves relative to Earth.

You constantly deny things, such as elementary particles, subconscious minds, etc. You are basically denying science in general. When things are discussed with you to the depth, you then say that you are not denying anything at all! And I am going to ignore your insult! I am done with you!

I said that baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving!

I am done with you.

But we are talking about the movement of baseball here. Not Earth. You seem to think the Earth is the baseball. They are not the same objects. — Corvus

I am not saying that they are the same things!

Can you prove that? — Corvus

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. Moreover, the subconscious mind remains active even when we are asleep, constantly processing information and regulating bodily functions like breathing and heart rate, while our conscious mind rests.

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate. — Corvus

It is very related to the topic!

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time? — Corvus

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too.

It wasn't a big why. It was admittance of the intrinsic unintelligibly of the world. And what was considered problematic by Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Locke, etc., was motion. That's way simpler that consciousness. — Manuel

Or maybe the world including the Mind is intelligible.

But how can you say physical processes are deterministic? Some show regularity, others show randomness, and we see exceptions to rules quite frequently. — Manuel

Physical processes are deterministic once we agree that Bohmian's interpretation is the correct interpretation.

Free will is the ability to do or not to do something. That so called "physical processes" happen before we are aware of them only shows that most of our mental activity happens at an unconscious level, what we decide to do with that, is up to us. We can act on an urge or not. — Manuel

Free will is the ability to choose between options. The conscious mind becomes aware of options and this is due to physical processes that happen in the brain.

You have asserted that the mental cannot be physical. There is no argument given as to why this has to be so. It's a semantic argument that "the mental cannot be physical, because mental phenomena are not physical phenomena". — Manuel

No, I said accepting the definition of physical and experience they cannot be the same thing since the object and the subject cannot be the same thing.

But that does not solve a simple question: why can't mental stuff be physical stuff? — Manuel

The object and the subject cannot be the same thing.

metaphorically speaking, yeah. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok.

But also, I don't have a problem with what you're trying to prove. I have considered similar notions, especially in the case of Eternal Recurrence... — DifferentiatingEgg

I am discussing the Mind here. What does it have to do with Eternal Recurrence?

Thought you were saying you made an argument for God. Because I thought you made it as a parallel to say this this thus that (about God). — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not making an argument for the existence of God here.

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings? — Corvus

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these.

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? — Corvus

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind.

The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects. — Corvus

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged?

I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not. — 180 Proof

I think people have the right to have faith in whatever they want provided that the faith is the subject of constant criticism by reason.

Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct. — Corvus

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from?

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now. — Corvus

Did you know that the conscious mind has limited memory so-called working memory? At any given time, it can access only three to five items. If the answer to this question is yes, then where are the rest of the memories held? Moreover, accepting that the rest of memories are held somewhere that I call subconsciousness, how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind?

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge. — Corvus

See above.

Faith if it is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" is necessary otherwise humanity could not reach the current stage of achievement in many fields of science, mathematics, philosophy, and spirituality. That is true since a person cannot be an expert in all fields so that is when the faith given the definition becomes important. Faith is also important at the personal level when we want to achieve something or become certain about things using reason. As I said: Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way!

Do you believe in ghosts? :wink:

I would advise you reading K. Popper's books in full, if you are into science. — Corvus

I don't think I need to read his book!

I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me. — Corvus

So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either.

Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far. — Corvus

No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. For example, the Newtonian theory works well in macroscopic limits but it cannot account for the quantum force which only becomes important at the microscopic level. That is why we need quantum mechanics to describe quantum phenomena. We however don't use quantum mechanics when we want to design a car. We use it only when we want to design a quantum device. So every theory has its own use.

Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears. — Corvus

I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. There has been too much research on the topic of the subconscious mind since then. Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting.

Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates. — Corvus

That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you?

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. — Corvus

You said it here:

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No? — Corvus

No. Why is it relevant to our discussion?

It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that. — Corvus

It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it.

The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. — Corvus

Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory?

No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious. — Corvus

Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time!

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus

So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well!

Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for reference on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper? — Corvus

Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume.

Philosophers read everything not just science. — Corvus

Good for them. You should do the same.

Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense. — Corvus

Exactly!

Where do they exist? — Corvus

Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain.

I think it's impossible to live a life of pure reason. It's okay to have faith in things. Faith is a powerful tool. — DifferentiatingEgg

Well said! Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way!

The conscious mind means that you woke from sleep. Subconscious mind means that you have a part of mind which sleep all the time, but you think it doesn't. — Corvus

Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind?

Perception only happens when you are fully awake and alert. All your knowledge on the universe comes via perception. — Corvus

Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you?

Perception is also backed by reasoning and logic. Without perception, you don't have knowledge. — Corvus

I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally.

Science needs philosophy. Philosophy doesn't need science. — Corvus

Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong.

No philosophers will go out in the white gown, and conduct experiments and tests and measurements. They just read, think and speculate for analysis and reasoning pursuing truths on the universe. — Corvus

Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy!

Hume is one of the most important philosophers in western philosophy. To say Hume is false is like saying, philosophy is false and all knowledge is false. Nonsense. — Corvus

It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now.

We know them, and use them. But to say they are real can be problem in logical sense. You need to make clear in what sense "real" is real. Philosophy doesn't deny them. But it is trying to make sure in what sense you are using the concepts, and whether they make sense when used in the arguments.
You seem to be emotionally defending them as if they were denied. No. Nothing is denied. — Corvus

They exist so in this sense they are real.

No. They are not in the same level. Philosophy inspects and analyze the misuses of the concepts and imaginary ideas of science, hence philosophy makes science more robust in logic and theory.
They are not friends or lovers. Philosophy is higher level authority in the ladder if you will. — Corvus

I didn't say they are on the same level!

I will read those articles when I have time. Thanks for the references.

This seems to be saying time entails an order, but it doesn't answer my question. — Relativist

I am not saying that time is needed for order. I am saying that time is required for any change. That is the Mind that keeps things in order.

Is time an existent? — Relativist

Subjective time exists and it is the object of experience and causation by the Mind. Please read my second argument.

Is it a relation? — Relativist

No.

Is it a property? — Relativist

No.

Why do you call it "subjective? — Relativist

Because the Mind and only the Mind experiences it.

Is it not objectively real? — Relativist

It exists, so in this sense, it is real.

Is this just reference to special relativity? — Relativist

This is something that I am currently thinking about. So I cannot give a clear answer to you. I have to refresh my memory of special and general relativity which I read in good depth 30 years ago. I don't remember the details right now. I believe that subjective time is the time in Einstein's special and general relativity though since I don't have any other candidate for it.

My view is that time is fundamentally a relation between states of affairs. An event is a state of affairs (a point of time). — Relativist

To me, subjective time accommodates different states of affairs.

If your knowledge is based on your conscious and subconscious mind just woke up from sleep, no doubt that you are in full of confusion and illusions. — Corvus

The subconscious mind does not sleep at all. That is the conscious mind that sleeps.

You must rely on your perception and reasoning for your knowledge. — Corvus

Where is your perception when you are asleep? Why does your perception start to work when you are awake? How could you do reasoning if reasoning per se is a form of perception?

Because you are mixing psychology and physics in philosophical debates in random and chaotic fashion, it seems to be creating confusion and illusion in your mind. Hume was not false. — Corvus

You cannot do proper philosophy without a good science and vice versa!

Hume was not false. Hume was intelligible and sensible. — Corvus

Hume was false. He was an intelligent philosopher though. I am sure he would deny his philosophy if he was alive now.