If it is the case, then memories are not things stored in the subconscious, and your post is pretty much irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I call the part of the brain where the main part of memories, long-time memories, is held as the subconscious mind.

What if memory is like I suggested, a pattern of neural activity which is repeated? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't deny that.

No, because it leaves too much to the imagination. You need to describe: — Relativist

No, I don't need to describe all these items since a few of them are off-topic. We need to first agree on the OP.

- how you account for identity over time: what makes you the same person your were yesterday. — Relativist

Off-topic. I will however answer that later when we agree on the OP.

- what are particulars/existents/objects, in terms consistent with the above. — Relativist

The object/physical is the substance which is the object of experience and causation. The Mind is a substance that experiences and causes the physical. The Mind is Omnipresent in spacetime therefore it does not change so it is the same particular. The physical however is caused so it is different particular at different points in time.

- how you account for causation, in general. — Relativist

There is only vertical causation. If you are asking how a person can cause something then I am not going to answer that in this thread since it is off-topic.

- how the mind fits into your general account of causation. — Relativist

I already explained that in the case of the Mind. The rest, see above, is off-topic hence I am not going to answer that in this thread.

- the ontological nature of time. — Relativist

Please read the OP, the second and third arguments.

Here's a good example. Your statement is nonsense on its face. Clarify it, prove it. — tim wood

Is this the only statement that you have a problem with? If yes, then I am not making nonsense over nonsense!

Anyhow, consider a building with two identical rooms so similar that you cannot distinguish them from each other when you are inside one or another. Suppose you are held in one room, which I call room one for the sake of discussion. Suppose that the building owner moves you from room one to room two when you are asleep. Can you tell me whether your room has changed when you become awake?

Sorry, you're making it up on the fly. And thus this not an honest discussion, but instead an exercise in whatever you can claim to maintain your ideas. The primitive form of the simplest reduction of which is simply, you're wrong, therefore you're wrong. — tim wood

Why don't read my comments and try to understand them? Did you understand what I said? If yes, then what is wrong with my comments? Saying that I am wrong does not help at all unless you pick up an error in my comments or argument.

Granted that you're wrong, the reasoning is impeccable. Your particular variation, again reduced, is, "I'm right, therefore I'm right." — tim wood

Or maybe granting what I said is right and you lack understanding of what I said.

Now, a baseball cares nothing for a clock, knows nothing about time, knows nothing about anything. — tim wood

Sure.

But the baseball does have its internal processes, those of decay and eventual disintegration. — tim wood

I assume by internal processes you mean the change in the state of parts, electrons, quarks, etc. of the baseball.

And the outward manifestation of these the means by which you may distinguish one from another baseball. — tim wood

Are you talking about a baseball at two different points in time?

These all occur in time, on time, wrt time, and by some standards a measure of time. So to say they "cannot experience time" is simply meaningless nonsense. — tim wood

That is correct that things exist in time. The very fact that things exist in time means that things cannot experience time.

Now you may specify that as a condition - a presupposition - of your argument and try to work out any consequences. You can do that. But if you build on those, then you're merely building nonsense on nonsense. — tim wood

Huh? It is clear to me now that you didn't understand my argument and comments.

You can believe that if you like, but that's all you can do with it. Anything beyond your affirmation of your belief becomes nonsense, which quickly becomes dishonest if not yielded. — tim wood

Why don't you try to read my comments a few times and let me know where you lack understanding so I can elaborate?

All I am saying is that the Mind experiences the physical, let's call it P1, at time t1, and creates another physical, let's call it P2, at time t2 later! Do you have any problem understanding this?

I changed the OP accordingly to include your objections!

So you cannot? Can you?

Ok, I will add a couple of extra paragraphs to make things more clear. And thanks for your contribution.

How do you word it considering that you understand what I said so far?

Do you want me to include all these discussions in this thread in a single argument?

What is the thing that you do not understand? Did you understand everything I said? My theory as it is represented in the OP is valid.

So do they, or don't they, have the same identity? — Relativist

They are not the same things.

Do you agree that you've made contradictory statements? — Relativist

I already elaborated on what I mean by the motion of the brain from one point to another point. That is all that matters. Haven't you ever elaborated on something which is the subject of discussion?

You seem to be saying the electron at t1 and the electron at t2 have the same identity.

But this can't be an enduring identity, because the t2 electron was created at t2. So you need to account for these 2 disconnected objects having the same identity. — Relativist

The electron only has the same intrinsic properties, such as mass, spin, and charge at time t1 and t2 but it has different extrinsic properties, such as locations, at time t1 and t2.

Are we on the same page? :-)

The electron at t1 has been annihalated at t2, so this is an impossible scenario. — Relativist

No, the electron is annihilated at time t1 and is created at time t2 later.

Can you tell the difference, distinguish between, between an old baseball and a new baseball? — tim wood

Sure I can tell the difference between an old baseball and a new baseball because I have access to psychological time. I however distinguish between psychological time and subjective time, later is what I call time in this thread for the sake of simplicity. Psychological time is the byproduct of brain activity whereas subjective time is experienced and caused by the Mind. Please see the second and third arguments in this thread for further explanation.

According to you, since baseballs "cannot experience time" — tim wood

Yes, baseball cannot experience time or to be more precise subjective time.

and assuming they're all made the same, they should be indistinguishable. — tim wood

The old and new baseball are not the same thing. Please see this post for further explanation.

Your D1 and D2 - what is it you imagine they say that is useful or significant? — tim wood

They are needed for the rest of the argument.

I do not find anything controversial in them. — tim wood

Cool.

Such as it is, I have. — tim wood

What do you mean? I mean my 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?

A change is an event in time. — tim wood

Correct.

How can - on your claims - anything that "cannot experience time" undergo change? — tim wood

We cannot certainly experience subjective time (what I call time in this tread for the sake of simplicity) since we exist within subjective time. The change is however due to the existence of the Mind. The Mind not only experiences and creates the physical but also experiences and creates the subjective time at the same point. It is due to the existence of the Mind that physical change and temporal change are related. The Mind is however Omnipresent in objective spacetime otherwise It could not experience and cause motion in physical and time. Please see my other thread for more explanation.

Or perhaps best, what's your point? What are you driving at? — tim wood

I am sorry. I missed your questions here. This thread is a support for another thread in which I claim that causation cannot be horizontal but vertical. Here, I am excluding vertical causation. Therefore, we are left with vertical causation by which I mean that there is another entity so-called the Mind that experiences the physical at the state of S1 at time t1 and creates the physical at the state of S2 at time t2 later.

"The brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1"
"The brain" is a particular that exists at both t0 and t1, but in a different state. — Relativist

By this, I don't mean that the brain is the same thing as I stressed later "The brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1". By going from one state to another state I mean there is a brain in one state and there is another brain in another state later.

But this statement:
"the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1"
suggests the brain at t0 is a different particular than the brain at t1. — Relativist

See above.

Which is it? Is it a different particular or the same particular? — Relativist

Different particular.

If it's the same one, what makes it the same, given that it is made of different matter? — Relativist

It is not the same matter. The states of the brain are however related.

Not me, anybody - including Newton. How can there be motion without direct contact? We don't have this intuition at all. We assume that the only way a body can move is if another body contacts it. — Manuel

An object whose motion is subject to change does so because it experiences a force. This force is due to the existence of a field, a gravitational field for example.

Ah yes. That's a good problem. It's utterly mystifying, way beyond theoretical understanding. Interestingly, according to quantum physics the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic. — Manuel

To me, the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics since it is paradox-free. The universe evolves deterministically in this interpretation though.

But classical physics is not deterministic either, as is proved by Norton's dome. — Manuel

That is just a thought experiment. It seems paradoxical because it assumes that one can put a particle exactly at the top of the dome. This is however not possible since one in reality cannot put a particle on the exact point at the top of the dome.

But probabilistic is not the same as willing at all. — Manuel

Correct.

The mental merely contributes the evidence for the theories that are used to supposedly prove that we have no free will, or that there is nothing but particles. It's a very poor approach to thinking about nature. — Manuel

Correct.

To deny consciousness, as Dennett does. If accepted, we have no reasons to suppose physics is true, as our evidence comes through experience of empirical phenomena. — Manuel

Physics is true in the sense that explains the changes in the physical world. It is however incorrect when it assumes that the only things that exist are physical. That is why I endorse a new version of substance dualism in which not only physical changes are explained but also mental phenomena are considered as well.

Personal experience or "occurrent experiential episodes", as Strawson puts the issue. — Manuel

Correct.

I already included your correction and changed the OP to include all people's suggestions as well. Please find the new form of the argument in the following:

D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in
which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the causal power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change

That's a false assumption, isn't it? — Relativist

Yes, it is a false assumption in contemporary physics. I didn't want to get involved in more detail here since that requires a knowledge of quantum field theory. But here you go as you asked for it: The motion of an electron for example is produced with two field operators, namely the annihilation field operator and the creation field operator. So how does it work? The annihilation field operator first acts on the ground state that contains one electron and destroys the electron so we are left with the vacuum state. The creation field operator then acts on the vacuum state and creates a new electron in another place later. So, a simple electron that is subject to motion in space is not the same one in different stances of time.

1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2? — Relativist

I assume so for the sake of the argument.

2. Are there intermediate points, between t1 and t2, at which this electron does not exist? — Relativist

There are an infinite number of points between any arbitrary points in time.

I already mentioned it several times. The brain exists at time t0 and it is experienced by the Mind. The Mind then causes the brain at time t1. So by "the brain continues" I mean that the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1 but the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1.

For example, what single change are you thinking of or talking about? — Corvus

Please read D1 in the OP and let me know if you have any questions.

Again, any examples for the mind causing change in the physical? — Corvus

Like the motion of an electron.

Your so-called "vertical causation" is an "efficient cause", not a material cause, is it not? — Relativist

I am not happy to use "efficient cause" here since it requires the existence of a material cause. The Mind causes/creates physical. The Mind however needs the experience of the physical in the former time since it does not have direct access to the physical.

You need to explain what causes your body get old. it seems the case that you body causes your body itself to get old. — Corvus

I am considering a single change here for sake of simplicity. Please see the OP. This thread is a support for another thread entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause" which you can find it here. I think that is the Mind that causes a change in the physical.

Thank you, mate. :up:

Your physical body itself is the cause for the body change. You are born, you live, and you get old. Your body caused itself to get old. Correct? — Corvus

Sure not. That is what I am arguing against it.

How could it be that all memories which a person has could be present to a mind (subconsciously) at the same time? — Metaphysician Undercover

I said that all memories stored in the subconscious mind are present to it at once. If not, then there must be many subconscious minds each knowing a certain memory at once. There are however two problems here which depend on how the memories are stored in the brain: 1) Either the memories are stored in different subconscious minds independently or 2) The memories are stored in different subconscious minds hierarchically, tree likes.

In (1), there are many memories that could be related or unrelated when it comes to a topic that is the subject of focus of the conscious mind. The unrelated memories then must be filtered by another mind otherwise the conscious mind cannot function when it focuses on a specific topic. Even if the memories are related to a topic, the conscious mind needs the most recent memory since it has very limited memory and it is not economical for the conscious mind to work on something that it already worked on so we again need another mind that filters the memories and just delivers the most recent memory to the conscious mind. So in both cases we need a new mind to filter the memories. But the memories are either present to this mind at once or this mind just receives memories one by one. In the first case we achieve my argument, I call this mind the subconscious mind that is conscious of all memories at once. In the second case, this mind has to wait and check all memories one by one to find out what is the proper memory among all memories. This task if not impossible is very time-consuming since this mind receives more and more memories as time passes because we learn new things. The conscious mind however receives the proper memory very quickly therefore the second case cannot be true.

In (2), although the memories are stored hierarchically we still need a mind to go through all the memories that are stored in subconscious minds and look for the proper information that is needed. This approach, (2) however is more economical than (1) but it is time consuming. People read many books and they know the contents of books. When they are asked about something that is related to a passage in a book, they right away remember the proper book and the proper passage. Therefore, there must be a subconscious mind that is aware of the memories at once.

Wouldn't this be amazingly confusing for that subconscious mind? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. We cannot function very quickly at all otherwise. Please see above.

Do you think that the memories are actually "stored" in the subconscious? — Metaphysician Undercover

The memories are mainly stored in a part of the brain, what I call the subconscious mind.

Or is it a subconscious activity which brings the memories to the attention of the conscious mind, and the memory itself is not actually stored anywhere? — Metaphysician Undercover

The process of recalling is a subconscious activity.

There isn't one. — tim wood

There is considering that the physical and time change, and are two separate things.

P1: Make sense of this please. As it is it's meaningless nonsense. — tim wood

The physical exists within time and does not have direct or indirect access to time. Therefore, the physical cannot experience time.

P2: "If so." Actually, not so. What does the occurrence of an event have to do with time, or "the correct" time, or knowing the time? — tim wood

Please read, D1 and D2 here.

P3: "If so." Again, not so. — tim wood

Consider my thought experiment.

C: Cause? What do you mean by "cause"? — tim wood

A cause refers to the power to which a change in something is due to it. So when I say X causes Y, I mean that X has the power to change Y.

And as to the "physical," once and for all identify a "physical" we can talk about - would a baseball be acceptable as a physical? — tim wood

Yes.

Thanks for changing my argument.

Per your claim below. it is impossible for an electron to exist at t0 and t1. This invalidates your entire argument, at least in its present form. — Relativist

Time t1 and t2 refers to two points in time in which time t2 comes after t1. When I say that an electron exists in time t1 and t2, I mean that the electron exists at t1 first and later exists at t2. To make it more clearer I change the argument to consider your point. Here is the argument:

D1) Consider two states of a physical, S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change

Physical is defined as "relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind". By "a physical" I mean an instance of physical like an electron, a chair, etc. I don't understand why that could be so confusing.

If matter can produce effect like motion we cannot understand, — Manuel

What is in motion that you cannot understand?

why would we limit nature in supposing that it cannot combine matter such that it can be conscious? — Manuel

I think the main problem is that something cannot be object and subject at the same time. That is why I distinguish between experience and physical as separate things. Whether the Hard Problem of consciousness can be resolved is another issue.

Anyhow, even if we agree that consciousness results from the arrangement of matter in a specific form, such as the brain, we still have difficulty explaining how conscious phenomena, such as thoughts, feelings, etc., could have causal power. This difficulty is because the physical move is based on the laws of physics so there is no room left for the mental to contribute.

If you take physical to mean whatever physics says, the point needs no discussion, for it is silly to argue. — Manuel

Why is it silly? We know that physics is true.

But if you take physical to mean natural, then the physical is everything there is. The mental is the domain of the physical we know the best. — Manuel

What is mental to you?

As I mentioned, "Yes, the brain continues to exist but this is due to a vertical causation rather than a horizontal one."

Think of an electron as a physical.

States of a physical what? — Relativist

Think of an electron as an example of a physical. By state, I mean that the electron has a specific location in space at time t0. It then moves from that location to another one at time t1 so its state changes.

If you mean a "physical object" then you are implying this same object exists at both points t1 and t2, — Relativist

No, it is not the same object and the object exists at time t0 and t1 respectively.

Seems to contradict D1, unless you define "experience time" differently than "persisting across time". — Relativist

By experience here I mean being conscious of time.

If the matter composing the brain at t0 is the same matter that composes the brain at t1, then that matter is, by definition, the material cause of the brain at t1. You said you understood what is meant by "material cause", so you should agree. Please confirm. — Relativist

No, the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1. I think I was clear when I said that this causation is vertical rather than horizontal.

The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, possibly in a different arrangement, and this constitutes the brain at t1.

Do you agree? — Relativist

Yes, the brain continues to exist but this is due to a vertical causation rather than horizontal one.