You know this how? — Isaac

Anything else is illogical. Nothingness cannot have anything in it. Nothingness is not even an 'it'. If there is something happening in nothingness, there is something, not nothingness. Nothingness cannot have potency because potency is something.

Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing? — Isaac

If something comes from nothing you have to begin with nothing. And for nothing to become something there must be an impulse within nothing. But nothing with potency or an internal catalyst or impulse, is not nothing because there is already something in it.

Perhaps everything that can be, is. Because there is nothing to stop it. Therefore both nothingness and existence are possible and existence wins out because it is the only other option and there is nothing to stop it from being.

while physical spacetime as you call it is an emergent property of complex wave combinations as generated by the interaction of quantum fields, on some scales giving rise to what we recognize as shape (equilibrated superpositions?) and relative motion. Then what are waves an emergent property of? — Enrique

Good question. It is possible to dismantle matter so that you are left with energy. Is it possible to dismantle energy and find a deeper energy? And dismantle that to reach an even deeper energy? But this process cannot go on without end, it cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. Some ultimate existence must be reached. This substance is existence; ie that which always is.

The relationship, what exactly does that mean? There is always change in an 'event'. Unless by 'relationship' you are referring to the way in which molecules interact or bind together, but even then there is no way for them to bind without some kind of change taking place, unless you are referring to a timeless Universe in which those molecules have been binded together since the beginning of time. — Justin Peterson

Change is evidence of time but time is more than change, it is the mathematical description of change. In Relativity this description is the geometry of spacetime. Time is the way change happens. In quantum spacetime change seems to happen according to a different geometry. The mathematics of how change happens in quantum spacetime is different from the mathematics of physical spacetime, so we have two spacetimes.

1. If human is inherently good, then evil won’t exist.
2. Evil does exist.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that human is inherently good. (1, 2 MT) — Isabel Hu

But some humans are good.
God is creating a situation where 'all will be well and all manner of things will be well'. But in order to do this creation must reject evil of its own free will.

The question is 'how does God know what we will do at T2?' He knows because that is what we chose to do. That is, God's knowledge is a result of our actions, not vice versa.

But how does any of this make it any more likely that the being exists? In general, to experience something by sight is to prove that it exists, but God cannot be experienced in this manner, or any other manner for that matter. I.E. God cannot be heard, touched, smelled, etc. so by this logic no human could truly have experienced God sensorily in spite of their claims. — Maureen

The senses are not the only means to knowledge. The mind is conscious. Religion is only an interpretation of God. Maybe many people were aware of God before religion, as we understand it, evolved.

3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime...
$P_{1}:$ all odd numbers greater than 1 are prime.
3 x 5 = 15 which is composite.
$\neg P_{1}:$ At least one odd number is composite.
$P_{2}:$ Not all odd numbers are prime.
$\neg P_{1}$ forces the positive statement $P_{2}$

I don't quite get you there...Mind elaborating a bit? — TheMadFool

Reductio Absurdum makes a conjecture and follows that conjecture through until a contradiction is reached. The negation of the conjecture can then make a positive statement.

If I had asserted ~E first and then E, the same process is involved, only the propositions are now switched. — TheMadFool

Yes. See also Reductio Absurdum as a (dis)proof.

erasing the words "God exists" from the blank space and we return to:(..........), the blank space we started with. — TheMadFool

Negation can be a positive statement, not just a blank. If I say X is an integer and X is not even I am not saying nothing about X, I am saying it must be odd. Let E = even and O = odd.
$\neg E = O$ which is saying X is odd, a positive statement.

Okay, so then how would you define what an 'event' is? — Justin Peterson

In physical time it is the relationship between physical objects in space.

Well let me ask you this, do you deny that time is man made? — Justin Peterson

Yes. There is a difference between our subjective experience of time and time as it is objectively. Time is the geometry of events (this is what Relativity describes).

Also would you agree that time is relative, not even in the same way previously mentioned as being the transfer of information, but instead in the way that ten minutes can seem like an eternity to somebody pulsing with epinephrine, — Justin Peterson

Time as a subjective experience can be relative. Time in the mind is not the same as physical time. Confusing physical time with our experience of time is a recipe for confusion because our consciousness can be 'locked on' to physical time or it can drift away into mental time which is not the same thing.

And so I come back to my argument that heat and time coexist together, and that one cannot exist without the other. — Justin Peterson

Maybe, but I don't believe that entropy determines time. Just because the arrow of entropy and the arrow of time point in the same direction, does not mean they are the same thing.

If the greatest common divisor of a and b is 1 and ab is a square, both a and b are squares.
With the same restrictions, if $ab^2 = c^2, a$ is a square.

The set of all sets that do contain themselves likewise does not require that a set contain and not contain itself. It would have merely all the individuals in addition to their groupings. — Gregory

The 'set' of all sets...is a contradiction since it is not a set. But it can be an infinite collection of sets. The paradox is superficial and only exists because it is assumed that this set exists when it doesn't.

It does use math to describe the HOW+WHAT of a 3D Reality we are all part of.
Would agree /disagree Yes\No — Chris1952Engineer

Up to a point. Science can only show basic primitive relations. It cannot address higher or more sophisticated questions like meaning and consciousness etc.

They say that Stalinism resulted in 6-9 million deaths. Perhaps Trump can beat that if reelected. — praxis

That is not what I'm saying. I'm only drawing a parallel between two historical political dynamics. No need to take it any further than that. If it comes to it, how many died as a result of the actions of the old guard? Trump has not started any wars.

If you're in politics, you're a politician regardless of whether you play by the established rules. — Benkei

see my post above.

Can you explain how he's not a real politician? or how his methods are unorthodox? — praxis

It doesn't matter. The point I'm making is that America has been run by the deep state for decades and they have done untold harm to the country. Trump is not one of them, that is why they hate him so much. They want a return to power, tyranny and control. Trump is getting in the way. The same happened with Stalin; he wrenched power from the real communists and created Stalinism. Bad as Stalinism was, the alternative might have been much worse.

Everyone knows Trump... — praxis

Yes but he is a maverick. He is not even a real politician.

Did you watch and understand the video? — praxis

Yes, it doesn't matter. The people whose names you know are not the ones who run America. Politicians are only window dressing, pawns.

Then how do you know the vid I posted is false? — praxis

I'm not saying it is false. I'm saying America has been beaten down for decades and sold out. Trump is preventing these people from doing further damage.

No. Nor do most people. 'Liberal' means nothing. Left and Right are meaningless. These are small words about small things. America, like many modern countries, is run by the deep state. They are the ones who sold you out. This is why Trump complains about the bad deal with China. Just in case you missed the link I posted https://nw-connection.com/?p=7224

By evil I assume that you mean liberal? — praxis

I mean the people, whoever they are, who sold America out and dragged it into wars for far too long.

These people are small fry. See my post above this one.

Very diplomatically put. A bit more thorough investigation would show how the situation is worse as Trump is totally fine when it his family getting the money. — ssu

The main point is that he got them out of the White House. I would forget about the small stuff, like money, accusations of racism etc. This is too big for the small fry. The main issue here is Trump is keeping very dangerous warmongers and evil people out of the White House. That is why they hate him so much.

You haven't bothered with any analysis yourself or presented any thesis — Baden

Ok. My thinking is that the letter will make many religious people vote for Trump if it is widely distributed. In my opinion Trump is hated because he 'drained the swamp'. He is keeping the wicked and unscrupulous people our of the White House. They have been in power for far too long and his main merit is he is blocking them. What is the alternative to Trump? The same old school that destroyed America?

I can't believe it. I asked for comments on the letter and all I get is this pointless argument about nothing. Can people please stay with the subject of the thread?

Yes, science does not explain why reality is what it is. Science is a description of reality: A causes B, if x then y, etc. Like looking at a landscape and describing it. It doesn't really explain any more than primitive relationships between things.

No, that's not a theory. That's a hypothesis, a postulate, a proposal. — Philosophim

Whatever it is called you still can't say that it is established science that brain = mind.

Lets clarify then. First, a "convincing argument" means a rational argument concluded with deduction. Deductions must then be applied and tested against reality to ensure we had the entire picture, and that the deduction holds when faced with other people, or use in reality. — Philosophim

Firstly, 'rational' is much more than primitive scientific/mathematical facts. Science and math. deal with basic, material, primitive things. Rationality is much more than this. Sound arguments that don't prove the point are rational. A deduction may hold but some deductions, for want of a better word, are untestable. How would you test if the brain is conscious? Yet, some people deduce that it is. Any such test would have to ignore the warning that correlation may not be causation.

For example, we could deduce in physics that if X object is applied Y force in a vector, it will accelerate at Z speed. So we go outside, we do that, but it doesn't work. We think about it for a moment and we realize we didn't take into account the wind. So we go indoors without any wind, and it turns out our deduction works. We just forgot to take wind as a factor. — Philosophim

True but neuroscience is far from being in possession of all the factors. That's the problem. It is not easy to reduce it to primitive relationships like in physics.

If you make a claim about reality, you must test it against reality. — Philosophim

This sounds like Logical Positivism to me. You are saying everything must be testable in terms of measurable facts. That looks like L.P.

We have not discovered any application of "deduction or rational argument" that consciousness exists apart from the brain. — Philosophim

I disagree. I think there are plenty of rational arguments that hold up.

Finally, I am not a logical positivist. I am not accusing you of holding any particular philosophy, — Philosophim

I'm not saying you are. I am saying that your way of reasoning with this particular issue seems to be an attempt to define what is rational and what is real within L.P. parameters.

You ask for an argument for non material mind. Here is a reasonable argument that neuroscientists are looking at analogues rather than real thought. Analogues, metaphors and images arise naturally in the physical world. Take for example the function $x^2$. This is a concept involving real numbers. But it is possible to make a graph of $x^2$ on a sheet of paper. The graph is an analogue or image of the idea of $x^2$. In fact all graphs involving statistics etc, are images or analogues of the real thing.

Another analogue is a hydrogen atom. There is no material substance per se, in the way our senses naively convince us. The substance of the atom is energy and there is no 'physical' substance to it; it is only a physical image of an energy field. The whole physical universe is an analogue of something else. People are now saying that the universe is really information/mathematics and the physical universe is an analogue of 'mathematical' truth. (I'm putting the word in inverted commas because mathematics, in its entirety, is way beyond anything we currently understand mathematics to be.)

Another image is body language. We speak, subconsciously, about our emotional state by way of body language. In this way body language is an image of something beyond what is visible in terms of physical perception. All languages are images or analogues of something deeper.

If the physical world is really just an analogue of other things then it would be no surprise that physical systems, including the brain, are images of the real thing. We live in a world of images. Philosophers should be careful to distinguish between the image and the reality.

You absolutely may offer an alternative theory, but it must have evidence to compete with another theory that has evidence. — Philosophim

What I am saying is that the theory that brain = mind is a default position, a theory, not a proven fact.
You ask for evidence but the problem here is with the word 'evidence'. Evidence can be data, physical facts or convincing argument. But in your world view - if I understand you correctly - only physical facts are admissible as evidence. Argument is not acceptable to you without physical facts. So you get to define what is and what is not evidence and the dice are loaded in your favour.

But reducing everything to physical facts is a philosophy known as Logical Positivism which is a failed philosophy. You may read up on why this philosophy has failed. Do a search for 'Why did logical positivism fail?' It is a complex question but here is a start https://tribune.com.pk/story/967286/the-rise-and-fall-of-logical-positivism

So you are relying on a dead philosophy - as people like Richard Dawkins and many others are - to make assertions about 'proof' and what science has shown and you are confusing theory with fact. Given the failure of this philosophy it cannot be asserted that brain = mind is established science, it is only a default position and defaults can be challenged, especially if they are built on a failed philosophy.

The question that I will keep asking, and no one has offered anything is, "If the mind is not produced from the brain, what is it?" Without evidence, all your saying is, "It could be something else". — Philosophim

I can put the same question to you; what evidence is there that the brain is conscious? All scientists are doing is looking at a physical analogue. Suppose a scientist looks at the workings of a television and discovers many analogues of what is happening in terms of sound and vision and then concludes that the television is creating the film on screen and therefore must be conscious. But none of these physical analogues mean that the television wrote the script for the film or wrote the music score or created the actors on screen or any of that. If the scientist insists that correlation is causation you can see where he went wrong. The television processes information, it does not create it. Information is broadcast to the television from a remote source. Science does not show that the brain is conscious (how could you show something is conscious?) it only interprets the evidence according to a materialistic dogma that does not allow for the existence of mind separate from matter. The instance that correlation is causation is dogma. All scientists can say is 'The only evidence we can find is that the brain is the mind' but they cannot insist that it is. It is only a theory, not an established fact. So why can't someone offer an alternative theory?

Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain — Philosophim

It doesn't work like that. Besides evidence there is the interpretation of the evidence. These are not the same thing. Scientists interpret physical analogues to argue that brain = mind. Others choose to interpret different things to argue that mind is non material. They are both interpretations of the facts we have. Nothing has been rigorously established. I ask again, how do you show that a physical object is conscious, over and above a theory that it is?

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by this? — Philosophim

The Greeks invented geometry to measure the physical world. Their calculations are congruent with the actual world which is why they were able to create their famous architectural pieces. This means that geometry and deduction about the world is very similar, if not identical, to the objective world. So, to a large extent, we are conscious of what is actually there.

The citations I've linked have clearly shown that damage to the brain can affect the consciousness of people's ability to see color, their core personality, and ability to comprehend language. — Philosophim

Of course but that is because the interface/brain has been damaged. If a camera is damaged you can not see through it but that does not mean the camera sees. The body is an interface between the mind and the world. If the interface is damaged then of course information cannot reach the mind. But the mind is also conscious independently of the body. For example, it can think and it can say 'I think therefore I am'. The mind's knowledge is not restricted to the five senses.

No, it has clearly been established. — Philosophim

What has been established is that there is a physical analogue of the mind's interaction with the world via the brain. But this analogue would have to exist if the mind is to engage with the world. Brain activity is an analogue of this engagement. It is not conscious. When you type into a computer there is a physical analogue of what you are thinking in the form of electrical signals that are translated into type. The existence of this analogue does not mean the computer is thinking.

A meterstick is a notched tool that helps us divide physical space. Physical space does not have an underlying grid of meters that we can't see or exist in some other dimension. — Philosophim

If you replace the meter stick with geometry you'll get very close. Geo-metry means 'earth measuring'.

1. Evidence of consciousness existing in a human being with a completely dead brain.
2. Consciousness existing apart from the localized part of your head. For example, having your body walk away while your consciousness stays right here.
3. Evidence of serious brain damage/chemical changes/proper functionality without the slightest change in personality or character. — Philosophim

https://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

There is no evidence that the brain is conscious. What does exist is a materialistic dogma that insists there is no difference between the brain analogue and the mind. It is simply dogma.

We know that there are certain parts of the brain that allow a person to grasp language. Animals and insects which lack these aspects of the brain are unable to communicate using language.
https://www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/effects-of-brain-injury/communication-problems/language-impairment-aphasia/

Aphasia is the term for when a person has brain damage that limits their ability to communicate. — Philosophim

Yes, the mind can only engage in the physical world on the same level as brain development. If a person had the brain of an earthworm it would not be possible to write poetry. An analogy is the development of computers. In the beginning they were relatively simple. They could not show graphics or images or do word processing. But as more capabilities were added they became more adept. But from this one does not conclude that computers are conscious or intelligent. It is the computer operator's mind that is intelligent and conscious. The physical systems of the brain are only the tools that enable the mind to consciously engage in the world, they are not the mind, no more than ever more sophisticated computer systems are the mind. The mind can only engage in the physical world on the same level as brain complexity.

What I am temporarily left with is that our perception of our own perception (what he calls transcendental or reflexive perception) will always remain imperfect, partial, because when we reflect on our own perception, when we are theorizing our perception, we are not the one who is perceiving anymore, we take a step back from him. — Olivier5

Care needs to be taken here because perception and reflection on perception are very different things. If I perceive a piece of music and then reflect on that perception the former is perception proper but the latter is a different kind of 'perception' altogether; it is the mind looking at itself. But I don't see this act of self knowledge as another self. It is just the self looking at itself. Self awareness.

No, because the mind is the processing brain. — Philosophim

That has yet to be established.

Further, the pain signal is transmitted to the nerve as well, so its not merely localized in the brain. — Philosophim

The whole body is one entity. It is the means by which the mind experiences the world. But this entity makes experience subjective and this subjectivity is partially determined by the fact that the body contextualizes its experiences. When the mind experiences via the senses, its experiences are in the context of the body because the body is the context. If the mind could experience reality without the context of the body reality might look different but not by a lot. For example, mathematical deduction is not influenced by the body. Math is what it is and is not altered by the body. Eating food is different. It is very much a bodily experience.

The question is; how closely does subjective experience resemble the objective reality that is the source of that experience? It is likely to closely resemble the reality otherwise we must argue that the mind is in an almost constant state of fantasy or delusion or in a dream world. This is unlikely because we are able to coherently respond to the world that we perceive.

The articles I've linked and the arguments I've been given clearly show that consciousness happens within the physical context of the brain. — Philosophim

But that does not mean the physical context is consciousness. Correlation is not necessarily causation. Just because neurons and brain signals are correlated with thought does not mean they cause thought. The argument that the mind is the brain relies heavily on ignoring the dictum: Correlation Is Not Necessarily Causation and assuming that because two things are found together one must be causing the other. This is not always true, as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I don't think so. Life is much more than physics. — Olivier5

True, but to the materialist it is all essentially physical. If I say 'I am experiencing red' what do I mean by "I"? It seems to me that a good definition of the 'I' would help things a lot. It is not possible to reconstruct the I from physical systems, information, and experiences so what is it that is having these experiences?

"Physical" does not really work here. The body and brain are biological. Life is already far more than just "physical". It's about information. Your body is made of information, and that's why it can die. — Olivier5

It comes to much the same thing. The body is a context in which experience is framed. But Dennett needs to be more detailed in his analysis. There are different kinds of experience; internal, such as pain, pleasure, thought etc. and experiences that are dependent on external stimulation. These are two different classes of experiences. It is not a good idea to use internal experience to draw general conclusions about consciousness that also involves consciousness of external stimuli.

There is no viable model out there that states consciousness is separate from the brain's function. Any that try to are phlogiston theories at this point. — Philosophim

Suppose you go to the doctor and tell him you have a pain in your foot. He might decide to enlighten you and tell you that the pain is not "really" in your foot. It is really a sensation in your brain.

"But" you object "how can I feel it in my foot if it is in my brain?" whereupon he might expound: "You see, the body is so constructed that it locates the pain in your foot. That is, it contextualizes the pain in the foot area. This is because the body is a physical context in which we have experiences. But the pain is really in your brain, you see, son?"

Whereupon you could answer "If the body is a physical context, then can't we extend this reasoning further and argue that the pain is not really in the brain either, but in the mind? And when professionals like you contend that the pain is really in the brain all you are doing is examining a physical context that is not really pain at all. The pain is beyond the brain. Because if the body is merely a physical context and the brain is part of the body can't the brain be part of the contextualization too?"

If we are locating things in the body can't it also be argued that neuroscience is locating/contextualizing experience in a physical context in the brain but the real conscious experience is outside the physical context altogether? Why stop at the brain? Indeed, can physical matter, no matter how complex, have experiences? Because that is what body is really, a physical context in which experiences are framed.