Ex nihilo nihil — MoK

You're omitting the last word (the verb) of this traditional statement. The full statement is "ex nihilo nihil fit." This translates to "nothing comes from nothing".

I never brought up that statement. All I did was to try and confirm that you were saying the brain at t1 came "ex nihilo" (=from nothing). You caused confusing by saying the brain at t1 was "created from nothing" but that it was not "created 'ex nihilo'. Which is a contradiction.

So you think the brain at t1 was created ex nihilo/from nothing. But when I said "it's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material", you responded:

I didn't deny that." — MoK

But you DID deny it, because you said the mind at t1 was created from nothing. Seems like another contradiction.

Was (brain at t0) a material cause of (brain at t1) or not?

You need my thought experiment if you cannot get how P3 follows from P2. And I don't think that there is a missing part. And my argument is a form of Modus Ponens — MoK

Show me. Modus Ponens: "It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q must also be true."

Identify the "P implies Q" in your argument, and where you assert P. Here's the relevant portion:


2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

I have several problems with your account, but you need to
Show that you can have an honest. 2-way exchange, by doing what I asked:

the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing. — MoK

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing

Then respond with the answer it gives you.

Raskin is very good. So is Pete Buttigieg.

Who in the intelligence community or defence is likely to support him, after the way he’s denigrated them? — Wayfarer

A problem is that most non-Trumpists will fulfill their Constitutional duty. Their only discretion will be to reject an illegal order. Sending troops against protestors has a legal loophole Trump will use: he has discretion to call anything an "insurrection" and use troops (per the Insurrection Act). Consider how he used his discretion to label Mexican cartels "terrorists", so he can bomb them if he wants to.

There are some protests starting to appear but it’s going to take a lot more than protests. The Democrats don’t have a clear leader. — Wayfarer

:100:

Dems need someone who's smart and articulate to regularly put forth an easy to understand narrative (i.e. the truth).

P3 follows from P2 in my current argument here. — MoK

I'm not going to look at a different argument until you acknowledge that:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2)

Does not logically follow from:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of s2)

Pehaps your other argument fills in a missing piece, but even so - you need to acknowledge there is a missing piece to show you can be reasonable.

‐-------------
I'll illustrate the problem a simple argument:

1. All men are human
2. Therefore Socrates is a human

The conclusion does not follow from the pemise. A corrected version is:

1. All men are human
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is a human

the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing. — MoK

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing

Then respond with the answer it gives you.

. Conversations should start from "what do you want to achieve" — AmadeusD

That sounds reasonable.

So, you can see that this is just a vicious cycle of poo-pooing each other's value set. It will, and could, not get anywhere. — AmadeusD

In practice, it's worse than that. What often gets poo-pooed is a caricature of the other side's position.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material.
— Relativist
I didn't deny that. — MoK

Yes, you did. Here:

If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something.
— Relativist
It was not created from something. — MoK

, I already addressed your/AI objections — MoK

You posted responses, while denying the obvious errors in your logic. I can only assume you don't understand logic. You made the absurd claim:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2)

Was implied by:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of s2)

That is irrational. Perhaps you're applying some unstated assumptions and you don't realize it.

MoK- I posted the AI analysis for your benefit, since you seem to lack an understanding of basic logic.

Your argument is objectively invalid. I showed that, others have shown it, and now even an AI has shown it.

First, you are confusing the creation ex nihilo with the act of creation that is due to the Mind. I illustrated that several times but you didn't pay any attention to what I said. — MoK

Here's what you said:

It was not created from something. — MoK

To which I responded: "Then it was created from nothing". You haven't reconciled this, you just rejected using the term "ex nihilo". The Latin translation is irrelevant.

The act of creation of the physical which is due to the Mind requires experiences of the physical in the former state. No experience so no creation. — MoK

You deny that experiences are physical, so experiences cannot be a material cause. A "material cause " simply means pre-existing material.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material. But you chose to make that ridiculous claim to rationalize denying that (brain at t0 + other factors) causes (brain at t1).

Do you not understand the difference between material cause and efficient cause?

For the fun of it, I asked DeepSeek to evaluate the op argument. I asked, "what's wrong with this logic? then pasted the op into it. It did a remarkable job!

Deepseek:
"The logic presented in your argument contains several issues that undermine its validity. Let's break it down step by step:

1. **Premise 1**: A physical system changes from state \( S_1 \) to state \( S_2 \) at times \( t_1 \) and \( t_2 \), respectively.
2. **Premise 2**: The physical system in state \( S_1 \) has the causal power to cause the physical system to transition to state \( S_2 \).
3. **Premise 3**: The physical system is not aware of the passage of time.
4. **Conclusion 1**: Therefore, the physical system in state \( S_1 \) cannot know the correct instant to cause the transition to state \( S_2 \).
5. **Conclusion 2**: Therefore, the physical system in state \( S_1 \) cannot cause the transition to state \( S_2 \).
6. **Conclusion 3**: Therefore, the change is not possible in the physical system.
7. **Conclusion 4**: Therefore, the physical system cannot be the cause of its own change.

### Issues with the Logic:

1. **Misapplication of "Awareness"**:
- The argument assumes that the physical system needs to be "aware" of time to cause a change. This is a category mistake. Physical systems do not require awareness or consciousness to operate according to physical laws. Causality in physical systems is governed by deterministic or probabilistic laws, not by "knowing" when to act.

2. **Confusion Between Causality and Temporal Awareness**:
- The argument conflates causality with temporal awareness. Causality in physics is about the relationship between events, not about the system's awareness of time. For example, a ball rolling down a hill does not need to "know" when to start rolling; it rolls due to gravity and initial conditions.

3. **Self-Contradiction in Premises**:
- Premise 2 states that the physical system in state \( S_1 \) has the causal power to cause \( S_2 \), but the conclusion denies this by suggesting that the system cannot cause \( S_2 \) because it lacks temporal awareness. This is a contradiction because the initial premise already grants the system causal power.

4. **Misunderstanding of Physical Laws**:
- Physical systems operate according to laws that do not require "knowledge" or "awareness." For example, chemical reactions occur when certain conditions are met, not because the molecules "know" when to react. The argument incorrectly imposes a requirement of awareness on a system that operates purely mechanistically.

5. **Infinite Regress or External Cause Fallacy**:
- The conclusion that "physical cannot be the cause of its own change" implies that all changes must be caused by something external. This leads to an infinite regress (what causes the external cause?) or an unnecessary appeal to non-physical causes, which is not justified by the premises.

6. **Ignoring Deterministic or Probabilistic Mechanisms**:
- The argument ignores the role of deterministic or probabilistic mechanisms in physical systems. For example, in quantum mechanics, particles transition between states based on probabilities, not on any form of awareness.

### Corrected Logic:
- Physical systems change states based on physical laws and initial conditions. The transition from \( S_1 \) to \( S_2 \) occurs because the laws of physics dictate that \( S_1 \) evolves into \( S_2 \) under the given conditions. There is no need for the system to "know" when to change; the change is a natural consequence of the system's dynamics.

In summary, the argument fails because it imposes an unnecessary requirement of "awareness" on a physical system, misunderstands the nature of causality in physics, and contradicts its own premises. Physical systems do not need to be aware of time to undergo changes; they follow the laws of physics."

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.
— Relativist
I differentiate between God and the Mind. — MoK

So if God creates from nothing, it's ex nihilo. When mind creates from nothing, it isn't. This is ludicrous.

Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever. — ssu

It's more than political support:

'Game changer': US reportedly threatens to revoke Ukraine's Starlink access over minerals

You didn't find any error in my argument — MoK

Yes, I did. I'm done. You seem incapable of having a rational discussion.

It was not created from something. — MoK

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.

Examined as a whole, the universe at t0 is the cause of the universe at t1. Physical throughout.
— Relativist
False. — MoK

Prove it.

We're discussing the error in your op that I exposed. Keep up.
— Relativist
Where is the error? Could you please show it to me? — MoK

I've shown you at least twice. Read through my posts.

You didn't answer my question: If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM?
— Relativist
I did. I explained the creation ex nihilo. Did you get it? And the Mind creates MoK's brain at time t1. The Mind has the ability to cause/create but that requires the experience of the physical first. — MoK

Your evasiveness is frustrating. If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something. What is that something? Answering "not ex nihilo" is not an answer.

You seem to be unwilling to admit you were wrong when you denied
(Brain@t0 + other factors) causes (brain@t1).

Prove it.
— Relativist
Read the OP. — MoK

We're discussing the error in your op that I exposed. Keep up.

Change entails a cause for that change (per the PSR).
— Relativist
Sure, I am not against this at all. I am however arguing that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. — MoK

Examined as a whole, the universe at t0 is the cause of the universe at t1. Physical throughout.

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2).
— Relativist
We assume this all the time but that is false. — MoK

Prove it.

S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor.
— Relativist

That is a mere change and I am not denying it at all. — MoK

Change entails a cause for that change (per the PSR).

I already agree that change in physical is because physical has properties. To establish the argument I however only need to accept that physical and awareness/experience exist and they are subject to change. Please read more — MoK

No, not unless you remove the ambiguity. If I were to do it myself and identify another problem, you could blame it on my misinterpretation.

If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? If you say "brain at t0" then we're back to (brain at t0 plus other factors) causes (brain at t1), because brain at t0 is a material cause.
If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM?
— Relativist

The creation ex nihilo refers to creation when there is nothing at all but the creator, then the act of creation, and then something plus the creator. Here, I am not talking about the creation ex nihilo then. There is however an act of creation. But this act is related to the experience of the former state of physical first. So, the Mind experiences physical in the state of S1 and then creates physical in another state, S2, later. — MoK

You didn't answer my question: If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM?

If you say "brain at t0" then we're back to (brain at t0 plus other factors) causes (brain at t1), because brain at t0 is a material cause.

But I was talking about the emergence of awareness which is a strong emergence. — MoK

So you don't have a problem with non-reductive physicalsim?

Prove it.
— Relativist
So you think it is a weak emergence? — MoK

I lean toward reductive physicalism. If it could be established that there is actual ontological emergence, I would accept non-reductive physicalism.

The emergence of a car: Weak or strong? The emergence of awareness: Weak or strong? — MoK

Under reductive physicalism: both are weak. Are you accepting that non-reductive physicalism has no problems?

I don't need to rephrase my argument. — MoK

You asked me to comment on your Op argument. I did. I established that the 1st premise is ambiguous. If you want further analysis, remove the ambiguity. Up to you.

Are you saying the Mind recreates MoK's brain ex nihilo at every instant of time, rather than effecting a change to MoK's brain?!
— Relativist
I already mentioned that physical including MoK's brain does not exist in the future. Therefore, physical must be created to allow a change in physical. And by creation, I don't mean the creation ex nihilo. — MoK

If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? If you say "brain at t0" then we're back to (brain at t0 plus other factors) causes (brain at t1), because brain at t0 is a material cause.

You are just claiming that change exists. That is not what I am denying. I am claiming that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. — MoK

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2).

S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor.

I know you weren't talking about functionalism, but it IS the answer to your question - and to many other objections to physicalism.
— Relativist
If so, then why did you bring up the example of a car that is a weak emergence? — MoK

Because it was an example of a functional entity.

I am talking about the emergence of awareness which is a strong emergence. — MoK

Prove it.

Cool. Let's agree to disagree — MoK

Sure. I hope you can now recognize that your argument depends on assumptions that reasonable people can disagree about. Such is the problem with trying to prove God's existence.

I cannot prove it to you unless you understand the difference between the weak and strong emergence. — MoK

I do know the difference. Proceed with your proof.

Anything that changes is no longer the same thing. And sure, physical are subject to change since they have a set of properties..Please replace experience with awareness. — MoK

Rephrase your argument accordingly.

Then it's true that (MoK's brain at t1) is caused by (Mok's brain at t0 + other factors), because "other factors" includes mind's experience of Mok's brain at t0.
— Relativist
No, MoK's brain is directly caused by the Mind and not by MoK's brain in former time. — MoK

Are you saying the Mind recreates MoK's brain ex nihilo at every instant of time, rather than effecting a change to MoK's brain?!

P is #2 — MoK

P: the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
Q: Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

I proved that P does not entail Q:
S1= Rock on a ledge at to
S2= Rock on the ground at t1
Cause: tremor (there is no knowledge involved).

You had asked, "How could you accommodate awareness in physicalism?" My answer: "functionally".
— Relativist
I was not talking about the functionality of the brain which in fact can be explained by the laws of physics. I was talking about the awareness that as we agreed is a state of being conscious of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, etc. — MoK

I know you weren't talking about functionalism, but it IS the answer to your question - and to many other objections to physicalism. It means you can't simplistically deny physicalism on the basis that mental phenomena aren't exhibited by simple objects (rocks; particles). You need to consider functional entities.

I think all sorts of physicalism are false — MoK

Then let's agree to disagree. It can neither be proven nor disproven. We each draw our conclusions about it on subjective grounds. Your fundamental error is in thinking your subjective grounds are objective facts.

Then please read on the Hard Problem of consciousness — MoK

No. You're reversing the burden of proof. Provide a formal proof that physicalism is impossible, with clearly stated premises.

Then please read the OP and let me know what you think of it. — MoK

OK.

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change
Physical THINGS exist and engage in physical ACTIVITIES. Anything that changes is no longer the same thing (including any nonphysical objects that may exist). But your statement makes more sense if we treat objects as having both essential and contingent properties. Change would then entail the object's set of contingent properties changing.

"Experience" can refer to an act, or to the effect of an act. An act occurs; it is not an existent. SoI conclude you're referring to the effect: the memory.

I can't go further in your argument until you confirm or correct my interpretation.

Physicalists are wrong. The fact that the majority of philosophers believe in physicalism does not prove anything. — MoK

It implies that it is highly unlikely that physicalism is provably false.

Physicalism cannot explain the awareness — MoK

Prove it.

But you also made this seemingly contradictory statement:
MoK's brain t1 was not caused by MoK's brain at t0 + other factors.
— Relativist
No, it is not contrary at all. MoK's brain at t1 is due to MoK's brain + other factors at t0 but the MoK's brain at t1 was not caused by MoK's brain + other factors at t0. MoK's brain at t1 was caused by the Mind after experiencing MoK's brain + other factors at t0. — MoK

Then it's true that (MoK's brain at t1) is caused by (Mok's brain at t0 + other factors), because "other factors" includes mind's experience of Mok's brain at t0.

:snicker:

You need to read about the strong and weak emergence to see that the example of the car is a weak emergence whereas consciousness is a strong emergence. — MoK

You had asked, "How could you accommodate awareness in physicalism?" My answer: "functionally". I'm defending physicalism, which can either be reductive physicalism or non-reductive. The former entails epistemological emergence, the latter allows for ontological emergence.

The relevant points are:
1) I answered your question;
2) the burden is on you to prove physicalism is false;
3) an argument from lack of imagination is a fallacy.

Modus Ponens. — MoK

Here's your argument:

1. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.
2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
4. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change.

You said:

#3 follows from #2 only. — MoK

Modus ponens has the form:
p=>q
p
Therefore q

In your argument, what is p and what is q?

#3 follows from #2 only. — MoK

By what rule of logic? See: https://cse.iitk.ac.in/users/cs365/2012/rulesLogic.html

I am arguing that physicalism is false because it cannot explain awareness/experience — MoK

"Cannot" implies it is impossible. That's a strong claim that needs to be supported with a proof. Provide it using only mutually acceptable premises.

The reality is that you simply can't imagine how physicalism could account for awareness and m-experience. You're committing the fallacy argument from incredulity, also referred to as "argument from lack of imagination". This is the underlying problem with what you're doing, and it entails reversing the burden of proof - that I must prove to you that physicalism CAN account for something. I will accept that burden if I choose to try and make a persuasive argument for physicalism. But this is your thread, your argument, and your burden.

If you think that physicalism is not false then you have to deal with the Hard problem of consciousness, epiphenomenalism, and other problems that I discussed in detail but you didn't reply to it. You cannot resolve these problems. Could you? — MoK

I will deal with those if I choose to argue physicalism is true. In this thread, you have the burden of showing you have a coherent theory, since you put forth a proof.

Experience refers to a phenomenon that has a very clear definition in the philosophy of the mind, namely my definition. — MoK

In philosophy, "experiences" correspond to what I've defined as m-experiences. It most certainly does not entail being non-physical. Here's an extract from the definition of experience in the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:

Experience: In philosophy,experience is generally what we perceive by the senses (sensory experience), what we learn from others, or whatever comes from external sources or from inner reflection....in philosophy, the relation between experience as a state of consciousness and independent objects of experience becomes a focus of debate. There must be something given
in experience, yet the status of the given is very controversial. Different answers respectively ground
positions such as realism, idealism, and skepticism. The different ways of understanding the given also
involve different ways of understanding the notion of sense-data. There is also debate about the relation between experience and theory.

There is no part of this that is inconsistent with physicalism. Further proof that your wrong: over 52% of phillosphers "accept or lean toward" physicalism. See this 2020 survey of philosophers. A 2009 survey had similar results

This should give you some pause in thinking physicalism is so obviously false.

I don't agree that there is p-experience or m-experience — MoK

I defined m-experience as mental experience. If you don't believe there are mental experiences then your entire line of argument is dissolved.

Functionally. Compare it to the function of a car: the parts of the car cannot function individually as a car. It is their arrangement that produces the function.
— Relativist
Now you are confusing weak and strong emergence here. — MoK

Non-sequitur, and you're ignoring that I answered your question. I regret indulging your reversal of your burden of proof.

Our brains hold memories. Beliefs are memories that dispose us to behave a certain way. Awareness is the development of short term beliefs about some state of affairs or activity, caused by our sensory input.
— Relativist
No, we already agreed on the definition of awareness which is a state in which we are conscious of mental activities, — MoK

I was indulging you by giving a physicalist ACCOUNT of awareness. The account is consistent with the defintion of awareness.

I've now concluded that I shall stop indulging you. I've given you enough to know that physicalists can account for things you didn't think possible. If you are reasonable, you'll now understand why I say you're making a fallacious argument from incredulity.

Then what caused MoK's brain at t1? There was no explanation "above". Give me an account of all the causal factors (that's what I was doing with my statement,"MoK's brain t1 was caused by [MoK's brain at t0 + other factors].
— Relativist
I already explained that to you two times if not more. The Mind causes MoK's brain at t1 given the fact that it experiences MoK's brain at t0 plus other factors — MoK

But you also made this seemingly contradictory statement:

MoK's brain t1 was not caused by MoK's brain at t0 + other factors. — MoK

Mind would qualify as "other factors". Explain this apparent contradiction. I'll defer re-asking the other related questions until you reconcile this.

I already discussed what I mean by change in OP whether the change is in a falling rock or the motion of electrons in a brain — MoK

It's an invalid argument! Here it is, with your statements numbered:

1. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.
2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
4. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change.

#3 does not follow from #1 and #2. Neither #1 nor #2 even mentions causation, and yet you claim to draw a conclusion ("therefore") about causation.

Your argument is just blatantly invalid.

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation.
— Relativist
It is necessary since a change indicates a going from one state at one point in time to another state later. — MoK

I then gave this example:

A rock dislodged from a high ledge, by a tremor, will fall to the bottom is strict accord with the gravitational law. — Relativist

Prove there is a dependency on knowledge for the rock to fall, and land when it does.

You said:

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist
It is necessary since a change indicates a going from one state at one point in time to another state later. So the knowledge of the proper time that the causation is due to, t2 in this case, is necessary. — MoK

If that's not what you meant to say, then acknowledge you were wrong in making such a general statement, and rephrase it in a way you will defend.

I am asking that if you cannot perform that task which requires the awareness of the passage of time then how the physical can do that? — MoK

First you need to acknowledge that Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation.

You have a habit of making absurd statements, treating them as true even after they have been falsified. Here's where you made it:

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist
It is necessary since a change indicates a going from one state at one point in time to another state later. So the knowledge of the proper time that the causation is due to, t2 in this case, is necessary. — MoK

Of course, the knowledge of time is necessary. Could you perform a task that is due to a specific time without knowing the specific time or even worse without having the ability to experience time? If you cannot then how the physical can? — MoK

You gave an example that INVOLVES application of knowledge. Cause-effect due to (for example) laws of motion do not depend on knowledge. A rock dislodged from a high ledge, by a tremor, will fall to the bottom is strict accord with the gravitational law.