If nothing, is not a thing and the mind is a thing then observe they are exactly identical with respect to the properties you listed. You'll have to provide me with a property that distinguishes the two and demonstrate how the category error is apt to the issue. — TheMadFool

Nothing is not a thing - there's no serious dispute about that. I mean, it is there in the word itself - 'no-thing'. Nothing. Not a thing. Nothing.

They are not identical. For one thing, my mind is a thing and nothing is not. Big difference. Doesn't actually get bigger than that.
Also, my mind thinks. That's one of its properties - it thinks things. Nothing doesn't. And so on.

I suggest that you are confusing 'immaterial' with 'non-existent' and 'material' with 'existent'. Not the same.

No, if I buy some meat I am not thereby commissioning someone to kill a cow. Even if I foresee that someone is likely to do so, that still does not mean I am commissioning it.

Benefitting from the immoral behaviour of others is not equivalent to engaging in that behaviour, or equivalent to commissioning it.

You still blurting out pronouncements?

There's a stack of evidence that the mind is not the brain - I presented one piece, there's plenty more - and none whatever that the mind is the brain.

No it didn't. I. Refuted. You.

The less they know, the less they know it.

I just refuted you. Deal.

Thinking is not a brain process. It is a 'mental' process. A process that minds - and minds alone - engage in.

Whether minds and brains are one and the same kind of object is a philosophical question.

I have argued that minds are not brains, because minds are indivisible and something indivisible is simple and something simple is immaterial, whereas minds, being divisible, are material.

So it would seem that our minds are demonstrably not our brains and that mental processes are not physical processes in the brain.

Nothing is not a thing. So saying it is indivisible is a category error.

But even if nothing were a thing - and it isn't - and an indivisible thing, what would follow from that is that 'nothing' (the thing that is nothing) is simple and immaterial.

This would do nothing to challenge my case, however, as I have not argued that all simple, immaterial, uncaused things are minds (so my case is consistent with 'nothing' - if nothing is a thing, which it isn't - also being indivisible and thus simple). I have argued that simple, immaterial uncaused things are causally responsible for everything else that exists, and I have argued that our minds are simple, immaterial uncaused things. But I have not concluded that therefore simple, immaterial uncaused things are minds, or that our minds are responsible for all else that exists. I said explicitly that this did not follow, only that they are candidates for that role.

Yes, lots of them do. Mine does. Yours does too - I mean, you're thinking right now, and those thoughts have a mind that is having them, namely 'your' mind. So your mind exists, mine does, lots of them do.

Do you think it is true, or false? I mean, so far you've failed to address yourself to my question.

So I'll ask it again: If I am dead in the future, am I now dead?

Note: I think everything you have said so far makes not a blind bit of sense. Not even a tiny bit. And I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about. As, like I say, your inability to answer my question demonstrates.

One possibility is that "mind" is a word we use to describe the sum output of all human brain processes. — tomatohorse

That's not how the word is traditionally used and it is not how I am using it. It means 'that which bears our conscious experiences".

So, it refers to an 'object' not a 'process'.

If there are percepts, there is a thing that is doing the perceiving. If there are thoughts, there is a thinker. If there are desires, there is a desirer.

It is that thing - whatever it may be - the thinker, the desirer, the perceiver - that I am using the word 'mind' to refer to.

Thinking is a process. But the thinker is not. The thinker is the one who is engaging in the process known as thinking.

And it is that thing that my reason represents to be indivisible, and thus simple and immaterial and uncaused.

So, "I will be dead in the future" means the same as "I am dead" yes? That is, if I am dead in the future, I am now dead. That's your view, yes? It's kinda silly, isn't it? I mean, nobody - not even you - thinks it is actually true.

Instead you straightaway claim that the mind is indivisible and none of your preceding arguments have a proposition that allows you to take the necessary step to the proposition that the mind is simple, immaterial object that has not been caused to exist. — TheMadFool

Again, just obviously false.

First, every argument has premises. So, if every premise in an argument has to have an argument in its favour, then proofs would require infinite premises, infinite arguments. That's stupid.

One of my premises is that my mind is indivisible.

What's my evidence that my mind is indivisible?

My evidence is that my reason represents it to be.

Now, if something is indivisible, it is simple. Why? Because if it was complex then we could divide it into its parts.

So, if something is indivisible, it has no parts, and thus is simple.

If something is material, it is divisible. Why? Because something material occupies some space, and if something occupies some space it can be divided (for any region of space can be divided)

Thus if something is indivisible it is not material. And if something is simple - which it will be if it is indivisible - then it is not material.

Thus, my mind is simple and immaterial. And as something simple is not caused to exist, my mind - being simple - has not been caused to exist.

Why would I listen to your advice about how to argue, when you don't seem to know how to argue?

If something is simple it is indivisible. And if something is indivisible, it is simple.

So, if my mind is indivisible - and the evidence is that it is - then it is simple.

Simple.

You still haven't answered the question. Is 'now' also future and past? Does "you will be dead in the future" mean the same as "you are now dead"?

You can't answer a question with a question.

So, is a present event also in the future and also in the past? Please answer with an answer, not a question.

Time and the apple paradox: I put one apple in the fridge and the other on the sideboard. After a week the one on the sideboard had aged a lot whereas the one in the fridge had aged barely at all.

Conclusion: time passes more slowly in the fridge.

Only that's stupid, isn't it?

So why aren't physicists being that stupid when they reason that as an apple that moves at speed ages more slowly than one at rest therefore time passes more slowly at speed? Or is that not how they reason?

My motives are irrelevant. Focus.

Present, past and future are incompatible properties. Yes?

You're doing things the wrong way around.

Look, it is obvious what the answer to my question is: it is 'no'.

If an event is present, it is not also future and past.

Why can't you just answer the question?

Note: I believe you don't know what you're talking about.

My evidence for that: you don't know what your answer is to this simple question:

If an event is present, is it also future and past?

Oh, this is tedious.

Evidence that the mind is indivisible: it appears to be.

Evidence that the mind is immaterial: it is indivisible.

Now, perhaps you think that for something to be evidence, there needs to be evidence that it is evidence.

In that case your view generates an infinite regress and thus amounts to the belief that nothing is evidence for anything. Which is stupid.

no, if it is indivisible - which it is - then it is immaterial, for anything material is divisible.

You're just ignoring the arguments I gave. If an object is indivisible, then it is simple. If it is simple it is immaterial. So, evidence that my mind is indivisible is, eo ipso, evidence that it is immaterial.

No, that's silly. If I buy meat, the cow whose meat it is has already been killed.

Let's say I'm going for a promotion and another person is going for it. My friend misguidedly decides to help me by murdering the other person (not something I asked them to do). Now, am I obliged to forego the promotion? No, of course not.

And if I accept the promotion, does that mean I am ordering my friend to commit further hits? No, of course not.

Someone else - not me - has killed the animals. I did not commission them to do so - I am opposed to them doing so. I think it is wrong. Nevertheless, they've done it. And I - through no fault of my own - desire to eat the meat. If I buy it that is not at all - not remotely - equivalent to me commissioning them to kill animals.

Like I've said, it's about perspective. — BrianW

So you think that if an event if present, it is also future and past?

My reason - and yours too - represents it to be indivisible.

For example, you attribute a mind to me - yes? You can't attribute 'half' a mind to me though, can you? I mean, that makes no sense (apart from the colloquial use of 'half a mind' - when it means 'half a desire-to').

You were comparing the violinist in Thomson's gedanken experiment with a meat-source for our diets, a cow. There's a difference. In the former the violinist isn't in a tight spot because of you and so you're not obligated to do him a favor. In the latter, the cow is being slaughtered because you have a habit of eating meat and so you're responsible for the death of the cow. — TheMadFool

No, I am no more responsible for the cow's predicament than I am for the violinist's. As I've said to others, I did not create the meat industry nor did I take out a hit on a cow and nor did I install an appetite for meat in myself.

So, though no fault of my own, cows are being killed for meat. If I radically alter my diet, perhaps one less cow - perhaps more - will not be killed. Am I under an obligation to do so?

Well, again, if I was not under an obligation to forego all sweet food for the rest of my life when it turns out that Mat's life depends on my doing so, likewise it would seem - if the cases are sufficiently analogous - that I am not under an obligation to forego all meat for the rest of my life when it turns out that a cow's life depends on my doing so.

Past, present and future, or linear time as I have learnt to call it, is fundamentally dependent upon our 'refresh'-rate. — BrianW

I don't know what you mean.

I have said that past, present and future are mutually incompatible properties. That is, if an event is present, it is not also past and future. And if it is future, it is not present or past. And if it is past, it is not also present and future.

Do you dispute that?

This is the most clear indication why you need to revise your position. — Miles

Why?

Again, it's you - you - who is confused. You seem to have trouble distinguishing 'certain' from 'necessary'.

If it helps: you are certain my position is confused. But it is not necessarily confused, is it?

For me squared circles are impossible meaning they cannot exist - that is what impossible is. If it could exist it wouldn't be impossible. — Miles

Well, now you're being disingenuous!

You asked me what I understood 'necessary' to mean.

On that - on 'that' - our positions are the same.

I mean by 'necessary' what you mean by it.

I deny it exists, you think it does. But we're talking about the same thing - necessity.

You could for example say (as you have) we don't know every aspect of the world and contradictions are one such aspect. — Miles

Where have I said that? Quote me saying it. I haven't. Absolutely haven't. I have repeatedly said that I know there are no square circles not - not - on the basis of observation, but on the basis of my reason. My reason is adamant that there aren't any. And on that basis, I conclude that there are none.

I have not - absolutely not - said "well, I haven't inspected the entire universe, and on that basis I think it is possible for square circles to exist". That's absurd!! I don't know where you've got the idea that that's my view, for I have never - never - said any such thing.

Again, then, I am sure - 100% certain - that there are no square circles in existence.

Why? Why am I sure?

I am sure because my reason tells me, in no uncertain terms, that there are none.

So, I conclude that there are none.

You keep straw manning me - you keep inventing positions and attributing them to me.

I have said repeatedly that we know - know - many things by reason alone, including that there are no square circles and that the law of non-contradiction is true.

I agree that conspiracy theories should not automatically be dismissed. But a conspiracy theorist does, surely, have the burden of proof?

Your interests and my interests are not perfectly aligned. But that doesn't mean you should default distrust me, even in cases where it may be in my interests to lie.

This is just a special instance of a more general principle or injunction of reason. Namely, to trust appearances. If something appears to be the case, then we are default justified in believing that it is the case until some countervailing evidence is provided to think otherwise.

So, if I say that I will be there at 7pm, you are default justified in trusting that I will be, even if it is not in my interests to be.

The fact, then, that there are powerful people whose interests do not perfectly align with ours does not mean we are default justified in distrusting what they say. And thus a conspiracy theorist owes us evidence for the conspiracy. 'Conspiracy' is not the default.

I don't follow. Each argument was deductively valid, yes? And you've yet to raise any reasonable doubt about any premise of any of them. You've just told me that if I demonstrated the mind to be simple, it would follow that it is immaterial and uncause.d

er, that's precisely - precisely - what I did!!

I think we are getting closer to identifying the symptoms. — Miles

That's question begging - you're assuming my thinking is diseased and in need of treatment.

The issue is you don’t have a clear notion of necessity even though you are denying it. What I mean is ‘what is necessity for you which you are denying’? — Miles

Haha, well that's an attempt to shift the burden of proof if ever I saw one!

I mean what you mean by it, I am quite sure.

My position on it is clear, for me it means 'what is impossible and what must be' vs. 'what is possible'. Such that talk of necessity is talk of an exclusive relationship between possibility and impossibility. You can drop the concept of necessity if you wish but you would need to take a position whether something is possible or impossible. And as soon as you say something is impossible then it means under no circumstances can it be possible. — Miles

Yes, as I thought, I mean the same by it as you do. And I deny its reality.

You keep attacking a straw man though. I am 'denying' that necessity exists - so I am 'denying' that anything is impossible. That is, I believe anything - literally anything - is possible. Yet you seem to be labouring under the idea that I think some things are impossible. No, I think nothing - nothing - is impossible.

Square circles do not exist. There are none - none - in reality. I am quite sure of it. But they are possible. They 'can' exist, they just don't. Absolutely, certainly, don't.

That's a consistent statement. If you think it is inconsistent, explain.

What you mean by necessity seems confused to me and this I think is why you are now getting yourself in all sorts of knots. — Miles

You're confident I'm in knots. Why? It's you who keeps confusing different notions and attributing to me things I have not said.

You have confused being certain that a proposition is true with its being necessarily true.
You have confused epistemic possibilities with metaphysical ones. You have insisted that 'cannot' means the same as 'necessarily is not the case'. And you seem to have confused objective with necessary and subjective with contingent (for you suggested that this might be what I am really talking about - despite my never mentioning the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' once). And you have confused a faculty of awareness with an object of awareness - that is, you've confused 'our reason' with the norms of reason that it makes us aware of (which is akin to confusing sight with sights).

So from where I am standing I am not the one who is confused. My view is unconventional, but that does not mean it is confused.

You haven't challenged a premise. Challenge one. Make a case against one.

Note, pointing out that my arguments have undefended premises is a point you can make about any. argument. whatever.

You apparently think you know what an "event" is, and what "cause"means. It's clear you do not. — tim wood

What do you mean by "You"? And "Apparently"? And "Think"? And then you say "you" again, without defining it.

Dictionaries - why oh why have philosophers been arguing over things for millennia, when the answers were all in dictionaries? Where have you been all this time, Tim?

But that idea is incoherent. I mean, by 'right now' I take it you mean 'in the present', yes?

Well, the present isn't the past, is it? The past is the past. The present is the present. And the future is the future. They're mutually incompatible properties.

Something that exists now, is in the present. It may have existed in the past - but that's not the same as saying that it exists now.

Simple objects are not capable to function. — god must be atheist

I don't know what you mean - do you mean they're not capable of causing anything?

That's question begging. They must be, beause otherwise nothing happens - and something is clearly happening.

Another way to illustrate the falsity of what you've said: clearly you think this does not apply to complex objects (unless, that is, you think nothing at all ever happens). That is, complex objections can cause things. But how can a complex object cause anything if the simple objects from which it is composed are unable to cause anything? I mean, how could the simple objects composing any complex objects causally interact if they're causally impotent?

That's one point I'd contest if I were a psychiatrist-philosopher. — god must be atheist

Er, why?

Care to define some terms? — tim wood

No. If you think a premise is false, why not just say and explain why - given your definition of the term - it is false. Otherwise I think you're just being tedious, as I think you know full well what the terms mean.

I have no definition of an event. An event is an event. A happening. What's the definition of a happening? Why, a happening is an event. An occurrence. What's the definition of an occurrence? It's an event. And on and on.

This is why dictionaries don't solve philosophical problems.

Anyway, whatever an event is, is there an actual infinity of them? No. There's no actual infinity of anything, is there? So, there's no actual infinity of events.

What does 'actual' mean, you ask. Well, have you actually had an extra-marital affair? If you know what I've just asked you, then you know what 'actually' means.

So, stop being tedious or I'll ask you to define every. single. word. you. use. Including, of course, any and all you use in any definition you give.

I think it is inconceivable - how can you conceive of an actual infinity? But even if an actual infinity of something is conceivable, that does not mean it actually exists.

To challenge my argument you need to claim that there is an actual infinity of something - and provide evidence in support of it.

If a theory generates an infinite regress, presumably you accept that this is a problem - that is, it provides a reasonable ground for thinking the theory is false.

Why? Surely it is because an infinite regress is no more or less than an actual infinity - which our reason tells us is something that does not exist in reality. Thus a theory that commits itself to the existence of an actual infinity is not a theory about reality.

But if your claim is only that everything that exists, exists now, then surely it is not very controversial? I mean, how can something exist and 'not' exist now? Something that does not exist now, doesn't exist - surely?

So, all you're saying is that things that exist, exist.