The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Minds and Events

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 15th, 2019, 2:09 pm

bucky wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 12:56 am
Would you agree that if you want to call Category 1 as anything that's essential to my nature and i think that being a non physical being is essential to my nature, you wouldn't be able to get to Bodies existing. And if I think of being a purely physical being you can't get to the existence of non physical minds.

You can call it Category 1 if you like, it makes no diffetence. As you said yourself, your reasoning will only work if someone has a definition of what Minds or, or Category 1's if you now prefer, that is similar to yours. Otherwise all of the reasoning makes no sense.

So if you want to do good philosophy you need to first reason our what Minda are, then when we've agreed that you've reasoned It out correctly, you can start your thought experiment and successful move from "I exist" to "I am a mind".

I am guessing you for some reason find it more poetic to try and claim you're starting from a blank slate, but it's literally *impossible* to start with a blank slate because then you have no definitions of what it is to a) Be an I, 2) Be an existing thing, 3) Be a mind/Category 1. It's only 3.that I'm impugning because it's the obvious logical error because the way you've defined mind, even though you don't want to admit that you have, is necessary for all of your reasoning to work. But you don't want to be intellectually honest and admit that you've predefined it either because a) you don't want to have to defend that definition by first getting the reader to agree with you about what minds are so you can get going or b) because youre insistent on trying to keep this poetic device of a blank slate, perhaps as a homage to Descartes Meditations.
I hear you. Would I be right in summarising your argument as follows.
P1. Communication between humans needs language.
P2. The accuracy of the communication between two humans will depend on how closely the meaning that each person assigns to each word and its usage.
C1 Therefore the first step is to establish a common understanding of the words used.
Now if the above is where you are coming from, why would the common usage of the words as given in a dictionary not be sufficient?
1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mind
Mind : a)The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
b). A person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.
2. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/time
Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

3. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/space
Space : A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

4. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/matter
Matter : Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 15th, 2019, 2:21 pm

RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 1:28 pm
Fdesilva wrote:Category 1: Minds

I exist, and I am a mind. Therefore, Minds exist.
bucky wrote:If you're starting with a blank slate and make no claim about what a mind is, then you have no way of knowing if you are one.
Fdesilva, not only do I agree with Bucky, but I would go even a bit further. If you are starting with a "blank slate" then not only can you not claim that minds exists, but you can't even yet claim that "I" exist.

All that you can state with absolute certainty (from a clean slate position) is that "Stuff Happens!", ...or less eloquently, "Experiences happen" or "Experiencing exists". And it is from this starting point, that you can then logically derive the existence of an 'experiencer' (called "I"). For without 'something' experiencing, there could be no experiencing of this stuff (experiences) happening.

The starting point is "Stuff happens" (Experiencing exists) and then we can logically derive the existence of "I" (i.e. the "Experiencer" exists).

Fdesilva wrote:Category 2: Matter

I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus, my body is also made of matter. Therefore, Matter exists.
Or simply: --- For without some-'thing' happening, nothing can happen. Since "stuff happens", Matter (stuff) exists!

Fdesilva wrote:Category 3: Space

My body needs Space and Matter in general needs Space. Matter can exist only in Space. Therefore, Space must exist.
Or simply: --- For without a 'place' (space) for stuff to happen, there can be no happening. Therefore, since "stuff happens", Space exists!

Fdesilva wrote:Category 4: Time

My body needs Time to change and Matter in general needs Time for change. Matter can change only in Time. Therefore, Time must exist.
Or simply: --- For without the 'time' for stuff to happen, there can be no happenings. Therefore since "stuff happens", Time exists!


So now we know --
1. Experiencing/Experiences Exist (aka "Stuff happens").
2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist).
3. Matter Exists
4. Space Exists
5. Time Exists.

Yes and what you have done is precisely what I wanted to establish in the first part
1. Experiencing/Experiences Exist (aka "Stuff happens").
2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist).
3. Matter Exists
4. Space Exists
5. Time Exists.
How about the rest? :)

Wmhoerr
Posts: 44
Joined: January 3rd, 2019, 1:51 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Contact:

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Wmhoerr » January 15th, 2019, 5:12 pm

Fdesilva wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 1:35 am

From physics it has been observed that Space and Time can give rise to Matter spontaneously. As such Matter maybe a result of a localized change to Space and Time.
Some comments:

There is meant to be matter/energy conservation, with the idea that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created simultaneously in the big bang.

Later you say that the mind could create the big bang but this could be circular as the big bang is needed before a mind could exist

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 16th, 2019, 8:45 am

Fdesilva wrote:How about the rest?
No offense, but the rest is not logically valid (nor sound) to me, and also your usage of "mind" seems to be intentionally misleading, as the normal usage of "mind" conveys a different meaning. You start by making the logical error of equating a 'product' of Matter/Space/Time on the same foundation/level, and then build the rest of your case/argument on this false premise.

Fdesilva wrote:From the above observation I conclude that these four categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another.
Not so. This conclusion is not logically valid. For one of these is a 'product' (resultant) of the others. "Stuff happening" (stuff experiencing stuff) is a 'product' (resultant) of Matter/Space/Time. For without Matter/Space/Time, 'nothing' could exist/happen, including "subjects experiencing objects".

According to your reasoning/logic, then, since refrigerators 'exist', they therefore "permeate and exist equally with" Matter/Space/Time. The flaw here is in not realizing that the refrigerator is only just a 'product' of Matter/Space/Time.

Fdesilva wrote:Now to the question of the origin of these categories…
1. "Stuff happening" originates from, and is caused by, Matter/Space/Time.
2. It seems that Matter/Space/Time has "always existed". Logically it can be no other way. -- For without a pre-existing 'place', 'time', and 'stuff', there could have been no "bang" of the Big Bang.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 16th, 2019, 1:03 pm

Wmhoerr wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 5:12 pm
Fdesilva wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 1:35 am

From physics it has been observed that Space and Time can give rise to Matter spontaneously. As such Matter maybe a result of a localized change to Space and Time.
Some comments:

There is meant to be matter/energy conservation, with the idea that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created simultaneously in the big bang.
Firstly in this essay I am using the word matter to mean both matter/antimatter. As such the statement "Space and Time can give rise to matter" I could have written as "Space and time gives rise to matter/antimatter spontaneously" . Yes I agree the difference would concern a reader that knows their physics, I guess its all about striking a balance without getting lost in the detail. But thank you for bringing it up.

Wmhoerr wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 5:12 pm
Later you say that the mind could create the big bang but this could be circular as the big bang is needed before a mind could exist
No this is where I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between the spontaneous creation of matter/antimatter above and the Big Bang. The spontaneous generation of matter/antimatter requires Pre-Existing space time. Space/time can also create more space/time as is evident by the expansion. But what can create space/time? I ask this because the big bang did not happen in pre existing space/time but rather the big bang created both, that is space/time and matter/antimatter? My hypotheses its the work of a Mind. This hypotheses is not without evidence. The evidence I give is minds are aware (connects) of simultaneous events. Nothing physical can connect simultaneous events. This makes mind something outside the space/time continuum.
Now a possible alternative hypothese would be to say that the big bang took place in pre-existing space time. If that is the case, we still need to find a good explanation as to why we dont see big bangs happening and universes getting created all the time in space/time. Secondly it stil does not explain how the mind, a thing that can connect simultaneous events get created from space/time.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 16th, 2019, 1:12 pm

RJG wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 8:45 am
Fdesilva wrote:How about the rest?
No offense, but the rest is not logically valid (nor sound) to me, and also your usage of "mind" seems to be intentionally misleading, as the normal usage of "mind" conveys a different meaning. You start by making the logical error of equating a 'product' of Matter/Space/Time on the same foundation/level, and then build the rest of your case/argument on this false premise.
Ok so lets see if there is logical error

You identified the following
RJG wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 8:45 am
So now we know --
1. Experiencing/Experiences Exist (aka "Stuff happens").
2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist).
3. Matter Exists
4. Space Exists
5. Time Exists.
You are saying now I made a logical error because 2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist). is a product of the other 4 things. But what is the evidence for that?
The next part is all about exploring the realtion ship between the 5 things identified.
Your thougts please.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 16th, 2019, 1:15 pm

Fdesilva wrote:Now to the question of the origin of these categories…
RJG wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 8:45 am
1. "Stuff happening" originates from, and is caused by, Matter/Space/Time.
2. It seems that Matter/Space/Time has "always existed". Logically it can be no other way. -- For without a pre-existing 'place', 'time', and 'stuff', there could have been no "bang" of the Big Bang.
The big bang did not happen within pre-existing space time. It create both space/time and matter.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 16th, 2019, 2:54 pm

RJG wrote:So now we know --
1. Experiencing/Experiences Exist (aka "Stuff happens").
2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist).
3. Matter Exists
4. Space Exists
5. Time Exists.
Fdesilva wrote:You are saying now I made a logical error because 2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist). is a product of the other 4 things.
No. Experiencing (#1) is the "product" of #3, #4, and #5. Experiencer (#2) is a specific piece of matter (#3); it is the 'thing' that experiences.

Your error is falsely assuming/conflating the "I" as something more than just an "Experiencer" (#2). The experiencer is a 'noun'; it is the 'thing' that experiences (reacts). Experiencer is the blob of reactive matter that we call 'body'. There is no "mind" or spooky (non-substance) entity separate from this physical (reactive; experiential) body. The belief in "mind" is not logically founded. There is no logic that confirms/validates this spooky being/entity. Logic only confirms/validates an "experiencer"; the 'thing' (matter) that experiences experiences.

Fdesilva wrote:The next part is all about exploring the relationship between the 5 things identified.
Your thoughts please.
The Experiencer is a specific blob/chunk of (reactive) Matter; i.e. the thing that is being impacted/reacted upon. Experiences are the interactions of Matter, made possible by Time and Space. If the experiencer experiences experiences, then he said to be Experiencing.

Fdesilva wrote:The big bang did not happen within pre-existing space time. It create both space/time and matter.
Not so. As with ALL events/happenings, the big bang event/happening would require a 'place' to bang, 'something' to bang, and the 'time' to bang. Without the 'pre-existence' of all three of these, there could be no 'happenings'; no 'events'; and certainly no big bang!

If you claim the BB did not need space/time/matter, then:
1. "Where" did this bang take place? ...if there was 'no place' to bang, then where did this bang happen?
2. "When" did this bang 'occur'? ...if there was 'no time', then how can there be a 'change' of state from pre-bang to bang to post-bang?
3. "What" banged? ...if there was 'nothing' yet to bang, then what was it that banged?

There is only one logical possible answer -- space/time/matter have ALWAYS EXISTED.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 360
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Minds and Events

Post by chewybrian » January 16th, 2019, 7:27 pm

RJG wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 2:54 pm
Your error is falsely assuming/conflating the "I" as something more than just an "Experiencer" (#2). The experiencer is a 'noun'; it is the 'thing' that experiences (reacts). Experiencer is the blob of reactive matter that we call 'body'. There is no "mind" or spooky (non-substance) entity separate from this physical (reactive; experiential) body. The belief in "mind" is not logically founded. There is no logic that confirms/validates this spooky being/entity. Logic only confirms/validates an "experiencer"; the 'thing' (matter) that experiences experiences.
Nobody knows what consciousness is, so your opinion of it can only be speculation. You can stack logic to the moon on top of whatever assumption you make, and the logic can be valid, yet the assumption remains unproven, so it amounts to a complicated opinion and nothing more.

There is nothing contradictory or illogical about making a different assumption, that consciousness is not and can not be material. You can not name one physical attribute which attaches to my consciousness, as you could with any other physical thing we encounter on earth. There is no noticeable material difference between a dead and live body, for example. Further, I can make decisions and initiate actions without a known prior cause. It follows, logically, that my will is exempt from the rules that apply to all other material things, and therefore not material.

Your error is trying to take well-founded and satisfactorily proven theories about material things, and apply them to something which does not appear to be material in substance (if it has any) or actions and effects. I have a free will which is evident to me every waking moment of my life, and it seems quite insane to deny its existence because it does not fall in line with the behavior of socket wrenches or coffee cups.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 16th, 2019, 9:05 pm

RJG wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 2:54 pm
RJG wrote:So now we know --
1. Experiencing/Experiences Exist (aka "Stuff happens").
2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist).
3. Matter Exists
4. Space Exists
5. Time Exists.
Fdesilva wrote:You are saying now I made a logical error because 2. Experiencer Exists (aka "I" exist). is a product of the other 4 things.
No. Experiencing (#1) is the "product" of #3, #4, and #5. Experiencer (#2) is a specific piece of matter (#3); it is the 'thing' that experiences.

Your error is falsely assuming/conflating the "I" as something more than just an "Experiencer" (#2). The experiencer is a 'noun'; it is the 'thing' that experiences (reacts). Experiencer is the blob of reactive matter that we call 'body'. There is no "mind" or spooky (non-substance) entity separate from this physical (reactive; experiential) body. The belief in "mind" is not logically founded. There is no logic that confirms/validates this spooky being/entity. Logic only confirms/validates an "experiencer"; the 'thing' (matter) that experiences experiences.

Fdesilva wrote:The next part is all about exploring the relationship between the 5 things identified.
Your thoughts please.
The Experiencer is a specific blob/chunk of (reactive) Matter; i.e. the thing that is being impacted/reacted upon. Experiences are the interactions of Matter, made possible by Time and Space. If the experiencer experiences experiences, then he said to be Experiencing.

Fdesilva wrote:The big bang did not happen within pre-existing space time. It create both space/time and matter.
Not so. As with ALL events/happenings, the big bang event/happening would require a 'place' to bang, 'something' to bang, and the 'time' to bang. Without the 'pre-existence' of all three of these, there could be no 'happenings'; no 'events'; and certainly no big bang!

If you claim the BB did not need space/time/matter, then:
1. "Where" did this bang take place? ...if there was 'no place' to bang, then where did this bang happen?
2. "When" did this bang 'occur'? ...if there was 'no time', then how can there be a 'change' of state from pre-bang to bang to post-bang?
3. "What" banged? ...if there was 'nothing' yet to bang, then what was it that banged?

There is only one logical possible answer -- space/time/matter have ALWAYS EXISTED.
First things first
In regards to BB not getting created within existing space/time/matter that's not my personal claim that is the currently accepted BB theory. I will provide ref and write more about it later.
Now what I am going to tell you is something as far as I know, I was the first to observe. I don't want to sound boastful but just so you know that it has not been investigated sufficiently by the rest of the scientific community. Hence my keenness to keep repeating it.
Take two events a and b happening at the same time separated from each other by 1 mm. Can there be any connection between them?
The answer is no as time is needed for energy to flow from a to b or vice versa.
So lets say #1 is a dot of light how will #2 ever be able to see it as something separate from it? (assuming #2 is matter as you claim)
Please think about it carefully.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 17th, 2019, 7:52 am

RJG wrote:As with ALL events/happenings, the big bang event/happening would require a 'place' to bang, 'something' to bang, and the 'time' to bang. Without the 'pre-existence' of all three of these, there could be no 'happenings'; no 'events'; and certainly no big bang!

If you claim the BB did not need space/time/matter, then:
1. "Where" did this bang take place? ...if there was 'no place' to bang, then where did this bang happen?
2. "When" did this bang 'occur'? ...if there was 'no time', then how can there be a 'change' of state from pre-bang to bang to post-bang?
3. "What" banged? ...if there was 'nothing' yet to bang, then what was it that banged?

There is only one logical possible answer -- space/time/matter have ALWAYS EXISTED.
Fdesilva wrote:In regards to BB not getting created within existing space/time/matter that's not my personal claim that is the currently accepted BB theory. I will provide ref and write more about it later.
Currently accepted BB theory is just 'science'. Logic always trumps science.

Fdesilva wrote:Now what I am going to tell you is something as far as I know, I was the first to observe. I don't want to sound boastful but just so you know that it has not been investigated sufficiently by the rest of the scientific community. Hence my keenness to keep repeating it.
Take two events a and b happening at the same time separated from each other by 1 mm. Can there be any connection between them?
The answer is no as time is needed for energy to flow from a to b or vice versa.
So lets say #1 is a dot of light how will #2 ever be able to see it as something separate from it? (assuming #2 is matter as you claim)
Please think about it carefully.
I would need more specifics here, as I am not sure what you are getting at.

But nonetheless, if someone sees a dot of light (or anything for that matter), a chain reaction is set off. The light waves hit the retina, creating a reaction and causing electrical impulses to race up the optic nerve, and start the neurons flowing in the brain to create the visual sensation of "the dot".

Steve3007
Posts: 5759
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 17th, 2019, 8:10 am

Fdesilva wrote:Take two events a and b happening at the same time separated from each other by 1 mm. Can there be any connection between them?
The answer is no as time is needed for energy to flow from a to b or vice versa.
So lets say #1 is a dot of light how will #2 ever be able to see it as something separate from it? (assuming #2 is matter as you claim)
(Apologies if I'm butting in.)

It would be more precise to say that if two events are separated by a "spacelike" interval of space-time then one of them cannot be the cause of the other. i.e. there cannot be a causal link between them. A "spacelike" interval between two events is one in which their separation in space is greater than their separation in time, when both are measured in the same units. So, in your example of a separation in space of 1 mm, for their separation to be spacelike the two events would have to be separated in time by no more than the time it takes light to travel 1 mm.

From this fact that one event can't be the cause of the other event, I don't see how it follows that #2 cannot see #1 as "something separate from it". What do you mean by that? Why does such a spacelike interval between two events mean that they are, in some sense, not separate from each other?

Steve3007
Posts: 5759
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Steve3007 » January 17th, 2019, 8:38 am

Fdesilva wrote:My hypotheses its the work of a Mind. This hypotheses is not without evidence. The evidence I give is minds are aware (connects) of simultaneous events. Nothing physical can connect simultaneous events. This makes mind something outside the space/time continuum.
I don't see how this follows. If some event is happening simultaneously with me typing this now, then I'm not aware of that event. If an event called "Betelgeuse exploding" is happening right now I'm not aware of it.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Minds and Events

Post by Fdesilva » January 17th, 2019, 4:25 pm

RJG wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 7:52 am
Currently accepted BB theory is just 'science'. Logic always trumps science.
“Logic trumps science” awesome statement, I need to give it some thought logically. 😊
BB is not a settled science. There are plenty of alternatives proposed. Even if BB is the start of space/time/matter in regards to what created BB there are many theories. I would say currently it is one of the areas heavily debated. The God did it, argument is one of least interest to scientist as its boring. For many Christian scientist, like yours truly, BB is somewhat a God saviour.
One more thing, on a human level let me tell you I am extremely grateful for the interest you have shown in what I have to say. So even if this exercise turns out to be a big waste of time for you, remember on a human level you have helped someone immensely.
Ok so here we go. Its your claim that #2 the “I”= or the experiencer (A) is made from space/time/matter (B). My claim is that the currently (scientifically) accepted properties of space/time/matter (B) make it logically impossible that it can give rise to experiencer (A). A word of warning: In order to validate/reject my claim you must use your own conscious experience to identify the properties of the experiencer (A). That is ask yourself is this imagination or logic. Because, its easy to imagine an explanation and believe in it, even if it is not logical. You probably thinking, I should say that to myself😊
Now lets take what Steve has said
Steve3007 wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 8:10 am
It would be more precise to say that if two events are separated by a "spacelike" interval of space-time then one of them cannot be the cause of the other. i.e. there cannot be a causal link between them. A "spacelike" interval between two events is one in which their separation in space is greater than their separation in time, when both are measured in the same units. So, in your example of a separation in space of 1 mm, for their separation to be spacelike the two events would have to be separated in time by no more than the time it takes light to travel 1 mm.
Steve if you are reading this, thanks for butting in. What you have said above is the pivotal point to my whole argument.
Physics explanations come in 3 flavours.
1. Newtonian physics.
2. Einstein’s Special and General relativity.
3. Quantum mechanics.

Now from my reading of theories most seem to limit their arguments to using just Newtonian physics. In Newtonian physics two events 1mm or for that matter any distance apart can be connected instantaneously because forces etc can work at infinite speed. One of the key ingredients Einstein brought to the table was the fact that nothing (not even forces) can work faster that the speed of light (~300k per sec). What that means is two events that happen at the same time 1mm apart has absolutely no connection with each other. They cannot be expected in themselves together to create anything that exist. Each event stands absolutely alone in relation to all other events happening at the same time Such events are known as space-like separated as Steve has pointed out. In contrast events that are separated in time such that there is sufficient time for a beam of light to travel from one to another is called time-like separated. https://physics.stackexchange.com/ques ... ally-mean

Now experiments in Quantum mechanics(QM) does seem to challenge the notion that simultaneous events cannot be connected in any way. As such in what I am going to say next, we shall leave QM totally out of the picture and assume we know nothing about QM. I do so only because at this stage QM will only confuse what I have to say. When I wrote my paper I wrote it in QM, so my ramblings I believe are also valid with QM, but that’s for another day.

Q1: Does an event that happened one hour to the past, exist right now? That is say you are at 3pm, do the events that happened in the world at 2pm exist? Does the world 1 hour to the future exist? How about the world a billionth of a second to the past or the future existing right now?

Now the first thing I am going to show you is that the answer to the above would have to be yes for any chance of A (the experiencer) being made of B (space/time/matter).

Take you subjective experience of being A (the experiencer). It is a single thing. It is the essence of the concept of one. (Note : This statement is given as an axiom) As such its existence at a given instant of time will be limited to a single point in space time, that is a single event. Please note an event is even smaller than a single electron. Now is your subjective understanding of the experiencer compatible with it being made of say a single electron(or similar) at any given moment in time? Remember we are assuming the world a billionth of a second to the past does not exist, only the now. For the experiencer #2(I) to see the experienced #1(U) they would both have to be a single event (not two things #1,#2 ). How much fanciful can a single electron size event be to create #2 and #1 in a single event? Further if that is the case would we not have to assume any electron (or what ever fundamental particle it is) must be consist of a experiencer#1/experience#2 where ever it may exist?

(a link to my paper if you wish to read it https://philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS. You dont need to read it more than happy to say it all here if need be.)

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Minds and Events

Post by RJG » January 17th, 2019, 6:42 pm

Fdesilva wrote:My claim is that the currently (scientifically) accepted properties of space/time/matter (B) make it logically impossible that it can give rise to experiencer (A).
Why so? Why is it "logically impossible"? Are you saying that we don't experience "bodily" reactions? Are you denying that physical reactions occur (via space/time/matter)?

Post Reply