Change exists therefore mind should exist

[Bahman]

In here I show three things:
(1) mind should exist as a result of existence of change, (2) mind should have certain abilities and (3) nothing cannot cause a state of affair related to another state of affair.

I use the empirical fact that change exists and then show that mind should exist in order to resolve an anomaly.

To show this let's consider a change in a system, X to Y, X and Y being two coherent states of affair (by a coherent set of states of affair I mean two states of affair that are somehow related, like two states of a falling apple). X and Y cannot coexist since otherwise the state of affair is ill-defined.
Therefore X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. I will show that nothing cannot cause Y in the following, namely (3). Therefore the change is impossible. And here is the anomaly: there cannot be any change yet we observe change.

To resolve this anomaly one has to accept that mind should exists. This mind however should also have certain abilities which are the abilities to experience and cause. These abilities are necessary to allow mind to experience X and cause Y after X vanishes. Up to here we show (1) and (2).

In here I show that nothing cannot cause Y. To show that we assume that nothing can cause something. X and Y are coherent. Nothing is indifferent and can cause any thing though. Therefore it is impossible that nothing causes an appropriate Y which is related to X. In here I show (3).

Therefore the anomaly is resolved and things are shown.

[Intellectual_Savnot]

This was very interesting if you can follow the language. It does seem free will and the ability of the mind to read and chose is certainly the only possible thing that can cause change. Not. You forgot chaos, silly. Think about the subatomic realm, where everything could very well be controlled chaos. This could very well be mind, or neither option, but we can’t say it HAS to be mind. Good work though. Have a good day!

[h_k_s]

Change has been observed since ancient times and even during ancient times.

Thus it is a-priori that change exists and continues. No objections there.

Relating change to "mind" is a false-cause argument. They are independent. They are not related.

Bad try. Sorry.

[Bahman]

Change has been observed since ancient times and even during ancient times.

Thus it is a-priori that change exists and continues. No objections there.

Relating change to "mind" is a false-cause argument. They are independent. They are not related.

Bad try. Sorry.

It is impossible to resolve the anomaly introduced in OP without a mind. I would be happy to hear your alternative solution.

[h_k_s]

Change has been observed since ancient times and even during ancient times.

Thus it is a-priori that change exists and continues. No objections there.

Relating change to "mind" is a false-cause argument. They are independent. They are not related.

Bad try. Sorry.

It is impossible to resolve the anomaly introduced in OP without a mind. I would be happy to hear your alternative solution.

"Mind" is a chapter in every philosophy book.

Normally the authors do not like you just throw a plate of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

That would be the spaghetti fallacy.

Mind truly begins with the empirical observation that we humans have a consciousness which is attuned to conscience and empathy.

And cutting off parts of our body does not affect this mind. Not even brain surgery does so.

So we wonder what mind is. We wonder if it is transient to our bodies and possibly immortal?

Has nothing to do with change.

Change is completely different.

Change is independent of mind.

Change would continue even if mind did not exist.

They are independent.

[Bahman]

It is impossible to resolve the anomaly introduced in OP without a mind. I would be happy to hear your alternative solution.

"Mind" is a chapter in every philosophy book.

Normally the authors do not like you just throw a plate of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

That would be the spaghetti fallacy.

My solution is not a fallacy. You seems to don't understand the anomaly introduced in OP otherwise you would offer another solution than mine if you have any.

Mind truly begins with the empirical observation that we humans have a consciousness which is attuned to conscience and empathy.

And cutting off parts of our body does not affect this mind. Not even brain surgery does so.

So we wonder what mind is. We wonder if it is transient to our bodies and possibly immortal?

Has nothing to do with change.

Change is completely different.

Change is independent of mind.

Change would continue even if mind did not exist.

They are independent.

I didn't say that mind and change are the same. We however know empirically that we can cause change when we want therefore mind and change are related. What I am arguing is that there is mind everywhere that there is a change whether it is human who causes change or any other entity.