Change exists therefore mind should exist

[Intellectual_Savnot]

If thinking was not change how does it inflict change in anyway? It is possible that there is a non-actual observation that can cause change in some ways and not in others. It is the only way I can think that thinking could produce change.

[Bahman]

If thinking was not change how does it inflict change in anyway?

That is idea which causes changes/thinking for example in case of an intelligent agent. Idea is the finest form of Qualia. Thinking itself is the result of all ideas we have experienced with the aim to produce more refined ideas.

It is possible that there is a non-actual observation that can cause change in some ways and not in others.

Decision is performed when there is a conflict in interest. Otherwise we follow a chain of causality, thinking for example which thinking leads to set of refined ideas, so called the truth.

It is the only way I can think that thinking could produce change.

Thought is needed to find an idea which necessitated a motion.

[jonathan]

The argument in the OP and clarifications following remind me of one of the arguments Kant used to try to get around Hume's denial of cause/effect. If I understand correctly:

Hume said cause and effect isn't empirical - we only observe one event following another. To say that the one caused the other is to add something other than mere temporal priority, in other words something more than empirical/observable. Therefore belief in cause/effect is unjustified (if you accept Humean empiricist priorities for justified beliefs).

Part of Kant's solution was to posit time itself as a construct of the mind. An argument for this was the non-empirical yet necessary nature of time and space when dealing with sensation. It is impossible to observe time itself or space itself, yet also impossible to make observations outside of time and space. We understand time via objects sensed within time (and conversely, without any objects sensed/observed, and, necessarily, the changes they undergo, we lose sense of time). Therefore, time is not a property of the world "out there" but something that we are subjectively responsible for. (And therefore demonstrating Hume's understanding of the relationship between time and event to be too simplistic)

Then if this is true -- if the basic categories underlying perception/sensation are subjective -- then there must be a subject, and that would be the mind.

But Kant's purpose wasn't to demonstrate the existence of mind. So I agree with Intellectual_Savnot in the second post

This could very well be mind, or neither option, but we can’t say it HAS to be mind.

Although it is one plausible solution, must it necessarily be mind that bridges the gap from mere event to cause/effect relationship? Especially since, if change were actually not "real", then there would be nothing by which to delineate objective order in time. Because although time is a mental construct, our sense of it is dependent on experience. (I have that question for Kant, too.)

[Burning ghost]

Kant didn’t say time was a mental construct. He merely said we only know things in terms of space and time. An object outside of time and/or time is not an object.

He then went further than this with his categories.

We experience “change” only through time and space, not in there absence (which we, for obvious reasons, cannot pretend to contemplate).

[jonathan]

Kant didn’t say time was a mental construct. He merely said we only know things in terms of space and time. An object outside of time and/or time is not an object.

He then went further than this with his categories.

We experience “change” only through time and space, not in there absence (which we, for obvious reasons, cannot pretend to contemplate).

"Mental construct" was unfortunate...

Would you say that, according to Kant, the idea (?) of time seated in our mind is what gives us access to an objective representation of real time? And that the subsequent synthetic a priori based on this are what give warrant to cause/effect and allow us to establish objective order in time? Is this because our idea of time (seated in the mind?) mirrors or matches up with real time?

I have been trying to wrap my mind around this for years...

[Bahman]

The argument in the OP and clarifications following remind me of one of the arguments Kant used to try to get around Hume's denial of cause/effect. If I understand correctly:

Hume said cause and effect isn't empirical - we only observe one event following another. To say that the one caused the other is to add something other than mere temporal priority, in other words something more than empirical/observable. Therefore belief in cause/effect is unjustified (if you accept Humean empiricist priorities for justified beliefs).

Part of Kant's solution was to posit time itself as a construct of the mind. An argument for this was the non-empirical yet necessary nature of time and space when dealing with sensation. It is impossible to observe time itself or space itself, yet also impossible to make observations outside of time and space. We understand time via objects sensed within time (and conversely, without any objects sensed/observed, and, necessarily, the changes they undergo, we lose sense of time). Therefore, time is not a property of the world "out there" but something that we are subjectively responsible for. (And therefore demonstrating Hume's understanding of the relationship between time and event to be too simplistic)

Then if this is true -- if the basic categories underlying perception/sensation are subjective -- then there must be a subject, and that would be the mind.

But Kant's purpose wasn't to demonstrate the existence of mind. So I agree with Intellectual_Savnot in the second post

This could very well be mind, or neither option, but we can’t say it HAS to be mind.

Although it is one plausible solution, must it necessarily be mind that bridges the gap from mere event to cause/effect relationship? Especially since, if change were actually not "real", then there would be nothing by which to delineate objective order in time. Because although time is a mental construct, our sense of it is dependent on experience. (I have that question for Kant, too.)

We either experience, freely decide (we argue in favor of free decision in OP) and cause or we simply follow a casual chain. This is our reality. We know it by fact. The agent who freely decide is uncaused cause since decision is either interrupt a chain of causality or allows it to follow. The same agent must be aware of experience in order to decide or simply be an observer. The same agent is also cause since we observe fantastic correlation between what we want and what we get. This is true unless one believe in supernatural agents who control our minds.

[Burning ghost]

Kant didn’t say time was a mental construct. He merely said we only know things in terms of space and time. An object outside of time and/or time is not an object.

He then went further than this with his categories.

We experience “change” only through time and space, not in there absence (which we, for obvious reasons, cannot pretend to contemplate).

"Mental construct" was unfortunate...

Would you say that, according to Kant, the idea (?) of time seated in our mind is what gives us access to an objective representation of real time? And that the subsequent synthetic a priori based on this are what give warrant to cause/effect and allow us to establish objective order in time? Is this because our idea of time (seated in the mind?) mirrors or matches up with real time?

I have been trying to wrap my mind around this for years...

I said that for the clarification of anyone who’s not read Critique of Pure Reason incase they got the wrong idea and poohooed his work before giving it a chance.

For the record, I guess so. That seems like a simplistic way of framing his position. If you’re still trying to wrap your head around it that’s good to hear I haven’t myself and I don’t expect I ever will. As a base camp from which to work from Kant is pretty immense. His work is regarded by many as one of, if not, the best piece of analytical philosophy ever written.

No matter what we bring to the table our own biased perspectives and strange ideas. Either way Kant has been a very useful resource for me and apparently many others for various reasons.

[jonathan]

I said that for the clarification of anyone who’s not read Critique of Pure Reason incase they got the wrong idea and poohooed his work before giving it a chance.

For the record, I guess so. That seems like a simplistic way of framing his position. If you’re still trying to wrap your head around it that’s good to hear I haven’t myself and I don’t expect I ever will. As a base camp from which to work from Kant is pretty immense. His work is regarded by many as one of, if not, the best piece of analytical philosophy ever written.

No matter what we bring to the table our own biased perspectives and strange ideas. Either way Kant has been a very useful resource for me and apparently many others for various reasons.

Yeah, oversimplifying is probably the name of the game when it comes to debating in an online forum. I guess I had always heard that for Kant time was part of our intuition and therefore not part of the "real" world -- a filter necessary to understand reality, but not part of reality itself. Like the frame of a picture - is it part of the artwork as a whole? (I and the world are "in time"?) Or is it "just the frame"? (time just a mental projection?) Probably by characterizing it as a mental "construct" I'm betraying my bias in how I understand Kant - as more of an idealist. But I'm still new to this, and I'm working from secondary sources. I'll just drop it now, maybe pick it up again later when I'm better informed.