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.

[Gertie]

I'm struggling to follow your argument.

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.

If we think of a falling apple, what you call 'state of affair' X and Y are really just snapshots of moments in an ongoing process, aren't they? That's how physics cause and effect seems to work, as an ongoing process. Whether or not a mind is present. Hence change can be explained by physics, whether or not minds are present, like before conscious/minded critters evolved, change happened regardless.

As far as the evidence suggests, anyway. There might be some more fundamental mind-matter relationship we haven't discovered yet, but that's speculative and as regards change doesn't appear to be necessary for an explanation for why change happens - Stuff + Forces does the explanatory job.

[Bahman]

I'm struggling to follow your argument.

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.

If we think of a falling apple, what you call 'state of affair' X and Y are really just snapshots of moments in an ongoing process, aren't they?

Yes.

That's how physics cause and effect seems to work, as an ongoing process. Whether or not a mind is present. Hence change can be explained by physics, whether or not minds are present, like before conscious/minded critters evolved, change happened regardless.

The problem is that X cannot possibly cause Y, if Y is caused at the same moment that X exist, since X and Y cannot coexist at the same moment. Physicists normally assumed that Y is caused in infinitesimal future which this is problematic since future objectively doesn't exist. Here I suggest mind as a entity which carries information about X to future and cause Y.

[h_k_s]

"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.

Mind may sometimes affect or effect change, sure.

But the existence of one does not really grandly effect the existence of the other.

You can assert that Descartes' thinking was change, and therefore you can infer that "cogito ergo sum" is the result of change.

But in reality change has nothing to do with it.

Thinking is an action not change.

The mind exudes thinking. Change is just a coincidence.

[JosephM]

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.

Change cannot be presumed to exist. Change is a subjective assessment which relies on arbitrary delineations , which one compares for similarity.

EX: Sam bowls a strike. This can be seen in two parts -a throw and a result ; or it can be seen as, a release, roll, an impact, and a result ,which are four parts.
Extending the boundaries of the event , one can say Sam, won a bowling match , Sam is a good bowler , Sam has hobbies , Sam lives, and so on.

Fully expanded , we end up with the real context being, the whole of the universe and all of history, as being the event which always existed. There is no objective distinction dividing what has 'happened' into fulfilled vs aborted history. Just as there is no objective partition of events when Sam rolled the ball. There is no non-history which one can show 'would' have happened. Sam always was throwing the Strike , ( and indeed Sam can also be seen as an arbitrary construct.)

[Bahman]

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.


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.

Mind may sometimes affect or effect change, sure.

But the existence of one does not really grandly effect the existence of the other.

You can assert that Descartes' thinking was change, and therefore you can infer that "cogito ergo sum" is the result of change.

But in reality change has nothing to do with it.

Thinking is an action not change.

The mind exudes thinking. Change is just a coincidence.

Thinking is a change in Qualia that we experience.

[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.

Change cannot be presumed to exist. Change is a subjective assessment which relies on arbitrary delineations , which one compares for similarity.

EX: Sam bowls a strike. This can be seen in two parts -a throw and a result ; or it can be seen as, a release, roll, an impact, and a result ,which are four parts.
Extending the boundaries of the event , one can say Sam, won a bowling match , Sam is a good bowler , Sam has hobbies , Sam lives, and so on.

Fully expanded , we end up with the real context being, the whole of the universe and all of history, as being the event which always existed. There is no objective distinction dividing what has 'happened' into fulfilled vs aborted history. Just as there is no objective partition of events when Sam rolled the ball. There is no non-history which one can show 'would' have happened. Sam always was throwing the Strike , ( and indeed Sam can also be seen as an arbitrary construct.)

One cannot really deny the existence of change. Without change we could not have anything. Even philosophy has changed/evolved over time.

[JosephM]

Change cannot be presumed to exist. Change is a subjective assessment which relies on arbitrary delineations , which one compares for similarity.

EX: Sam bowls a strike. This can be seen in two parts -a throw and a result ; or it can be seen as, a release, roll, an impact, and a result ,which are four parts.
Extending the boundaries of the event , one can say Sam, won a bowling match , Sam is a good bowler , Sam has hobbies , Sam lives, and so on.

Fully expanded , we end up with the real context being, the whole of the universe and all of history, as being the event which always existed. There is no objective distinction dividing what has 'happened' into fulfilled vs aborted history. Just as there is no objective partition of events when Sam rolled the ball. There is no non-history which one can show 'would' have happened. Sam always was throwing the Strike , ( and indeed Sam can also be seen as an arbitrary construct.)

One cannot really deny the existence of change. Without change we could not have anything. Even philosophy has changed/evolved over time.

Yes one can , you say 'change' , change from what? change from your expectations ? Change from the moment before? in the bowling strike , the whole sequence, considered as a whole ,is that whichever it is. You cannot change It , It is not a gutter ball, never was nor will be a gutter ball. The only way you could say there is change is if you arbitrarily mark off points and compare this event to something. Since the alternate history is pure imagination , there is nothing to compare it to.
In your example , philosophy over time , mentally one must make an arbitrary selection of time moments and compare, but the 'progression' of philosophy is unbroken , it is all connected , and the whole thing exists as a whole. Arbitrarily one must also subdivide the mental world , into that which counts as "philosophy" from that which you think is not , again, this is arbitrary. As a continuous whole , you must compare this thing to itself, to have the meaning of change.
We all say these things by convention , me included, but logically we are not allowed to say that things really change because the whole chain of events is unalterable . The way which we perceive time and events may be brilliant ,but , it is not the fact of how they actually are.

[Bahman]

One cannot really deny the existence of change. Without change we could not have anything. Even philosophy has changed/evolved over time.

Yes one can , you say 'change' , change from what? change from your expectations ? Change from the moment before? in the bowling strike , the whole sequence, considered as a whole ,is that whichever it is. You cannot change It , It is not a gutter ball, never was nor will be a gutter ball. The only way you could say there is change is if you arbitrarily mark off points and compare this event to something. Since the alternate history is pure imagination , there is nothing to compare it to.
In your example , philosophy over time , mentally one must make an arbitrary selection of time moments and compare, but the 'progression' of philosophy is unbroken , it is all connected , and the whole thing exists as a whole. Arbitrarily one must also subdivide the mental world , into that which counts as "philosophy" from that which you think is not , again, this is arbitrary. As a continuous whole , you must compare this thing to itself, to have the meaning of change.
We all say these things by convention , me included, but logically we are not allowed to say that things really change because the whole chain of events is unalterable . The way which we perceive time and events may be brilliant ,but , it is not the fact of how they actually are.

Change from what? Minimally change from one state of affair to another one. A change is happening right now as you read and understand my sentence.

[h_k_s]

Mind may sometimes affect or effect change, sure.

But the existence of one does not really grandly effect the existence of the other.

You can assert that Descartes' thinking was change, and therefore you can infer that "cogito ergo sum" is the result of change.

But in reality change has nothing to do with it.

Thinking is an action not change.

The mind exudes thinking. Change is just a coincidence.

Thinking is a change in Qualia that we experience.

Thinking is an intangible action.

Essentially, Descartes could have said "I act therefore I am."

But he kept it intangible.