An argument for mind

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are somehow related. X and Y cannot exist at the same point therefore X has to vanish before Y takes place. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly lead to Y considering the fact that X and Y are related. Therefore, there must exist a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

What follows from this argument:
  1. There is a conscious mind when there is a change
  2. Anything which is subject to change is contingent
  3. Mind is unchanging and therefore is not contingent otherwise we face with a regress
  4. Mind is simple since it is unchanging
  5. Mind has the abilities to experience and cause
 
STT said:
X and Y cannot exist at the same point
Click to expand...
A system is a set.

Do you mean system X and system Y cannot exist at the same spatial point in time? or do you mean they cannot exist together at any time without regard to spatial dimension?
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
A system is a set.

Do you mean system X and system Y cannot exist at the same spatial point in time? or do you mean they cannot exist together at any time without regard to spatial dimension?
Click to expand...
Consider a moving particle in classical picture. That is a simple system in which a change occurs in it. X and Y in this example are positions of the particle in consecutive times. What it is meant with “X and Y cannot exist at the same point” is that the particle cannot be at X and Y at the same point in time.
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
A system is a set.

Do you mean system X and system Y cannot exist at the same spatial point in time? or do you mean they cannot exist together at any time without regard to spatial dimension?
Click to expand...
Consider a moving particle in classical picture. That is a simple system in which a change occurs in it. X and Y in this example are positions of the particle in consecutive times. What it is meant with “X and Y cannot exist at the same point” is that the particle cannot be at X and Y at the same point in time.
Click to expand...
Such as the function f which describes the position of a particle as a function of time shows a relation. It has a single solution, therefore it is would be using real numbers not complex. For X to vanish the function f must have a discontinuity then at time t0.
X = f(t0)
Y = f(t1)
 
Vico said:
Such as the function f which describes the position of a particle as a function of time shows a relation. It has a single solution, therefore it is would be using real numbers not complex. For X to vanish the function f must have a discontinuity then at time t0.
X = f(t0)
Y = f(t1)
Click to expand...
X doesn’t vanish. The particle vanishes.
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
Such as the function f which describes the position of a particle as a function of time shows a relation. It has a single solution, therefore it is would be using real numbers not complex. For X to vanish the function f must have a discontinuity then at time t0.
X = f(t0)
Y = f(t1)
Click to expand...
X doesn’t vanish. The particle vanishes.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that X and Y are particles not positions?
 
Vico said:
So you are saying that X and Y are particles not positions?
Click to expand...
Please accept my apology for the mistake I made. X and Y are two different physical states (system in two different configuration, like a particle in two different positions, x and y (X and Y are the different configuration whereas x and y are different position of particles)) and not position of particles.
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
So you are saying that X and Y are particles not positions?
Click to expand...
Please accept my apology for the mistake I made. X and Y are two different physical states (system in two different configuration, like a particle in two different positions, x and y (X and Y are the different configuration whereas x and y are different position of particles)) and not position of particles.
Click to expand...
Ok. Well, it seems particles are not really necessary to the issue.

You wrote: “Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are somehow related.”
So X and Y represent one system at two different times?
 
Vico said:
So X and Y represent one system at two different times?
Click to expand...
X and Y are different states of one system. Like moving particle which is in two different positions at two different times.
 
You’re trying to break a fluid transition into a discrete one which just doesn’t work.

E.g. a common example is, to move to a door 10 meters away, you must first traverse half the distance to it, so 5 meters. To move those 5 meters you must first cross half that distance, so 2.5m. To move 2.5m you must first cross half that distance. You can do this forever and conclude that movement is impossible since you have an infinite number of distances you much cross to reach the door.

Except my life experience tells me walking to a door 10 meters away is entirely possible.

Likewise you want to imagine there state X, then X ceases to exist for some discrete moment, then Y begins to exist only after X ceases to exist.
 
Dan123 said:
You’re trying to break a fluid transition into a discrete one which just doesn’t work.

E.g. a common example is, to move to a door 10 meters away, you must first traverse half the distance to it, so 5 meters. To move those 5 meters you must first cross half that distance, so 2.5m. To move 2.5m you must first cross half that distance. You can do this forever and conclude that movement is impossible since you have an infinite number of distances you much cross to reach the door.

Except my life experience tells me walking to a door 10 meters away is entirely possible.

Likewise you want to imagine there state X, then X ceases to exist for some discrete moment, then Y begins to exist only after X ceases to exist.
Click to expand...
Zeno was wrong. The point that he was missing was that he didn’t consider the fact that the time between two points is also halved when you halve the distance.
 
X can end simultaneously with the start of Y.
STT said:
…
X and Y are different states of one system. Like moving particle which is in two different positions at two different times.
Click to expand...
Then X can end and Y begin, simultaneously.
 
STT said:
40.png
Vico:
X can end simultaneously with the start of Y.
40.png
STT:
…
X and Y are different states of one system. Like moving particle which is in two different positions at two different times.
Click to expand...
Then X can end and Y begin, simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They cannot be simultaneous.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If a non constant contiguous function describes the position of a particle in time, then the value at two different times can describe two states. If the positions given by the function are different then there was a change. The time that one state begins is simultaneous with the time that the other state ends, with no overlap, called contiguous.

See the definitions (Merriam Webster)

simulteneous, noun:
1. existing or occurring at the same time : exactly coincident

contiguous, noun:
4. touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
If a non constant contiguous function describes the position of a particle in time, then the value at two different times can describe two states. If the positions given by the function are different then there was a change. The time that one state begins is simultaneous with the time that the other state ends, with no overlap, called contiguous.

See the definitions (Merriam Webster)

simulteneous, noun:
  1. existing or occurring at the same time : exactly coincident
contiguous, noun:
4. touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence
Click to expand...
True. But what this has to do with what I said?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top