If you are saying that a possibility could become an actual reality by itself, then no.So you don’t agree that possible things could exist on their own?
I am not saying that. I am saying that possible things could exist on their own.If you are saying that a possibility could become an actual reality by itself, then no.
That really doesn’t follow. Given the definition of possible, to me, it is evident that they don’t need a creator/sustainer. They are just in a different category. There is no other restriction than the fact that they are possible.There is only such a thing as a possibility because there is such a thing as existence. It is only because a necessary nature exists that has the power to bring things into existence that there are possibilities. Without existence, there are no possibilities, there is just nothing.
Why? What do you mean by possible.it is evident that they don’t need a creator/sustainer.
Something which could exist or not.Why? What do you mean by possible.
And how can it exist. Don’t just say it’s because it’s possible because that doesn’t tell me how it’s possible. You might as well say that it’s just because you say it is.Something which could exist or not.
A possible thing has an essence like mind or not like thought. Mind has an essence so it doesn’t need a creator whereas thought needs a creator.And how can it exist. Don’t just say it’s because it’s possible because that doesn’t tell me how it’s possible. You might as well say that it’s because you say it is.
You mean a possible thing that does not exist has an essence that actually exists?A possible thing has an essence
Why does having an essence mean that you don’t need a creator?Mind has an essence so it doesn’t need a creator
No. I am saying a hypothetical possible thing which has an essence could exist or not.You mean a possible thing that does not exist has an essence that actually exists?
Because anything which has an essence is irreducible (has no part). Therefore it is basic element of reality.Why does having an essence mean that you don’t need a creator?
It’s very difficult to understand what you are describing and why you are describing it that way. It just seems as if you are asserting things with brute fact.I have an argument why an irreducible thing cannot be created:
- The act of creation requires knowledge
- Knowledge is structured
- Therefore any created thing has structure
- Mind is irreducible (has no structure)
- Therefore mind cannot be created
The argument is very simple when you understand it. Let’s see if I can help it.It’s very difficult to understand what you are describing and why you are describing it that way. It just seems as if you are asserting things with brute fact.
Until i can understand it, i cannot determine whether it is a good argument or not.
Great.
- The act of creation requires knowledge. I would agree
Knowledge is coherent set of information acquired through experiences on a subject matter. Think of the first premise “The act of creation requires knowledge”. Here, you experience a set of words, set of information. The set of information is coherent, coherent means forming a unified whole. The whole, the sentence, has a meaning to you. Once you recognize the meaning then you say that you know/understand it. Therefore, you gain a new knowledge. As you see, you gain the new knowledge through reading a sentence which is structured in a meaningful and coherent way. Anytime you think of the first premise you think of it in term of a sentence which has a structure. That is what I mean with knowledge has structure.
- Knowledge is structured. What is this knowledge and why is it structured, and where does it come from in relation to the mind? Do you mean physically structured, as in having physical parts?
I hope it is clear what I mean with knowledge, structure, etc.
- Therefore any created thing has structure. This all depends on what you mean by structure. Why must any created thing have structure on the basis that knowledge is structured?
Great.
- Mind is irreducible. Okay
I think it should be obvious now. Anything which has a structure has components and these components are assembled together in a coherent way. Anything which is created has structure, first premise, a car, etc. for example. Mind has no structure. Therefore, mind cannot be created.
- Therefore mind cannot be created. I don’t think it necessarily follows that because a mind can create something with structure that a mind could not be created by another mind. I don’t see a necessary connection between the idea of a mind being irreducible and the impossibility of it being created since you simply assume that any logically possible mind can only create structured things ( again, not sure what you mean by structured. ). Irreducible just means that it cannot be broken down into parts. It doesn’t logically imply anything else.
Your argument is reasonable enough, but I have a couple of questions.I think it should be obvious now. Anything which has a structure has components and these components are assembled together in a coherent way. Anything which is created has structure, first premise, a car, etc. for example. Mind has no structure. Therefore, mind cannot be created.
Great.our argument is reasonable enough, but I have a couple of questions.
I think there is no such thing as strong emergence. The strong emergence simply means that the whole is bigger than sum of its parts or in another word whole has a new property which parts don’t. I have an argument against strong emergence. Here is my argument: 1) There is always an explanation for something which occurs. 2) Emergence has no explanation (if emergence has an explanation then it is not emergence because the whole is not bigger than sum of its parts). 3) Therefore, there is no emergence.Do you consider emergent properties to be created things?
Is the mind an emergent property?