Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is an "atemporal mind" coherent?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 8:32:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Depends what you mean by "mind." In the univocal sense of our minds, definitely not.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 10:06:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

Exactly. Which is why theistic personalism is a joke.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 1:30:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?

How can you judge something without thinking bout it, or having a thought about it? This seems nonsensical. How can you have an apprehension when you have no thoughts? Either way, this view is subject to what I call the "bookshelf" problem. If there is no time, then at best you have static information (like a bookshelf, which just stores information but doesn't do anything). You need dynamic information to process information, and to have real intelligence. Without this, you are stuck with a "bookshelf"; not a mind.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 1:34:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basically, with no time, all you get is stored information that doesn't do anything. That's more like a bookshelf than a mind. I call this the "bookshelf" problem for that reason. With no time, you are left with something more like a bookshelf than a mind.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 2:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 1:30:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?

How can you judge something without thinking bout it, or having a thought about it? This seems nonsensical. How can you have an apprehension when you have no thoughts? Either way, this view is subject to what I call the "bookshelf" problem. If there is no time, then at best you have static information (like a bookshelf, which just stores information but doesn't do anything). You need dynamic information to process information, and to have real intelligence. Without this, you are stuck with a "bookshelf"; not a mind.

Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time? Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

Sure, you can view it as a bookshelf, but this is an analogy. A better understanding of it would be an unchanging mind which contains information in its unchanging intellect. Unless you presuppose that "mind" entails something which changes. In that case, this is a stupid question in the first place, and rather begs the question. Of course something which must change to be what it is, cannot exist outside of time.

So why can't there be an unchanging mind, which is atemporal? Does the term "mind" necessarily presuppose mental acts? Mental acts occur in a mind, but can't something be a mind without "mental acts"?

P1: IF an atemporal mind acts mentally, THEN it is a mind, since everything which acts mentalls is a mind.
P2: An atemporal mind does not act mentally.
C: Therefore, it's not a mind, (but more resembles a bookshelf.)

Is this what you're saying? It seems to me that you're rather denying the antecedent. Clarification would be appreciated.

I think you should specify what you mean by "mind."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 2:16:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 1:34:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, with no time, all you get is stored information that doesn't do anything. That's more like a bookshelf than a mind. I call this the "bookshelf" problem for that reason. With no time, you are left with something more like a bookshelf than a mind.

Only if you assume that a mind must be changing in order to be a mind. Which seems to me to beg the question. Or at least stack the question in your favor.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 2:15:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:30:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?

How can you judge something without thinking bout it, or having a thought about it? This seems nonsensical. How can you have an apprehension when you have no thoughts? Either way, this view is subject to what I call the "bookshelf" problem. If there is no time, then at best you have static information (like a bookshelf, which just stores information but doesn't do anything). You need dynamic information to process information, and to have real intelligence. Without this, you are stuck with a "bookshelf"; not a mind.

Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time?

Yes.

Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

A thought is a product of thinking by definition. To talk about thoughts that don't require thinking is to say A is not A (which violates the law of identity).


Sure, you can view it as a bookshelf, but this is an analogy. A better understanding of it would be an unchanging mind which contains information in its unchanging intellect.

Then its not really a mind. You are just calling "information stored" a mind, but its not really a mind. How can you have intellect without thinking? The idea of a mind that doesn't think, is as absurd as the idea of a flame that doesn't burn. These are nonsensical propositions you are putting forward.

Unless you presuppose that "mind" entails something which changes.

I don't presuppose it, I argued for it. If you don't have dynamic information, but just static information; all you have is a frozen book shelf. It cannot have thoughts, think, engage in mental processing..... It isn't a mind! You are just throwing these terms around, but with no substance.

In that case, this is a stupid question in the first place, and rather begs the question.

I didn't presuppose anything, I argued for my position.

Of course something which must change to be what it is, cannot exist outside of time.

Then a mind cannot exist outside of time. Because a mind has to be able to think... If it cannot even do that, then we aren't talking about a mind.


So why can't there be an unchanging mind, which is atemporal?

I already explained it. To have a mind, is to have thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition. Thinking is a process, which entails change, and thus, time.

Does the term "mind" necessarily presuppose mental acts?

Yes.

Mental acts occur in a mind, but can't something be a mind without "mental acts"?

No. That's like saying a flame can be a flame without fire.


P1: IF an atemporal mind acts mentally, THEN it is a mind, since everything which acts mentalls is a mind.
P2: An atemporal mind does not act mentally.
C: Therefore, it's not a mind, (but more resembles a bookshelf.)

Is this what you're saying?

Somewhat.

I think you should specify what you mean by "mind."

Look up the definition of mind; that's what I mean.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:07:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 2:16:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:34:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, with no time, all you get is stored information that doesn't do anything. That's more like a bookshelf than a mind. I call this the "bookshelf" problem for that reason. With no time, you are left with something more like a bookshelf than a mind.

Only if you assume that a mind must be changing in order to be a mind. Which seems to me to beg the question. Or at least stack the question in your favor.

It's only begging the question if I presuppose that without justification. I gave justification. Thus, I am not begging the question.

A mind must have thoughts. Thoughts, by definition, are the product of thinking. Thinking is a process. A processes requires change. Change requires time.

There is no "presupposing". I am arguing for this position using logic..
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:27:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 3:06:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 2:15:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:30:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?

How can you judge something without thinking bout it, or having a thought about it? This seems nonsensical. How can you have an apprehension when you have no thoughts? Either way, this view is subject to what I call the "bookshelf" problem. If there is no time, then at best you have static information (like a bookshelf, which just stores information but doesn't do anything). You need dynamic information to process information, and to have real intelligence. Without this, you are stuck with a "bookshelf"; not a mind.

Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time?

Yes.

Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

A thought is a product of thinking by definition. To talk about thoughts that don't require thinking is to say A is not A (which violates the law of identity).


Well then we're talking about two different definitions of the term "thought."


Sure, you can view it as a bookshelf, but this is an analogy. A better understanding of it would be an unchanging mind which contains information in its unchanging intellect.

Then its not really a mind. You are just calling "information stored" a mind, but its not really a mind. How can you have intellect without thinking? The idea of a mind that doesn't think, is as absurd as the idea of a flame that doesn't burn. These are nonsensical propositions you are putting forward.

The books represent thoughts, do they not? Bits of information, correct?


Unless you presuppose that "mind" entails something which changes.

I don't presuppose it, I argued for it. If you don't have dynamic information, but just static information; all you have is a frozen book shelf. It cannot have thoughts, think, engage in mental processing..... It isn't a mind! You are just throwing these terms around, but with no substance.

Alright, let me address your arguments.

In that case, this is a stupid question in the first place, and rather begs the question.

I didn't presuppose anything, I argued for my position.

Of course something which must change to be what it is, cannot exist outside of time.

Then a mind cannot exist outside of time. Because a mind has to be able to think... If it cannot even do that, then we aren't talking about a mind.


So why can't there be an unchanging mind, which is atemporal?

I already explained it. To have a mind, is to have thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition. Thinking is a process, which entails change, and thus, time.


P1: All minds have thoughts.
P2: All thoughts are the products of thinking.
P3: All products of thinking require change.
.'. All minds require change.

If by "thoughts" you mean the result of a thinking process, then I disagree with P1. I see it possible for a mind to have simple apprehensions which are not the products of a process.

I assume P2 is by the definition of "thoughts" which you've reiterated several times. In that case, I propose that it is possible for a mind to have apprehensions, or knowledge, which are not thoughts. But of course this is ridiculous, since by "thoughts" we usually include apprehensions, which are not necessarily the product of a process.

I see a chair. I apprehend what it is. I have an apprehension of chair. That's how it works in a temporal mind.

In an atemporal mind, clearly there would be no change from not apprehending a chair, to apprehending a chair. So we could be in either state. In the state of non-apprehending something, or the state of apprehending something.

Does the term "mind" necessarily presuppose mental acts?

Yes.

Mental acts occur in a mind, but can't something be a mind without "mental acts"?

No. That's like saying a flame can be a flame without fire.

Your statement here presupposes that mental acts are what make a mind what it is. However, this is begging the question. That's exactly what I want to know. Are mental acts and a mind identical?


P1: IF an atemporal mind acts mentally, THEN it is a mind, since everything which acts mentalls is a mind.
P2: An atemporal mind does not act mentally.
C: Therefore, it's not a mind, (but more resembles a bookshelf.)

Is this what you're saying?

Somewhat.

I think you should specify what you mean by "mind."

Look up the definition of mind; that's what I mean.

Intellect or consciousness?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:37:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 3:27:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 3:06:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 2:15:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:30:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?

How can you judge something without thinking bout it, or having a thought about it? This seems nonsensical. How can you have an apprehension when you have no thoughts? Either way, this view is subject to what I call the "bookshelf" problem. If there is no time, then at best you have static information (like a bookshelf, which just stores information but doesn't do anything). You need dynamic information to process information, and to have real intelligence. Without this, you are stuck with a "bookshelf"; not a mind.

Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time?

Yes.

Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

A thought is a product of thinking by definition. To talk about thoughts that don't require thinking is to say A is not A (which violates the law of identity).


Well then we're talking about two different definitions of the term "thought."

Impossible. A thought is the product of thinking by definition, there is no other definition. If you have to change the English language, then this shows the power of my argument.



Sure, you can view it as a bookshelf, but this is an analogy. A better understanding of it would be an unchanging mind which contains information in its unchanging intellect.

Then its not really a mind. You are just calling "information stored" a mind, but its not really a mind. How can you have intellect without thinking? The idea of a mind that doesn't think, is as absurd as the idea of a flame that doesn't burn. These are nonsensical propositions you are putting forward.

The books represent thoughts, do they not? Bits of information, correct?

Books aren't thoughts. Also, information doesn't have to have anything to do with minds. DNA has information, but this is due to biology,


Unless you presuppose that "mind" entails something which changes.

I don't presuppose it, I argued for it. If you don't have dynamic information, but just static information; all you have is a frozen book shelf. It cannot have thoughts, think, engage in mental processing..... It isn't a mind! You are just throwing these terms around, but with no substance.

Alright, let me address your arguments.

In that case, this is a stupid question in the first place, and rather begs the question.

I didn't presuppose anything, I argued for my position.

Of course something which must change to be what it is, cannot exist outside of time.

Then a mind cannot exist outside of time. Because a mind has to be able to think... If it cannot even do that, then we aren't talking about a mind.


So why can't there be an unchanging mind, which is atemporal?

I already explained it. To have a mind, is to have thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition. Thinking is a process, which entails change, and thus, time.


P1: All minds have thoughts.
P2: All thoughts are the products of thinking.
P3: All products of thinking require change.
.'. All minds require change.

If by "thoughts" you mean the result of a thinking process, then I disagree with P1.

That's what a thought is though... You have to make up a new definition of a thought to avoid this. Have fun changing the English language lol

I see it possible for a mind to have simple apprehensions which are not the products of a process.

Nope. Impossible...because understanding is logged in thoughts. Thoughts, by definition, are the product of thinking. Also, apprehending is an action (to engage in the act of apprehending). Actions entail a jump from A to B, and thus, entail change, and thus, time.


I assume P2 is by the definition of "thoughts" which you've reiterated several times. In that case, I propose that it is possible for a mind to have apprehensions, or knowledge, which are not thoughts.

Without thoughts, its not a mind by definition. You can only avoid my argument by DRASTICALLY changing the English language. If someone reports to rejecting the English language; that shows the power of my argument.

But of course this is ridiculous, since by "thoughts" we usually include apprehensions, which are not necessarily the product of a process.

They are necessarily the product of thinking. That's what a thought is by definition.

To talk about a thought that is no the product of thinking, is to talk about a product of thinking that is not a product of thinking. This violates the law of identity.


I see a chair. I apprehend what it is. I have an apprehension of chair. That's how it works in a temporal mind.


In an atemporal mind, clearly there would be no change from not apprehending a chair, to apprehending a chair.

An "temporal mind" is a contradiction though.

So we could be in either state. In the state of non-apprehending something, or the state of apprehending something.


Does the term "mind" necessarily presuppose mental acts?

Yes.

Mental acts occur in a mind, but can't something be a mind without "mental acts"?

No. That's like saying a flame can be a flame without fire.

Your statement here presupposes that mental acts are what make a mind what it is.

It's true by definition lol I don't presuppose anything.

However, this is begging the question. That's exactly what I want to know. Are mental acts and a mind identical?

** Face Palm**

Re-write the English language, then you might have a shot against my argument.



P1: IF an atemporal mind acts mentally, THEN it is a mind, since everything which acts mentalls is a mind.
P2: An atemporal mind does not act mentally.
C: Therefore, it's not a mind, (but more resembles a bookshelf.)

Is this what you're saying?

Somewhat.

I think you should specify what you mean by "mind."

Look up the definition of mind; that's what I mean.

Intellect or consciousness?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 3:27:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 3:06:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 2:15:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 1:30:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:12:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Couldn't there be a sort of intelligence which is atemporal which simply apprehends things though? Or even that realizes judgments? I'd agree that an atemporal mind couldn't make inferences, but how is it impossible for it to have simple apprehensions or judgments?

How can you judge something without thinking bout it, or having a thought about it? This seems nonsensical. How can you have an apprehension when you have no thoughts? Either way, this view is subject to what I call the "bookshelf" problem. If there is no time, then at best you have static information (like a bookshelf, which just stores information but doesn't do anything). You need dynamic information to process information, and to have real intelligence. Without this, you are stuck with a "bookshelf"; not a mind.

Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time?

Yes.

Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

A thought is a product of thinking by definition. To talk about thoughts that don't require thinking is to say A is not A (which violates the law of identity).


Well then we're talking about two different definitions of the term "thought."


Sure, you can view it as a bookshelf, but this is an analogy. A better understanding of it would be an unchanging mind which contains information in its unchanging intellect.

Then its not really a mind. You are just calling "information stored" a mind, but its not really a mind. How can you have intellect without thinking? The idea of a mind that doesn't think, is as absurd as the idea of a flame that doesn't burn. These are nonsensical propositions you are putting forward.

The books represent thoughts, do they not? Bits of information, correct?


Unless you presuppose that "mind" entails something which changes.

I don't presuppose it, I argued for it. If you don't have dynamic information, but just static information; all you have is a frozen book shelf. It cannot have thoughts, think, engage in mental processing..... It isn't a mind! You are just throwing these terms around, but with no substance.

Alright, let me address your arguments.

In that case, this is a stupid question in the first place, and rather begs the question.

I didn't presuppose anything, I argued for my position.

Of course something which must change to be what it is, cannot exist outside of time.

Then a mind cannot exist outside of time. Because a mind has to be able to think... If it cannot even do that, then we aren't talking about a mind.


So why can't there be an unchanging mind, which is atemporal?

I already explained it. To have a mind, is to have thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition. Thinking is a process, which entails change, and thus, time.


P1: All minds have thoughts.
P2: All thoughts are the products of thinking.
P3: All products of thinking require change.
.'. All minds require change.

If by "thoughts" you mean the result of a thinking process, then I disagree with P1. I see it possible for a mind to have simple apprehensions which are not the products of a process.

I assume P2 is by the definition of "thoughts" which you've reiterated several times. In that case, I propose that it is possible for a mind to have apprehensions, or knowledge, which are not thoughts. But of course this is ridiculous, since by "thoughts" we usually include apprehensions, which are not necessarily the product of a process.

I see a chair. I apprehend what it is. I have an apprehension of chair. That's how it works in a temporal mind.

In an atemporal mind, clearly there would be no change from not apprehending a chair, to apprehending a chair. So we could be in either state. In the state of non-apprehending something, or the state of apprehending something.

Does the term "mind" necessarily presuppose mental acts?

Yes.

Mental acts occur in a mind, but can't something be a mind without "mental acts"?

No. That's like saying a flame can be a flame without fire.

Your statement here presupposes that mental acts are what make a mind what it is. However, this is begging the question. That's exactly what I want to know. Are mental acts and a mind identical?


P1: IF an atemporal mind acts mentally, THEN it is a mind, since everything which acts mentalls is a mind.
P2: An atemporal mind does not act mentally.
C: Therefore, it's not a mind, (but more resembles a bookshelf.)

Is this what you're saying?

Somewhat.

I think you should specify what you mean by "mind."

Look up the definition of mind; that's what I mean.

Intellect or consciousness?

A mind requires thoughts and thinking by definition:

"[T]he part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers"[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

"[T]he element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc"[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Thinking is right in the definition of mind. There is no way to avoid my argument but to re-write the English language. Let me know when you come out with your dictionary!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To talk about a different kind of mind that doesn't think, it like talking about a "different" kind of car that is not an automobile. That's nonsensical, because if it isn't an automobile, it isn't a care by definition. If it doesn't think, it isn't a mind by definition. You are talking SOMETHING ELSE, and just calling it a "mind".

You can call your table a cat if you want, but when you resort to nonsense like that, it shows the power of my argument. You actually have to deny the meaning of words to avoid my argument... Well, any argument can be avoided if you deny the English language lol Thus, your rebuttals are not convincing. When you have to deny the meanings of words to avoid my conclusion, it shows I have a great argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:54:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A circle by definition is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre).

Imagine if someone came along and said:

"There can still be a circle even if it it isn't a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre)"

You would laugh at them, because that's what a circle is by definition lol Similarly, now you know why I don't take your arguments that seriously.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 3:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time?

Yes.

Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

A thought is a product of thinking by definition. To talk about thoughts that don't require thinking is to say A is not A (which violates the law of identity).


Well then we're talking about two different definitions of the term "thought."

Impossible. A thought is the product of thinking by definition, there is no other definition. If you have to change the English language, then this shows the power of my argument.


Very possible, actually. Let's argue concepts, not semantics. The definitions of the terms you're using obviously lead to your conclusion, just in definition. Since you've misunderstood what I mean (which may be my fault) by assuming that when I say "thought" I mean what you understand "thought" to mean, you've not addressed my arguments.


I already explained it. To have a mind, is to have thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition. Thinking is a process, which entails change, and thus, time.


P1: All minds have thoughts.
P2: All thoughts are the products of thinking.
P3: All products of thinking require change.
.'. All minds require change.

If by "thoughts" you mean the result of a thinking process, then I disagree with P1.

That's what a thought is though... You have to make up a new definition of a thought to avoid this. Have fun changing the English language lol


If "mind" by its very definition means "temporal mind," then why are you even asking this question in the first place? Obviously your conclusion is true, by the definitions of everything.

I see it possible for a mind to have simple apprehensions which are not the products of a process.

Nope. Impossible...because understanding is logged in thoughts. Thoughts, by definition, are the product of thinking. Also, apprehending is an action (to engage in the act of apprehending). Actions entail a jump from A to B, and thus, entail change, and thus, time.

Let me put it this way. Why can't something be statically apprehending something, without a prior moment of non-apprehension?

A (non apprehension of chair) ----> B (apprehension of chair.)

This is the process of simple apprehension.

But why can't there just be a mind, which is atemporal and goes: B(apprehension of chair.)

Clearly this isn't a process of apprehension in the same sense that we apprehend, but it's still very similar.



I assume P2 is by the definition of "thoughts" which you've reiterated several times. In that case, I propose that it is possible for a mind to have apprehensions, or knowledge, which are not thoughts.

Without thoughts, its not a mind by definition. You can only avoid my argument by DRASTICALLY changing the English language. If someone reports to rejecting the English language; that shows the power of my argument.


It shows that perhaps the English language is insufficient to put words to such a thing as an "atemporal mind." The problem is in the insufficiency of English as a language, not in the concept itself, or our ability to conceive of the possibility of an atemporal mind.

But of course this is ridiculous, since by "thoughts" we usually include apprehensions, which are not necessarily the product of a process.

They are necessarily the product of thinking. That's what a thought is by definition.

I assumed a more general definition of thought, such as "something which exists in a mind." With this definition, I think it's possible for there to be an atemporal mind with thoughts.


To talk about a thought that is not the product of thinking, is to talk about a product of thinking that is not a product of thinking. This violates the law of identity.


Only if a thought is assume to be a process of thinking.


I see a chair. I apprehend what it is. I have an apprehension of chair. That's how it works in a temporal mind.


In an atemporal mind, clearly there would be no change from not apprehending a chair, to apprehending a chair.

An "temporal mind" is a contradiction though.

Depending upon your definition of the terms, yes. In a more general sense of the terms, not necessarily.


Mental acts occur in a mind, but can't something be a mind without "mental acts"?

No. That's like saying a flame can be a flame without fire.

Your statement here presupposes that mental acts are what make a mind what it is.

It's true by definition lol I don't presuppose anything.

I generally think of a mind as a type of container, and the mental acts as what occurs inside of this container. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology, but you're assuming that when I say "mind" I mean what you think of "mind."


However, this is begging the question. That's exactly what I want to know. Are mental acts and a mind identical?

** Face Palm**

Re-write the English language, then you might have a shot against my argument.


Understand my arguments in their original context and you might have a shot against them.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 4:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 3:54:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A circle by definition is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre).

Imagine if someone came along and said:

"There can still be a circle even if it it isn't a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre)"

You would laugh at them, because that's what a circle is by definition lol Similarly, now you know why I don't take your arguments that seriously.

Ok, I get it. I'm not saying that when we say "atemporal mind" the "mind" is meant to be taken in a univocal sense as ours. I said that in my first post. An atemporal mind would obviously be a different species, however I think it might possibly fall under the same genus as our temporal minds.

A better way to phrase your example would be...

"There can be a planar figure which isn't a circle."

If by "mind" you mean "temporal mind" then the question "is an atemporal temporal mind coherent" is just a stupid question in the first place.

But if by "mind" you don't mean "temporal mind," then it's not a stupid question, but it's unanswered by your arguments.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 4:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 3:59:00 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do thoughts necessarily presuppose change in time?

Yes.

Thinking process does, but do thoughts? All thinking processes are thoughts, but not all thoughts are thinking processes.

A thought is a product of thinking by definition. To talk about thoughts that don't require thinking is to say A is not A (which violates the law of identity).


Well then we're talking about two different definitions of the term "thought."

Impossible. A thought is the product of thinking by definition, there is no other definition. If you have to change the English language, then this shows the power of my argument.


Very possible, actually. Let's argue concepts, not semantics. The definitions of the terms you're using obviously lead to your conclusion, just in definition. Since you've misunderstood what I mean (which may be my fault) by assuming that when I say "thought" I mean what you understand "thought" to mean, you've not addressed my arguments.

Then you have to define what you mean by "thought", because according to the English language; it only has one meaning. Without a definition, the word "thought" has as much meaning as "jrjhgk" since you deny the real definition of the word.



I already explained it. To have a mind, is to have thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition. Thinking is a process, which entails change, and thus, time.


P1: All minds have thoughts.
P2: All thoughts are the products of thinking.
P3: All products of thinking require change.
.'. All minds require change.

If by "thoughts" you mean the result of a thinking process, then I disagree with P1.

That's what a thought is though... You have to make up a new definition of a thought to avoid this. Have fun changing the English language lol


If "mind" by its very definition means "temporal mind," then why are you even asking this question in the first place? Obviously your conclusion is true, by the definitions of everything.

Great, so you concede that my argument, based on the English language is sound. Now, it is up to you to come up with your own definitions, because if you are not talking about a product of thinking, then I have no idea what you mean by a"thought", as a thought by definition of the product of thinking.


I see it possible for a mind to have simple apprehensions which are not the products of a process.

Nope. Impossible...because understanding is logged in thoughts. Thoughts, by definition, are the product of thinking. Also, apprehending is an action (to engage in the act of apprehending). Actions entail a jump from A to B, and thus, entail change, and thus, time.

Let me put it this way. Why can't something be statically apprehending something, without a prior moment of non-apprehension?

Because apprehension is an action. To apprehend, is to engage in the act of apprehending. An action entails a jump from A to B, and thus entails change, and thus, time.


A (non apprehension of chair) ----> B (apprehension of chair.)

This is the process of simple apprehension.

The non-apprehension isn't even necessary for what I am saying. Apprehension (without a prior apprehension or not) is still an action. One cannot apprehend with no time to apprehend. The idea of a timeless person is just illogical. All the information is just static and frozen. There is no thoughts, thinking, reasoning, or anything... Just information stored. "Information stored" is not a sufficient definition of a mind.


But why can't there just be a mind, which is atemporal and goes: B(apprehension of chair.)

Clearly this isn't a process of apprehension in the same sense that we apprehend, but it's still very similar.



I assume P2 is by the definition of "thoughts" which you've reiterated several times. In that case, I propose that it is possible for a mind to have apprehensions, or knowledge, which are not thoughts.

Without thoughts, its not a mind by definition. You can only avoid my argument by DRASTICALLY changing the English language. If someone reports to rejecting the English language; that shows the power of my argument.


It shows that perhaps the English language is insufficient to put words to such a thing as an "atemporal mind."

If you cannot put words to it, that you cannot make an argument about it. By definition, my argument is sound, and you cannot refute it without denying the very language you presuppose in all your other arguments. Thus, to deny the language would be self-refuting, because you have to use the language and presuppose its meaning to do that. As I said, when you come out with your own dictionary, then come back. Until you do, I have no idea what you mean when you use these words you do.

The problem is in the insufficiency of English as a language, not in the concept itself, or our ability to conceive of the possibility of an atemporal mind.

This is self-refuting. If the English language is so flawed, then so is the exact same language you use to make that argument.


But of course this is ridiculous, since by "thoughts" we usually include apprehensions, which are not necessarily the product of a process.

They are necessarily the product of thinking. That's what a thought is by definition.

I assumed a more general definition of thought, such as "something which exists in a mind." With this definition, I think it's possible for there to be an atemporal mind with thoughts.

It still has to be a product of thinking, because that's why the "th" is there in the word. A thought inherently is the product of thinking. Just like how a circle inherently is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre). You might as well call a square a circle, if you deny that a thought is the product of thinking. You might as well call a cat a dog, a bed, a chair while you are at it... This is like saying that you can dodge the problem of a round square existing, if you just change the definition of round... Well, no sh*t. However, that's not what people mean when they think of the word "round" so the argument is moot. Similarly, you are just calling "static information" a "mind".

According to your logic, we can disprove Atheism if we label the sky "God". Nobody denies the sky, so Theism is not deniable!

Obviously, if you change words, you can get the outcome you want. However, its purely nonsensical.

Only if a thought is assume to be a process of thinking.

It is by definition. If it isn't, I don't know what you mean when you say "thought"..... "Something" in a mind? Well, what is a "mind"?! You have to change more than just the definition of thoughts to dodge the conclusion. You have to change many definitions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 4:24:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 4:05:49 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/3/2013 3:54:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A circle by definition is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre).

Imagine if someone came along and said:

"There can still be a circle even if it it isn't a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre)"

You would laugh at them, because that's what a circle is by definition lol Similarly, now you know why I don't take your arguments that seriously.

Ok, I get it. I'm not saying that when we say "atemporal mind" the "mind" is meant to be taken in a univocal sense as ours.

What do you mean "as ours"? These definitions have nothing to do with humans, or anything. These are just the definitions of the words in any context.

There is no circle that isn't a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre) in a certain context lol

I said that in my first post. An atemporal mind would obviously be a different species, however I think it might possibly fall under the same genus as our temporal minds.


A better way to phrase your example would be...

"There can be a planar figure which isn't a circle."

If by "mind" you mean "temporal mind" then the question "is an atemporal temporal mind coherent" is just a stupid question in the first place.

By mind I don't mean temporal mind, I mean any kind of mind. These definitions don't say ("only apply to humans or temporal beings"). We can deduce that they require time by many steps, but that doesn't mean there is any presupposition.

As I said, according to the English language, my argument is sound. I await your dictionary with different definitions.

You might as well talk about a flame that doesn't burn, if you are going to talk about a mind that doesn't think. Think about it, you are just delving into absurdity.

You can deny ANY argument if you change the definitions of words!

Therefore, the fact that you can dodge my argument by changing definitions doesn't mean anything. I can prove that a round square can exist, and a married bachelor if I change definitions of words lol Is this what you have to resort to? Really!?


But if by "mind" you don't mean "temporal mind," then it's not a stupid question, but it's unanswered by your arguments.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 7:49:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.

It sounds deep, but it doesn't seem to follow or make sense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 7:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 7:49:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.

It sounds deep, but it doesn't seem to follow or make sense.

I think it makes sense:

"Even more fundamentally however, the position that mental becoming is illusory is incoherent. Bluntly put, even the illusion of becoming implies becoming. Becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance because an illusion or an appearance of becoming, involves becoming. An idealist philosopher can consistently hold space to be illusory, for the illusion of space is not itself spatial. But the illusion of time, is itself, a temporal experience" Change cannot be wholly illusory, for the illusion of change is a changing illusion" " [Time and Eternity p.199]

It seems that change is something that cannot just cannot be an illusion. The idea that everything is just "laid out" already doesn't seem to leave any room for an illusion. This illusion itself implies temporal becoming.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 8:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 7:56:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:49:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.

It sounds deep, but it doesn't seem to follow or make sense.

I think it makes sense:

"Even more fundamentally however, the position that mental becoming is illusory is incoherent. Bluntly put, even the illusion of becoming implies becoming. Becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance because an illusion or an appearance of becoming, involves becoming. An idealist philosopher can consistently hold space to be illusory, for the illusion of space is not itself spatial. But the illusion of time, is itself, a temporal experience" Change cannot be wholly illusory, for the illusion of change is a changing illusion" " [Time and Eternity p.199]

It seems that change is something that cannot just cannot be an illusion. The idea that everything is just "laid out" already doesn't seem to leave any room for an illusion. This illusion itself implies temporal becoming.

Why couldn't it exist as a state within time's illusion without traversing the span itself?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 8:45:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 7:56:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:49:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.

It sounds deep, but it doesn't seem to follow or make sense.

I think it makes sense:

"Even more fundamentally however, the position that mental becoming is illusory is incoherent. Bluntly put, even the illusion of becoming implies becoming. Becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance because an illusion or an appearance of becoming, involves becoming. An idealist philosopher can consistently hold space to be illusory, for the illusion of space is not itself spatial. But the illusion of time, is itself, a temporal experience" Change cannot be wholly illusory, for the illusion of change is a changing illusion" " [Time and Eternity p.199]

It seems that change is something that cannot just cannot be an illusion. The idea that everything is just "laid out" already doesn't seem to leave any room for an illusion. This illusion itself implies temporal becoming.

In other words, why does the illusion have to occupy the temporal area it refers to?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 8:55:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 8:45:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:56:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:49:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.

It sounds deep, but it doesn't seem to follow or make sense.

I think it makes sense:

"Even more fundamentally however, the position that mental becoming is illusory is incoherent. Bluntly put, even the illusion of becoming implies becoming. Becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance because an illusion or an appearance of becoming, involves becoming. An idealist philosopher can consistently hold space to be illusory, for the illusion of space is not itself spatial. But the illusion of time, is itself, a temporal experience" Change cannot be wholly illusory, for the illusion of change is a changing illusion" " [Time and Eternity p.199]

It seems that change is something that cannot just cannot be an illusion. The idea that everything is just "laid out" already doesn't seem to leave any room for an illusion. This illusion itself implies temporal becoming.

In other words, why does the illusion have to occupy the temporal area it refers to?

I tasted ice cream yesterday, I do not taste ice cream now. If what you are saying is true, then this state I had ice cream is just as real as the state I have now. However, I don't experience that state, I did experience it. This means that my mental states changed. You can say that "the change is just an illusion", but that illusion itself changed! There is an illusion of me eating ice cream at time T, and an illusion of me not eating ice cream now. The illusion itself changes!

Basically you can never say that all change is just an illusion, because the illusion itself changes.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 8:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 8:45:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:56:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:49:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:41:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/3/2013 7:36:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 8:41:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/2/2013 7:07:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/2/2013 5:59:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Can you elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Well, a mind requires thoughts. Thoughts by definition are the product of thinking. Thinking by definition is a mental process. A process requires a jump from A to B, which entails change; change obviously requires time. Therefore, it seems that a mind must be temporal, and that he idea of a non-temporal mind is incoherent.

I guess it could be argued that there is no jump from A to B, but that each state of mind exists independently. In other words, all the states that compose our mental progression exist all at once, with movement between them merely being an illusion occupying many localized vantage points. Our consciousness would 'follow' these states not by temporal advancement through them, but by mutual recognition amongst them which we perceive as continuous.

Well, if you read "Time and Eternity", an interesting passage states that you cannot say that all change is an illusion, because the illusion of change itself is a changing illusion.

It sounds deep, but it doesn't seem to follow or make sense.

I think it makes sense:

"Even more fundamentally however, the position that mental becoming is illusory is incoherent. Bluntly put, even the illusion of becoming implies becoming. Becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance because an illusion or an appearance of becoming, involves becoming. An idealist philosopher can consistently hold space to be illusory, for the illusion of space is not itself spatial. But the illusion of time, is itself, a temporal experience" Change cannot be wholly illusory, for the illusion of change is a changing illusion" " [Time and Eternity p.199]

It seems that change is something that cannot just cannot be an illusion. The idea that everything is just "laid out" already doesn't seem to leave any room for an illusion. This illusion itself implies temporal becoming.

In other words, why does the illusion have to occupy the temporal area it refers to?

Also, the very idea of thinking entails mental processing. If mental processing is an illusion (because change is an illusion), then thinking is an illusion. But we all know the old saying "I think, therefore, I am". Thinking, reasoning, and mental processing and becoming is probably one of the only things that cannot be an illusion.