Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit and God's Creation

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If only God exists, then God can only create from himself as there is nothing else to create with. I think it is safe to say that if there is nothing to create X with, then X can not be created... the alternative is just God by himself stuck with nothing. Therefore, Ex-Dio (God creates from himself) seems to be the only viable option. But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:47:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If only God exists, then God can only create from himself as there is nothing else to create with. I think it is safe to say that if there is nothing to create X with, then X can not be created... the alternative is just God by himself stuck with nothing. Therefore, Ex-Dio (God creates from himself) seems to be the only viable option. But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

Well, far be it from me to defend a position that I don't hold, but I think that this objection could be gotten around--if E=MC2, and if E=Infinite, then one can subtract any arbitrary amount from E, and get any amount of M, without losing the infinity of E. Mind does not preclude medium, and if medium is energy, it would seem simplistic, simplistic being a relative term. It is something that needs addressing, though, even if it's addressed in this way.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:19:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:47:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If only God exists, then God can only create from himself as there is nothing else to create with. I think it is safe to say that if there is nothing to create X with, then X can not be created... the alternative is just God by himself stuck with nothing. Therefore, Ex-Dio (God creates from himself) seems to be the only viable option. But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

Well, far be it from me to defend a position that I don't hold, but I think that this objection could be gotten around--if E=MC2, and if E=Infinite, then one can subtract any arbitrary amount from E, and get any amount of M, without losing the infinity of E. Mind does not preclude medium, and if medium is energy, it would seem simplistic, simplistic being a relative term. It is something that needs addressing, though, even if it's addressed in this way.

I'm not sure how this gets around what I am saying. If there is an infinite mind, and it wants to draw from itself a universe made of something, then it is going to be made of this "mind stuff". And if energy is "mind stuff" then the universe would be made of "mind stuff" and still be inherently mental.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:19:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:47:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If only God exists, then God can only create from himself as there is nothing else to create with. I think it is safe to say that if there is nothing to create X with, then X can not be created... the alternative is just God by himself stuck with nothing. Therefore, Ex-Dio (God creates from himself) seems to be the only viable option. But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

Well, far be it from me to defend a position that I don't hold, but I think that this objection could be gotten around--if E=MC2, and if E=Infinite, then one can subtract any arbitrary amount from E, and get any amount of M, without losing the infinity of E. Mind does not preclude medium, and if medium is energy, it would seem simplistic, simplistic being a relative term. It is something that needs addressing, though, even if it's addressed in this way.

I'm not sure how this gets around what I am saying. If there is an infinite mind, and it wants to draw from itself a universe made of something, then it is going to be made of this "mind stuff". And if energy is "mind stuff" then the universe would be made of "mind stuff" and still be inherently mental.

Energy can be converted into matter, so I'm not cLear on the objection. If the "mind stuff"'s medium is energy there's no contradiction. There's still a certain amount of absurdity but that's inherent to infinities.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:44:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:30:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:19:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:47:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If only God exists, then God can only create from himself as there is nothing else to create with. I think it is safe to say that if there is nothing to create X with, then X can not be created... the alternative is just God by himself stuck with nothing. Therefore, Ex-Dio (God creates from himself) seems to be the only viable option. But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

Well, far be it from me to defend a position that I don't hold, but I think that this objection could be gotten around--if E=MC2, and if E=Infinite, then one can subtract any arbitrary amount from E, and get any amount of M, without losing the infinity of E. Mind does not preclude medium, and if medium is energy, it would seem simplistic, simplistic being a relative term. It is something that needs addressing, though, even if it's addressed in this way.

I'm not sure how this gets around what I am saying. If there is an infinite mind, and it wants to draw from itself a universe made of something, then it is going to be made of this "mind stuff". And if energy is "mind stuff" then the universe would be made of "mind stuff" and still be inherently mental.

Energy can be converted into matter, so I'm not cLear on the objection.

The "M" in E=EM2 is mass, not matter. Either way, matter is simply condensed energy. It isn't like you can destroy energy, it can only be changed to another composition of energy. But what is energy? If God is a mind, and he created the universe from his mind, and the universe is made out of energy, then it follows that energy is mind stuff.

If the "mind stuff"'s medium is energy there's no contradiction. There's still a certain amount of absurdity but that's inherent to infinities.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:44:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The "M" in E=EM2 is mass, not matter. Either way, matter is simply condensed energy. It isn't like you can destroy energy, it can only be changed to another composition of energy. But what is energy? If God is a mind, and he created the universe from his mind, and the universe is made out of energy, then it follows that energy is mind stuff.

If the "mind stuff"'s medium is energy there's no contradiction. There's still a certain amount of absurdity but that's inherent to infinities.

I think you're suffering from a vagueness of terminology. What would "mind stuff" be?

As someone who's generally a materialist given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I would say that it can be argued that "mind" requires medium--at the very least it doesn't preclude there being a medium. And if that medium is energy, then, it follows you can create matter from it. If the energy is infinite, it follows you can keep the infinite, and still have an arbitrary amount of "creation".

If "mind stuff" isn't energy or matter, then what is it? And what would the difference be between that which comes from "mind stuff" and that which doesn't?

Without knowing what you mean by "mind stuff", such a question can't be answered.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 12:28:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 11:51:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 11:44:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The "M" in E=EM2 is mass, not matter. Either way, matter is simply condensed energy. It isn't like you can destroy energy, it can only be changed to another composition of energy. But what is energy? If God is a mind, and he created the universe from his mind, and the universe is made out of energy, then it follows that energy is mind stuff.

If the "mind stuff"'s medium is energy there's no contradiction. There's still a certain amount of absurdity but that's inherent to infinities.

I think you're suffering from a vagueness of terminology. What would "mind stuff" be?

It doesn't matter what it is exactly, the only point necessary to the argument is that it has the property of being mental. If it forms from a mind, then it is mental by definition. Like a thought or idea, it forms from a mind and is mental in nature.

As someone who's generally a materialist given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I would say that it can be argued that "mind" requires medium--at the very least it doesn't preclude there being a medium. And if that medium is energy, then, it follows you can create matter from it.

Matter is just condensed energy. And what is the nature of energy itself? It is formed from God, and God is a mind, then energy would be mental in nature.

If the energy is infinite, it follows you can keep the infinite, and still have an arbitrary amount of "creation".

If "mind stuff" isn't energy or matter, then what is it? And what would the difference be between that which comes from "mind stuff" and that which doesn't?

Who says there is anything not made from mind stuff?


Without knowing what you mean by "mind stuff", such a question can't be answered.

Most likely information.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 12:58:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 12:28:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is exactly, the only point necessary to the argument is that it has the property of being mental. If it forms from a mind, then it is mental by definition. Like a thought or idea, it forms from a mind and is mental in nature.

Sorry, but I reject that as nonsensical.

You can't just ignore what "mind stuff" is. If you can't even answer what "mind stuff" is in terms of humans, speculating about what it would be in terms of a deity is nonsense.

As someone who's generally a materialist given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I would say that it can be argued that "mind" requires medium--at the very least it doesn't preclude there being a medium. And if that medium is energy, then, it follows you can create matter from it.

Matter is just condensed energy. And what is the nature of energy itself? It is formed from God, and God is a mind, then energy would be mental in nature.

Perhaps, but we don't even know what that means, nor whether it could be converted. Thoughts are converted into action all the time and while we can trace where the action part comes from, we still don't have a great grasp of where it turns from thought into action--what that means, and what that necessarily means in terms of "mind" as a general term. You're speculating without any information, and making claims that don't have support.

If the energy is infinite, it follows you can keep the infinite, and still have an arbitrary amount of "creation".

If "mind stuff" isn't energy or matter, then what is it? And what would the difference be between that which comes from "mind stuff" and that which doesn't?

Who says there is anything not made from mind stuff?

Well, you implied it in your original question. But that's irrelevant. Until you tell me how we could possibly tell the difference, it's just omphaloskepsis.

Without knowing what you mean by "mind stuff", such a question can't be answered.

Most likely information.

I strongly disagree with this. "Mind" =/= "information" alone. The will is not information per se--and that's what makes it a mind.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 6:51:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If only God exists, then God can only create from himself as there is nothing else to create with. I think it is safe to say that if there is nothing to create X with, then X can not be created... the alternative is just God by himself stuck with nothing. Therefore, Ex-Dio (God creates from himself) seems to be the only viable option. But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

But ideas, emotions and thoughts are not made of matter and/or energy? Aren't thoughts measured as brainwaves and are therefore energy?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 8:40:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 12:58:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:28:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is exactly, the only point necessary to the argument is that it has the property of being mental. If it forms from a mind, then it is mental by definition. Like a thought or idea, it forms from a mind and is mental in nature.

Sorry, but I reject that as nonsensical.

You can't just ignore what "mind stuff" is. If you can't even answer what "mind stuff" is in terms of humans, speculating about what it would be in terms of a deity is nonsense.

I don't think it is nonsensical at all, mind stuff is simply the substance of mind, that's what it IS. It is the same stuff that our minds have. Either way, it is completely irrelevant. the point is that God is usually defined as a Grand-Mind, so if he creates a universe from himself then he is forming a universe from mind and the universe would be mental by definition. I think it simply follows that creation Ex-Dio entails an immaterial universe that is mental in nature, or else we are forced to ask "where did God got the 'material' from to make this universe?" It couldn't have been from nothing, and it couldn't be from God or else that would mean God was material! So if God is immaterial and a mind, and he creates a universe out of himself, then it seems logical to assume that the universe boils down to mental properties.


As someone who's generally a materialist given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I would say that it can be argued that "mind" requires medium--at the very least it doesn't preclude there being a medium. And if that medium is energy, then, it follows you can create matter from it.

Matter is just condensed energy. And what is the nature of energy itself? It is formed from God, and God is a mind, then energy would be mental in nature.

Perhaps, but we don't even know what that means, nor whether it could be converted. Thoughts are converted into action all the time and while we can trace where the action part comes from, we still don't have a great grasp of where it turns from thought into action--what that means, and what that necessarily means in terms of "mind" as a general term. You're speculating without any information, and making claims that don't have support.

Thoughts don't become action, they cause action in something that already exists. A thought can cause my existing arm to move but the thought doesn't actually become the action of me moving my arm.


If the energy is infinite, it follows you can keep the infinite, and still have an arbitrary amount of "creation".

If "mind stuff" isn't energy or matter, then what is it? And what would the difference be between that which comes from "mind stuff" and that which doesn't?

Who says there is anything not made from mind stuff?

Well, you implied it in your original question. But that's irrelevant. Until you tell me how we could possibly tell the difference, it's just omphaloskepsis.

We can tell the difference because we all know what a mind is. The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion.


Without knowing what you mean by "mind stuff", such a question can't be answered.

That which is contained in mind.


Most likely information.

I strongly disagree with this. "Mind" =/= "information" alone. The will is not information per se--and that's what makes it a mind.

No mind doesn't equal information alone, the information must be integrated, at least according to Totoni's Information Theory of Consciousness. If John Wheeler's "it from bit" concept is true (which is probably is, as an informational universe it is the only viable candidate right now for meshing Relativity with Quantum Mechanics), and if this universe is integrated (which it would be due to Quantum Entanglement), then the universe itself would be a conscious state, but that's a different debate all together.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 1:47:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 8:40:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:58:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:28:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is exactly, the only point necessary to the argument is that it has the property of being mental. If it forms from a mind, then it is mental by definition. Like a thought or idea, it forms from a mind and is mental in nature.

Sorry, but I reject that as nonsensical.

You can't just ignore what "mind stuff" is. If you can't even answer what "mind stuff" is in terms of humans, speculating about what it would be in terms of a deity is nonsense.

I don't think it is nonsensical at all, mind stuff is simply the substance of mind, that's what it IS.

Right. But you can't define it in any meaningful sense beyond that. That's the sum total of the properties you can attribute to it.

It is the same stuff that our minds have.

I think you've got a long way to go to establishing that all "mind stuff" is the same.

Either way, it is completely irrelevant. the point is that God is usually defined as a Grand-Mind, so if he creates a universe from himself then he is forming a universe from mind and the universe would be mental by definition.

Again, I think you've got a long way to go to proving that. One can make different substances from different substances, after all, ones that have no real relation to the original.

I think it simply follows that creation Ex-Dio entails an immaterial universe that is mental in nature, or else we are forced to ask "where did God got the 'material' from to make this universe?"

Conversion. Which I'm not defending as definitely possible, but merely asserting that you're nowhere near having grounds to assert it's impossible.

It couldn't have been from nothing, and it couldn't be from God or else that would mean God was material!

No, it wouldn't.

I can make a sail from cotton, it doesn't follow that cotton is a sail--it needs to be converted into cloth first.

So if God is immaterial and a mind, and he creates a universe out of himself, then it seems logical to assume that the universe boils down to mental properties.

But again, you're assuming. It's a tower of assumptions with no actual basis whatsoever except what seems plausible to you. The universe never cares about what seems plausible to us.

As someone who's generally a materialist given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I would say that it can be argued that "mind" requires medium--at the very least it doesn't preclude there being a medium. And if that medium is energy, then, it follows you can create matter from it.

Matter is just condensed energy. And what is the nature of energy itself? It is formed from God, and God is a mind, then energy would be mental in nature.

Perhaps, but we don't even know what that means, nor whether it could be converted. Thoughts are converted into action all the time and while we can trace where the action part comes from, we still don't have a great grasp of where it turns from thought into action--what that means, and what that necessarily means in terms of "mind" as a general term. You're speculating without any information, and making claims that don't have support.

Thoughts don't become action, they cause action in something that already exists. A thought can cause my existing arm to move but the thought doesn't actually become the action of me moving my arm.

Prove it.

There's a point at which the "thought" of moving the arm is converted into the electrical signal that does in fact move your arm--but where that point precisely is, and how it works in relation to your thought, is very poorly understood.

If the energy is infinite, it follows you can keep the infinite, and still have an arbitrary amount of "creation".

If "mind stuff" isn't energy or matter, then what is it? And what would the difference be between that which comes from "mind stuff" and that which doesn't?

Who says there is anything not made from mind stuff?

Well, you implied it in your original question. But that's irrelevant. Until you tell me how we could possibly tell the difference, it's just omphaloskepsis.

We can tell the difference because we all know what a mind is. The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion.

You have a solution for hard solipsism and P-zombies?! I'd love to hear them...

Without knowing what you mean by "mind stuff", such a question can't be answered.

That which is contained in mind.

Not a helpful definition.

Most likely information.

I strongly disagree with this. "Mind" =/= "information" alone. The will is not information per se--and that's what makes it a mind.

No mind doesn't equal information alone, the information must be integrated, at least according to Totoni's Information Theory of Consciousness. If John Wheeler's "it from bit" concept is true (which is probably is, as an informational universe it is the only viable candidate right now for meshing Relativity with Quantum Mechanics), and if this universe is integrated (which it would be due to Quantum Entanglement), then the universe itself would be a conscious state, but that's a different debate all together.

Indeed.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 8:57:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 1:47:56 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 8:40:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:58:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:28:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is exactly, the only point necessary to the argument is that it has the property of being mental. If it forms from a mind, then it is mental by definition. Like a thought or idea, it forms from a mind and is mental in nature.

Sorry, but I reject that as nonsensical.

You can't just ignore what "mind stuff" is. If you can't even answer what "mind stuff" is in terms of humans, speculating about what it would be in terms of a deity is nonsense.

I don't think it is nonsensical at all, mind stuff is simply the substance of mind, that's what it IS.

Right. But you can't define it in any meaningful sense beyond that.

You assume that definition isn't sufficient, when I think it is.

That's the sum total of the properties you can attribute to it.

That's all that needs to be attributed to it to prove my point. Either way, If we see a rock in sand, then a day later, we see the rock in a different place, we know that something moved the rock. Even if we don't know the other properties of the something it doesn't matter, we know it moved the rock. Similarly, even if we don't know the other properties of the "mind stuff", it doesn't matter, the one property of "mental" is sufficient for the Idealistic conclusion.


It is the same stuff that our minds have.

I think you've got a long way to go to establishing that all "mind stuff" is the same.

Why wouldn't it be? To think otherwise would be an unnecessary violation of Occam's Razor.


Either way, it is completely irrelevant. the point is that God is usually defined as a Grand-Mind, so if he creates a universe from himself then he is forming a universe from mind and the universe would be mental by definition.

Again, I think you've got a long way to go to proving that. One can make different substances from different substances, after all, ones that have no real relation to the original.

This all depends on how you define "substance". From a metaphysical standpoint (which is the standpoint I am talking about), that is about as false as you can get.


I think it simply follows that creation Ex-Dio entails an immaterial universe that is mental in nature, or else we are forced to ask "where did God got the 'material' from to make this universe?"

Conversion. Which I'm not defending as definitely possible, but merely asserting that you're nowhere near having grounds to assert it's impossible.

If God converts aspects of his mentality into atoms, then those atoms would have to be composed of God's mentality or the only other option is they are composed of nothing (as only God would exist "before" the universe, there would be nothing else for these atoms to be composed of) and they would still reduce to the mental. It is like how if you convert a tree into a wooden chair, the chair is just the tree in a different state, similarly, if God creates atoms out of his mentality, then those atoms would just be the aspect of that mentality in a different state. None the less, they are inherently mental.


It couldn't have been from nothing, and it couldn't be from God or else that would mean God was material!

No, it wouldn't.

I can make a sail from cotton, it doesn't follow that cotton is a sail--it needs to be converted into cloth first.

The sail is the cotton in a different form. Every object, essentially, is just a bunch of atoms rearranged and moving a certain way. If God drew these atoms out of his being, then the atoms are just God's mentality manifested in a certain way. At the very least this is the most rational conclusion, if not necessarily true.


So if God is immaterial and a mind, and he creates a universe out of himself, then it seems logical to assume that the universe boils down to mental properties.

But again, you're assuming. It's a tower of assumptions with no actual basis whatsoever except what seems plausible to you. The universe never cares about what seems plausible to us.

Metaphysics is the basis of it.



Perhaps, but we don't even know what that means, nor whether it could be converted. Thoughts are converted into action all the time and while we can trace where the action part comes from, we still don't have a great grasp of where it turns from thought into action--what that means, and what that necessarily means in terms of "mind" as a general term. You're speculating without any information, and making claims that don't have support.

Thoughts don't become action, they cause action in something that already exists. A thought can cause my existing arm to move but the thought doesn't actually become the action of me moving my arm.

Prove it.

There's a point at which the "thought" of moving the arm is converted into the electrical signal that does in fact move your arm--but where that point precisely is, and how it works in relation to your thought, is very poorly understood.

Actually, the thought isn't converted into the electrical signal, the electrical signal is caused by the thought. That's like saying my finger pulling the trigger converts into a bullet coming out, of course it doesn't, that is just the cause.


If the energy is infinite, it follows you can keep the infinite, and still have an arbitrary amount of "creation".

If "mind stuff" isn't energy or matter, then what is it? And what would the difference be between that which comes from "mind stuff" and that which doesn't?

Who says there is anything not made from mind stuff?

Well, you implied it in your original question. But that's irrelevant. Until you tell me how we could possibly tell the difference, it's just omphaloskepsis.

We can tell the difference because we all know what a mind is. The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion.

You have a solution for hard solipsism and P-zombies?! I'd love to hear them...

How would those solutions be needed to justify my claim above?



Without knowing what you mean by "mind stuff", such a question can't be answered.

That which is contained in mind.

Not a helpful definition.

It's completely helpful, the only property that needs to be known for the Idealistic conclusion is the property of being mental, any ignorance of any other properties of the mind stuff is irrelevant.


Most likely information.

I strongly disagree with this. "Mind" =/= "information" alone. The will is not information per se--and that's what makes it a mind.

No mind doesn't equal information alone, the information must be integrated, at least according to Totoni's Information Theory of Consciousness. If John Wheeler's "it from bit" concept is true (which is probably is, as an informational universe it is the only viable candidate right now for meshing Relativity with Quantum Mechanics), and if this universe is integrated (which it would be due to Quantum Entanglement), then the universe itself would be a conscious state, but that's a different debate all together.

Indeed.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 9:03:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 1:47:56 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

There's a point at which the "thought" of moving the arm is converted into the electrical signal that does in fact move your arm--but where that point precisely is, and how it works in relation to your thought, is very poorly understood.

Sensorimotor cortex?

Also, how do you know that the electrical signal doesn't cause the thought?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 9:44:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 8:57:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Right. But you can't define it in any meaningful sense beyond that.

You assume that definition isn't sufficient, when I think it is.

I think that the definition is not sufficient to make the sort of sweeping claims you want to make, yeah.

That's the sum total of the properties you can attribute to it.

That's all that needs to be attributed to it to prove my point. Either way, If we see a rock in sand, then a day later, we see the rock in a different place, we know that something moved the rock. Even if we don't know the other properties of the something it doesn't matter, we know it moved the rock. Similarly, even if we don't know the other properties of the "mind stuff", it doesn't matter, the one property of "mental" is sufficient for the Idealistic conclusion.

Not at all. You see, we know SOMETHING moved the rock, but we can't say anything more than that without further information. Similarly, you can't say that some sort of "great mind" would have any properties, because you can't conceptualize what that would be; we have no experience of it, we don't know its attributes, and we don't know whether it would be like ours or not.

It is the same stuff that our minds have.

I think you've got a long way to go to establishing that all "mind stuff" is the same.

Why wouldn't it be? To think otherwise would be an unnecessary violation of Occam's Razor.

You're using that wrong.

It doesn't violate the principle of parsimony to say we don't know enough to make a conclusion. To say that we know enough to say that some kind of "great mind" would be the same as ours is to go beyond what we know, making ANY assumptions about it is invalid. We just don't know. You may as well say "Well, I know what's in Box A, so assuming the contents of Box B are any different violates Occam's Razor". That is, I hope, pretty absurd.

Either way, it is completely irrelevant. the point is that God is usually defined as a Grand-Mind, so if he creates a universe from himself then he is forming a universe from mind and the universe would be mental by definition.

Again, I think you've got a long way to go to proving that. One can make different substances from different substances, after all, ones that have no real relation to the original.

This all depends on how you define "substance". From a metaphysical standpoint (which is the standpoint I am talking about), that is about as false as you can get.


I think it simply follows that creation Ex-Dio entails an immaterial universe that is mental in nature, or else we are forced to ask "where did God got the 'material' from to make this universe?"

Conversion. Which I'm not defending as definitely possible, but merely asserting that you're nowhere near having grounds to assert it's impossible.

If God converts aspects of his mentality into atoms, then those atoms would have to be composed of God's mentality or the only other option is they are composed of nothing (as only God would exist "before" the universe, there would be nothing else for these atoms to be composed of) and they would still reduce to the mental.

Prove it. Moreover, prove that you can't take the fundamental building blocks of "mind stuff" and make what we consider "not mind stuff" out of it. We can take, in theory, atoms and covert them to other atoms because they're made of more fundamental particles. Prove to me that mind stuff and non mind stuff aren't made of more fundamental stuff.

It is like how if you convert a tree into a wooden chair, the chair is just the tree in a different state, similarly, if God creates atoms out of his mentality, then those atoms would just be the aspect of that mentality in a different state. None the less, they are inherently mental.

Again, prove it. You can't. You just want to take it as an assumption. I'm sorry, but given that you don't actually KNOW anything about this great mind and literally everything about it is what you've thought of without reference to reality, I don't think you can really defend it.

It couldn't have been from nothing, and it couldn't be from God or else that would mean God was material!

No, it wouldn't.

I can make a sail from cotton, it doesn't follow that cotton is a sail--it needs to be converted into cloth first.

The sail is the cotton in a different form. Every object, essentially, is just a bunch of atoms rearranged and moving a certain way. If God drew these atoms out of his being, then the atoms are just God's mentality manifested in a certain way. At the very least this is the most rational conclusion, if not necessarily true.

Not in the slightest, because it makes so many assumptions that it has no value. I could just as easily argue that mind stuff and non mind stuff have fundamental particles. THere are other avenues, too--we just don't have the information necessary to know if any of them are more likely than any others, so it's just omphaloskepsis.

So if God is immaterial and a mind, and he creates a universe out of himself, then it seems logical to assume that the universe boils down to mental properties.

But again, you're assuming. It's a tower of assumptions with no actual basis whatsoever except what seems plausible to you. The universe never cares about what seems plausible to us.

Metaphysics is the basis of it.

And metaphysics, more often than not, is people making assumptions about things they don't actually know about.

Actually, the thought isn't converted into the electrical signal, the electrical signal is caused by the thought. That's like saying my finger pulling the trigger converts into a bullet coming out, of course it doesn't, that is just the cause.

A fair, if semantical point. The thrust of the argument remains the same, though.

We can tell the difference because we all know what a mind is. The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion.

You have a solution for hard solipsism and P-zombies?! I'd love to hear them...

How would those solutions be needed to justify my claim above?

"The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion. "

So, is the world you experience in your mind, or mind-independent? Because that would solve hard solipsism. And something that is mindless is a P-zombie.

That which is contained in mind.

Not a helpful definition.

It's completely helpful, the only property that needs to be known for the Idealistic conclusion is the property of being mental, any ignorance of any other properties of the mind stuff is irrelevant.

I disagree. You can't prove that mind stuff can't be converted into non-mind stuff. Not even knowing that means you can't make any of the sweeping claims you've made. Your entire argument boils down to the notion that "If I make a bunch of assumptions that I can't defend as reasonable, here's the necessary conclusion I draw".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 9:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 9:03:18 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/9/2015 1:47:56 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:

There's a point at which the "thought" of moving the arm is converted into the electrical signal that does in fact move your arm--but where that point precisely is, and how it works in relation to your thought, is very poorly understood.

Sensorimotor cortex?

Also, how do you know that the electrical signal doesn't cause the thought?

I don't--which is entirely my point. I'm arguing that we shouldn't be making a leaning tower of assumptions.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 12:36:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

God is also usually described as omnipotent. Hence he could create a idealistic universe as you described it, a dualistic universe where he simply creates another (physical) substance, a trialistic one (dualism + ectoplasm?) or maybe even a materialistic universe where he simply fades out of existence after its creation.

Arguing about which option is the most rational seems rather ungrounded.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 10:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 9:44:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/10/2015 8:57:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:



I think that the definition is not sufficient to make the sort of sweeping claims you want to make, yeah.

The claim is that the universe is mental if God creates it, how is that "sweeping"?


That's the sum total of the properties you can attribute to it.



Not at all. You see, we know SOMETHING moved the rock, but we can't say anything more than that without further information.

Exactly, and we know that mind stuff is SOMETHING that is mental, even if we don't know anything else. The mental property is all that is required here.

Similarly, you can't say that some sort of "great mind" would have any properties, because you can't conceptualize what that would be; we have no experience of it, we don't know its attributes, and we don't know whether it would be like ours or not.

It would be way more intricate and grand than ours, but there is no reason to unnecessarily assume it is of a different mental substance because there is no evidence for any other type of mental substance (why assume two substances when one suffices?). Anyway, just like how my new Laptop is more powerful and great than a calculator from the 80's, at the end of the day, they both reduce to atoms and are of the same substance ontologically. Similarly, it makes more sense to say God's mind is of the same substance and mind stuff of ours, than to make up a brand new "mind stuff" category and violate Occam's Razor.


You're using that wrong.

No I'm not.


It doesn't violate the principle of parsimony to say we don't know enough to make a conclusion.

What violates Occam's Razor would be to assume that God's mind would be of a different metaphysical substance than ours when there is no evidence that this other substance even exists. Even 35 years ago if we were to guess what a grand-computer would be like, we would assume it is still made of atoms no matter how much more complex it is. Similarly, if we are to guess what a grand-mind would be like, we should still assume it is made of the mind-stuff we directly know.

To say that we know enough to say that some kind of "great mind" would be the same as ours is to go beyond what we know, making ANY assumptions about it is invalid.

Nobody is saying it is the same, just that it is the same metaphysical substance.

We just don't know. You may as well say "Well, I know what's in Box A, so assuming the contents of Box B are any different violates Occam's Razor". That is, I hope, pretty absurd.

What you are saying is absurd, think about it, it would be like 35 years ago claiming that we don't know what computers 35 years from now will be like, so we should hold off on the assumption that they are made of atoms as our 80's calculators are ....Think about it..

Prove it.

I just did with my argument. God can't create atoms out of nothing, so he must have created them from himself. Since he is a grand-mind, then atoms must be made of mental substance. Pretty simple...

Moreover, prove that you can't take the fundamental building blocks of "mind stuff" and make what we consider "not mind stuff" out of it.

Of course you can. We do it whenever we dream, we see chairs, hallways, and all these other things we create mentally.

We can take, in theory, atoms and covert them to other atoms because they're made of more fundamental particles. Prove to me that mind stuff and non mind stuff aren't made of more fundamental stuff.

Because that would mean there is something more fundamental than God, which is impossible if Theism is true. If this Grand-Mind exists, then this mind-stuff is fundamental. Remember, we are assuming Theism is true here for the sake of argument.


Again, prove it. You can't.

I just proved it with logic. If you have X which is composed of X stuff, and you want to create Y out of X, Y must also be made of X stuff as well or else Y has to be composed and made out of nothing (which makes no sense).

You just want to take it as an assumption.

How is that an assumption? That is absurd that you think it is just an assumption. If I have a tree and I want to make a wooden chair out of it, the chair must be made out of the same stuff the tree is or else the task is inherently illogical! Same thing, if God creates things out of this mentality, then these things are composed of his mentality. If God creates a universe that is not composed of his mind stuff, then the only alternative is he created it out of nothing (which is nonsense).

I'm sorry, but given that you don't actually KNOW anything about this great mind and literally everything about it is what you've thought of without reference to reality, I don't think you can really defend it.

The only thing that needs to be known is the property of "mental" for the Idealistic conclusion to follow, any other properties are irrelevant to this argument at hand.


Not in the slightest, because it makes so many assumptions that it has no value.

There are no assumptions, just conclusions that follow logically.

I could just as easily argue that mind stuff and non mind stuff have fundamental particles.

False, we are assuming Theism is true for the same of argument. I am arguing that if Theism is true, and God created a universe, then then universe must be mental. If there is something more fundamental than God and his mind-stuff then Theism is false and it doesn't apply to this argument anyway.


And metaphysics, more often than not, is people making assumptions about things they don't actually know about.

Only those who don't understand metaphysics would say such a thing.


Actually, the thought isn't converted into the electrical signal, the electrical signal is caused by the thought. That's like saying my finger pulling the trigger converts into a bullet coming out, of course it doesn't, that is just the cause.

A fair, if semantical point. The thrust of the argument remains the same, though.

I don't see how it remains the same.


We can tell the difference because we all know what a mind is. The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion.

You have a solution for hard solipsism and P-zombies?! I'd love to hear them...

How would those solutions be needed to justify my claim above?

"The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion. "

So, is the world you experience in your mind, or mind-independent?

False-dichotomy. You assume the world I experience would have to stem from my mind if it is mind-dependent, when it could stem from God's.

Because that would solve hard solipsism. And something that is mindless is a P-zombie.

All you did here is repeat yourself. How would the answer to that question solve those problems?



I disagree. You can't prove that mind stuff can't be converted into non-mind stuff.

It's the same reason you cannot take something made of atoms, and create something not made of atoms out of it (it is illogical). All the evidence we have confirms this, things of the same substance can only change form.

Well, as a poster in another thread mentioned, which I disagree with in one aspect but in a metaphysical sense is right, the philosophical Truism:

Not even knowing that means you can't make any of the sweeping claims you've made. Your entire argument boils down to the notion that "If I make a bunch of assumptions that I can't defend as reasonable, here's the necessary conclusion I draw".

You think it is unreasonable to assume "to make Y out of X's stuff, Y must also be composed of X's stuff"? Wow...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 10:06:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 12:36:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

God is also usually described as omnipotent. Hence he could create a idealistic universe as you described it, a dualistic universe where he simply creates another (physical) substance, a trialistic one (dualism + ectoplasm?) or maybe even a materialistic universe where he simply fades out of existence after its creation.

Arguing about which option is the most rational seems rather ungrounded.

God can only do that which is metaphysically possible, even if he is omnipotent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:32:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 10:04:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The claim is that the universe is mental if God creates it, how is that "sweeping"?

Whether a claim is sweeping is, granted, subjective.

But you don't see "The universe is mental" as a sweeping claim, even if it's constrained by the conditional? What IS a sweeping claim, then, if a non-trivial claim about the fundamental nature of the universe isn't one?

Exactly, and we know that mind stuff is SOMETHING that is mental, even if we don't know anything else. The mental property is all that is required here.

You're making more claims than that alone, however, and it's a bit disingenuous to claim that all you're claiming is that mind stuff is something that is mental. You're expanding on what properties "something that is mental" must have, including an inability to converto to nonmental, and you're doing that based on no grounds other than that it's mental.

It would be way more intricate and grand than ours, but there is no reason to unnecessarily assume it is of a different mental substance because there is no evidence for any other type of mental substance (why assume two substances when one suffices?).

You don't know there's only one! You only know that there's such a thing as a mental substance, by virtue of there being a mind. For all you know, every mind is composed of a distinctly different kind of mental substance (akin to a soul). Or not, it's all the same. You can't just assume "welp, it's all the same, therefore it's the same as god's" and argue that's parsimonious.

Anyway, just like how my new Laptop is more powerful and great than a calculator from the 80's, at the end of the day, they both reduce to atoms and are of the same substance ontologically. Similarly, it makes more sense to say God's mind is of the same substance and mind stuff of ours, than to make up a brand new "mind stuff" category and violate Occam's Razor.

Except that, again, you still can't differentiate between mind stuff and "real stuff", nor can you establish there's only one kind of mind stuff, and you are misusing Occam's Razor. Parsimony is intended to prevent proliferation of ideas when unnecessary--but you have to have some idea whether it's necessary. Again, you can't say "Well, I've seen a box with a cat in it, therefore there's a cat in this sealed box because assuming otherwise would violate Occam's Razor".

You have a fundamentally different mind, so we've already multiplied our entities necessarily. The question is whether it's similar, or different. Given taht we don't know anything about our own mind stuff except that it is mind stuff, making assertions or assumptions about this "great mind" is a fool's errand.

What violates Occam's Razor would be to assume that God's mind would be of a different metaphysical substance than ours when there is no evidence that this other substance even exists.

The principle of parsimony can be misused, and you're misusing it here.

And that's not what I'm assuming, but thanks for creating a strawman! What I'm saying is that YOUR assumption is unwarranted, and giving alternatives. Yours has no more grounds than the one I proposed, is the point, not that mine is "right". My entire point is that you're speculating.

Even 35 years ago if we were to guess what a grand-computer would be like,

Yup! It would have GIANT vacuum tubes and INFINITE punch cards!

we would assume it is still made of atoms no matter how much more complex it is. Similarly, if we are to guess what a grand-mind would be like, we should still assume it is made of the mind-stuff we directly know.

We don't directly know mind stuff.

To say that we know enough to say that some kind of "great mind" would be the same as ours is to go beyond what we know, making ANY assumptions about it is invalid.

Nobody is saying it is the same, just that it is the same metaphysical substance.

So, nobody is saying it's the same, just that it's the same?

We just don't know. You may as well say "Well, I know what's in Box A, so assuming the contents of Box B are any different violates Occam's Razor". That is, I hope, pretty absurd.

What you are saying is absurd, think about it, it would be like 35 years ago claiming that we don't know what computers 35 years from now will be like, so we should hold off on the assumption that they are made of atoms as our 80's calculators are ....Think about it..

I am thinking about it. The point is: We know nothing about mind stuff except that it's mind stuff. For all you know, an amount of mind stuff greater than X can spontaenously convert a portion into non-mind stuff just as a product of its nature, much like a "Critical mass". Again, you're just making up assumptions and then arguing that you don't have to support them. That's not how parsimony works.

I just did with my argument. God can't create atoms out of nothing, so he must have created them from himself. Since he is a grand-mind, then atoms must be made of mental substance. Pretty simple...

You can't prove that he can't convert a mental substance to a non-mental substance.

Moreover, prove that you can't take the fundamental building blocks of "mind stuff" and make what we consider "not mind stuff" out of it.

Of course you can. We do it whenever we dream, we see chairs, hallways, and all these other things we create mentally.

So you concede that mind stuff can be converted into non-mind stuff? That would rather invalidate your entire argument...

We can take, in theory, atoms and covert them to other atoms because they're made of more fundamental particles. Prove to me that mind stuff and non mind stuff aren't made of more fundamental stuff.

Because that would mean there is something more fundamental than God, which is impossible if Theism is true. If this Grand-Mind exists, then this mind-stuff is fundamental. Remember, we are assuming Theism is true here for the sake of argument.

No it wouldn't. I can't tell if you're trolling me here....

If Theism as you present it is true, God is a great mind. Mental stuff could (not saying IS, saying you can't show it's not) be composed of fundamental particles.

Think of it this way: Maybe mind stuff is like metals, and non-mind stuff like noble gasses. Both made up of atoms. God would then be making non mind stuff by breaking up parts of his mind stuff and converting them to non-mind-stuff.

You can't present an arguemnt that shows that to be false, because you don't know anything about mind stuff except that it is mind stuff.

I just proved it with logic. If you have X which is composed of X stuff, and you want to create Y out of X, Y must also be made of X stuff as well or else Y has to be composed and made out of nothing (which makes no sense).

You are assuming that nothing is more fundamental than mind stuff, that it can't be broken into a more fundamental form (such as atoms to protons/neutrons/electrons).

How is that an assumption?

Well, when you take something as true without supporting it as true, generally we consider those things to be assumptions.

That is absurd that you think it is just an assumption. If I have a tree and I want to make a wooden chair out of it, the chair must be made out of the same stuff the tree is or else the task is inherently illogical! Same thing, if God creates ...

You could in theory create a metal table out of a wooden chair, if you were able to break up the atoms. It wouldn't be composed of the same stuff (wood), and yet it would in a sense (p/e/n). But it would be absurd to say the metal table is still made from wood--it's made from the more fundamental particles.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:33:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The only thing that needs to be known is the property of "mental" for the Idealistic conclusion to follow, any other properties are irrelevant to this argument at hand.

No, they absolutely aren't, as I've already established. You need to assume that mental is fundamental and cannot be broken down, that it can't be converted into nonmental, that all mental things are fundamentally the same "stuff".

These are huge assumptions without any basis.

False, we are assuming Theism is true for the same of argument. I am arguing that if Theism is true, and God created a universe, then then universe must be mental. If there is something more fundamental than God and his mind-stuff then Theism is false and it doesn't apply to this argument anyway.

God in your argument is a great mind. There's nothing precluding that great mind from being made from more fundamental "particles", nor from those "particles" being convertable to non-mental matter. Agian, you're assuming that the mental is the most fundamental layer, and you have no grounds to assume that.

And metaphysics, more often than not, is people making assumptions about things they don't actually know about.

Only those who don't understand metaphysics would say such a thing.

Well, that's exactly what your'e doing: Making assumptions, then ignoring your own assumptions and pretending that you've made a case based only on logical necessity when nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, I grant that I was being somewhat flippant, but let's not get into a peeing match on who knows more about metaphysics, because it's irrelevant to the question on the floor.

Actually, the thought isn't converted into the electrical signal, the electrical signal is caused by the thought. That's like saying my finger pulling the trigger converts into a bullet coming out, of course it doesn't, that is just the cause.

A fair, if semantical point. The thrust of the argument remains the same, though.

I don't see how it remains the same.

We don't fully understand how the electrical signal is caused by the thought, is my point. At some level, there's an exchange--mental to physical realms. How that works at the actual interface point is largely a mystery despite rather large advances in neuroscience.

"The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion. "

So, is the world you experience in your mind, or mind-independent?

False-dichotomy. You assume the world I experience would have to stem from my mind if it is mind-dependent, when it could stem from God's.

Not an answer, nor is that a false dichotomy. It's what solipsism is. If you are a mind, which is actually part of a greater mind (God's) the question still applies on the former horn of the dilemma.

Because that would solve hard solipsism. And something that is mindless is a P-zombie.

All you did here is repeat yourself. How would the answer to that question solve those problems?

Do you now know what solipsism is, or how the answer to the question: is the world you experience in your mind, or mind-independent? would answer it?

I disagree. You can't prove that mind stuff can't be converted into non-mind stuff.

It's the same reason you cannot take something made of atoms, and create something not made of atoms out of it (it is illogical). All the evidence we have confirms this, things of the same substance can only change form.

Except that yes, we could--we could make a pile of the atoms constituent parts (that is, protons, electrons, etc.). So it's neitehr illogical, nor impossible. And even P/E/N are made of more fundamental particles, so it's entirely possible in theory to make something else entirely out of

You think it is unreasonable to assume "to make Y out of X's stuff, Y must also be composed of X's stuff"? Wow...

I think that you're leaving out necessary assumptions here--it seems to be a blind spot of yours. You're assuming that X is not composed of more fundamental elements taht could be reconfigured into Z (non mental) and that thus, if Y (the universe) is made from X (mind stuff), it must be X (mind stuff). If there is something more fundamental that makes up mind stuff, and it also makes up non-mind stuff, then it's perfectly reasonable to have X make Z.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:34:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
tl;dr:

Your biggest 2 assumptions are that we can draw conclusions about a "great mind" from our own minds, and that the property of being mental is irreducible. Those are unwarranted assumptions, and without them, your entire argument falls apart.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:38:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, and of course there's the assumption of the possible existence of a non-material mind--let's not forget that!

The argument assumes a theistic deity, but it could be that such a deity can only have a mind (and therefore be a Great Mind) if it's embodies in a physical form--that could be a necessary element to even HAVE "mind stuff", in which case there WOULD be non-mind-stuff to work with. We don't know that it's even possible to have a mind without materialism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:01:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:32:14 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 10:04:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:



Whether a claim is sweeping is, granted, subjective.

But you don't see "The universe is mental" as a sweeping claim, even if it's constrained by the conditional?

If the universe is a manifestation of something mental, then no, it seems like a very reasonable claim and not very sweeping at all.

What IS a sweeping claim, then, if a non-trivial claim about the fundamental nature of the universe isn't one?

The universe is formed from a mind and is a manifestation of one, but it isn't mental in nature. That to me is a sweeping claim.

You're making more claims than that alone, however, and it's a bit disingenuous to claim that all you're claiming is that mind stuff is something that is mental. You're expanding on what properties "something that is mental" must have, including an inability to converto to nonmental, and you're doing that based on no grounds other than that it's mental.

If this mental substance is fundamental, then no it cannot just convert into something non-fundamental as that would contradict its essence.

You don't know there's only one! You only know that there's such a thing as a mental substance, by virtue of there being a mind. For all you know, every mind is composed of a distinctly different kind of mental substance (akin to a soul). Or not, it's all the same. You can't just assume "welp, it's all the same, therefore it's the same as god's" and argue that's parsimonious.

It's extremely parsimonious. Other theories would have to say there are multiple types of mental stuff when mine only requires one type of mental stuff. The other theory complicates thing unnecessarily even if I don't know 100% that there isn't other mental stuff (of course, it would seem strange that we have cause and effect relationships with these minds so easily if they are really of a different substance).

Except that, again, you still can't differentiate between mind stuff and "real stuff"

Mind stuff is real stuff, and real stuff is mind stuff.

nor can you establish there's only one kind of mind stuff, and you are misusing Occam's Razor.

No I am not. Occam's Razor is about sticking with what we know and not making additional assumptions. Whatever my mind stuff is, I know it has to exist, and there is no reason to assume you have any different stuff, or God for that matter.

Parsimony is intended to prevent proliferation of ideas when unnecessary--but you have to have some idea whether it's necessary.

It is not necessary to assume other types of mind stuff though.

Again, you can't say "Well, I've seen a box with a cat in it, therefore there's a cat in this sealed box because assuming otherwise would violate Occam's Razor".

False analogy. I am saying that one type of mind stuff can explain all mind stuff easier than multiple different mind stuffs. There is no reason to unnecessarily multiply the types of mind stuff there is.

You have a fundamentally different mind, so we've already multiplied our entities necessarily

Having a different mind doesn't mean we are composed of different mind stuff. As I said, an 80's calculator is a different computer than a 2015 Mac Book Pro but it is still made of the same stuff.

The question is whether it's similar, or different. Given taht we don't know anything about our own mind stuff except that it is mind stuff, making assertions or assumptions about this "great mind" is a fool's errand.

The point is that there are two options: multiple types of mind stuff to explain all mind stuff, and one type of mind stuff to explain all mind stuff. One is unnecessarily complex, and one is elegant and simple.

The principle of parsimony can be misused, and you're misusing it here.

No I am really not, I am using it perfectly. It is all about sticking with what we know..

Yours has no more grounds than the one I proposed, is the point, not that mine is "right". My entire point is that you're speculating.

It has more grounds on the fact that it is sticking with what I know and doesn't multiply categories unnecessarily. Any scientist would chose a theory in which one substance can explain everything over a theory in which multiple substances are required.

We don't directly know mind stuff.

Let me reword that, the minds we directly know of are composed of a substance. There is no reason to think it is of a different substance, just like how to physicalists, everything is of the same physical substance, in Idealism, everything is of the same mental substance. When you multiply categories unnecessarily, I am sorry, but that theory is to be rejected. It would be like adding ferries and goblins to types of organisms. There is no need. Stick with what we know for a theory to have a better chance of being correct.

So, nobody is saying it's the same, just that it's the same?

Being of the same substance, doesn't mean it is the same.

I am thinking about it. The point is: We know nothing about mind stuff except that it's mind stuff. For all you know, an amount of mind stuff greater than X can spontaenously convert a portion into non-mind stuff just as a product of its nature, much like a "Critical mass". Again, you're just making up assumptions and then arguing that you don't have to support them. That's not how parsimony works.

This makes no sense. Something that is non-mental, is something that doesn't manifest or come from a mind by definition. I don't even know what it means for something to manifest from a mind and be non-mental. That doesn't even really make sense.

You can't prove that he can't convert a mental substance to a non-mental substance.

I don't even know what that means. How do you define non-mental substance then, if not that what which is not a mind or manifests from mind?

So you concede that mind stuff can be converted into non-mind stuff? That would rather invalidate your entire argument...

I concede that objects which people consider non-mental could be made out of the mental, but they would be wrong in considering that are non-mental.

If Theism as you present it is true, God is a great mind. Mental stuff could (not saying IS, saying you can't show it's not) be composed of fundamental particles.

I can't tell if you are trolling....No Theist would ever say that God being composed of particles is compatible with Theism. God created particles, he isn't dependent on them. That would directly contradict God's fundamentality and necessity.

Think of it this way: Maybe mind stuff is like metals, and non-mind stuff like noble gasses. Both made up of atoms. God would then be making non mind stuff by breaking up parts of his mind stuff and converting them to non-mind-stuff.

Impossible, as this would mean these atoms were logically prior to God which contradicts God's ultimate fundamentality.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:33:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The only thing that needs to be known is the property of "mental" for the Idealistic conclusion to follow, any other properties are irrelevant to this argument at hand.

No, they absolutely aren't, as I've already established. You need to assume that mental is fundamental and cannot be broken down

That's because this argument assumes Theism in the first place for the sake of argument. If Theism is true, then God's mental is fundamental and irreducible. That simply follows from what the concept of God is.

, that it can't be converted into nonmental

Anything manifested from a mind is mental by definition.. If you have a mind, and something manifests from it or is made out of your mind, that thing is mental by default. I wouldn't even know what you meant by a non-mental thing manifesting from a mind, that makes as much sense as a perfectly round square.

, that all mental things are fundamentally the same "stuff".

If our minds are made out of God's mental, then yes they would be made of the same stuff. Just like if a wooden chair is made out of a tree, that chair has to be made of the same thing that tree is.


These are huge assumptions without any basis.

There is tons of basis. First of we already are assuming that God's mental is fundamental as Theism assumes that, and we are assuming Theism for the sake of argument. Second, the concept of something manifesting from a mind which is non-mental is a contradiction in terms. Thirdly, if our minds are composed of God's mind, then obviously our minds would be of the same substance.


False, we are assuming Theism is true for the same of argument. I am arguing that if Theism is true, and God created a universe, then then universe must be mental. If there is something more fundamental than God and his mind-stuff then Theism is false and it doesn't apply to this argument anyway.

God in your argument is a great mind. There's nothing precluding that great mind from being made from more fundamental "particles", nor from those "particles" being convertable to non-mental matter.

God in my argument is a great mind, but not just a great mind, because if something is more fundamental than God then God doesn't exist, as God is the most fundamental being by definition. But we are assuming God exists for the sake of argument.

Agian, you're assuming that the mental is the most fundamental layer, and you have no grounds to assume that.

Again, the argument is that IF Theism is true and God created the universe, then Idealism is true. I wasn't arguing that Theism is true. Ergo, the idea that God's mental is the most fundamental thing is assumed from the get go.


And metaphysics, more often than not, is people making assumptions about things they don't actually know about.

Only those who don't understand metaphysics would say such a thing.

Well, that's exactly what your'e doing: Making assumptions, then ignoring your own assumptions and pretending that you've made a case based only on logical necessity when nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think so.


Now, I grant that I was being somewhat flippant, but let's not get into a peeing match on who knows more about metaphysics, because it's irrelevant to the question on the floor.

Actually, the thought isn't converted into the electrical signal, the electrical signal is caused by the thought. That's like saying my finger pulling the trigger converts into a bullet coming out, of course it doesn't, that is just the cause.

A fair, if semantical point. The thrust of the argument remains the same, though.

I don't see how it remains the same.

We don't fully understand how the electrical signal is caused by the thought, is my point. At some level, there's an exchange--mental to physical realms.

This sounds rather Dualistic. If Idealim is true then it is all mental interaction, so what you are saying begs the question. In fact, some argue that the mental couldn't even interact with the physical unless the physical was inherently mental.

How that works at the actual interface point is largely a mystery despite rather large advances in neuroscience.

This assumes there is an interface point instead of it all being mental interaction. This is another reason why the physical world must be mental under this argument, because if the physical was of a completely different substance then the two wouldn't "recognize" another and causation would be impossible.


"The difference between something that is from mind or within mind and something that is mindless or mind-independent is as clear as day in my opinion. "

So, is the world you experience in your mind, or mind-independent?

False-dichotomy. You assume the world I experience would have to stem from my mind if it is mind-dependent, when it could stem from God's.

Not an answer, nor is that a false dichotomy. It's what solipsism is. If you are a mind, which is actually part of a greater mind (God's) the question still applies on the former horn of the dilemma.

Because that would solve hard solipsism. And something that is mindless is a P-zombie.

All you did here is repeat yourself. How would the answer to that question solve those problems?

Do you now know what solipsism is, or how the answer to the question: is the world you experience in your mind, or mind-independent? would answer it?

The world I experience is in my mind, in God's, and coheres with the world you experience as well. This has to relevance to the argument though.


I disagree. You can't prove that mind stuff can't be converted into non-mind stuff.

It's the same reason you cannot take something made of atoms, and create something not made of atoms out of it (it is illogical). All the evidence we have confirms this, things of the same substance can only change form.

Except that yes, we could--we could make a pile of the atoms constituent parts (that is, protons, electrons, etc.). So it's neitehr illogical, nor impossible.

That's different because the atoms would be reducible in that situation. We are assuming that the mental cannot be reduced as we are assuming Theism for the sake of argument.

And even P/E/N are made of more fundamental particles, so it's entirely possible in theory to make something else entirely out of

You think it is unreasonable to assume "to make Y out of X's stuff, Y must also be composed of X's stuff"? Wow...

I think that you're leaving out necessary assumptions here--it seems to be a blind spot of yours. You're assuming that X is not composed of more fundamental elements taht could be reconfigured into Z (non mental) and that thus, if Y (the universe) is made from X (mind stuff), it must be X (mind stuff). If there is something more fundamental that makes up mind stuff, and it also makes up non-mind stuff, then it's perfectly reasonable to have X make Z.

But if we assume such a thing, then we assume God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe. This is because for God to exist, then God's mentality would have to be fundamental as God is defined as a fundamental and necessary being.

You can't present an arguemnt that shows that to be false, because you don't know anything about mind stuff except that it is mind stuff.

Yes I can. If it manifests from a mind, it is mental by definition, and the idea that atoms are logically prior to God fail by default.

You are assuming that nothing is more fundamental than mind stuff, that it can't be broken into a more fundamental form (such as atoms to protons/neutrons/electrons).

Yes because Theism entails that, and we are assuming Theism here.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:21:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I fail to see how assuming theism NECESSARILY assumes that minds are irreducible entities. I would argue that second assumption is simply invalid. It's invalid under your framework, since our minds are reducible at least somewhat to components and you've argued that our minds should logically be similar to god's, and it's invalid just under what we think of as a "mind"--to be a mind it must think, to think requires a process, a process requires some level of differentation to be recognized as a process. My point here has been that we can't make too many arguments about what a purely mental being would or could do, because we can't really experience or conceive of such a thing. We can't say it IS reducible, or that it isn't, though I would argue that the former is infinitely more likely than the latter, as I would argue the latter is a contradiction in terms--an irreducible mind is like a square circle, it does not compute.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:30:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 10:06:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2015 12:36:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:16:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
But God is usually described as a grand-mind. If something is directly formed from a mind then it must be mental itself (like ideas, thoughts, emotions ect).

Doesn't this mean that the most rational view of God creating a universe is an Idealistic one?

God is also usually described as omnipotent. Hence he could create a idealistic universe as you described it, a dualistic universe where he simply creates another (physical) substance, a trialistic one (dualism + ectoplasm?) or maybe even a materialistic universe where he simply fades out of existence after its creation.

Arguing about which option is the most rational seems rather ungrounded.

God can only do that which is metaphysically possible, even if he is omnipotent.

How is the creation of extra substances not metaphysically possible?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic