Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Unorthodox Argument for God's Existence

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is an argument for God (it is in two parts, and both parts are valid via Modus Ponens ). God will be defined as "The mind that is/ grounds empirical reality".

P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental
P2: Our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa
C: Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental)

P2 I take as self-evident and not controversial at all. P1 becomes easy to accept once understanding what interaction is. Interaction is what occurs when properties cohere. For example, the properties of a knife are that of an object composed of atoms, and the bread it slices is composed of atoms as well; they interact. However, if two things are metaphysically distinct, and are of two fundamentally different types of things then their properties would not cohere or "acknowledge" each other... Interaction would not occur. Our mental world of emotions, love, hate, feelings, thoughts, mental imagery, perceptions and what not is nothing like a world of mindless atomic interactions and dead matter moving around due to unconscious forces. The conscious experience of an orgasm is not at all like an non-mental electron moving in the void. If empirical reality is really made up of these objects with non-mental properties then it would be impossible for this reality to interact with our minds, and our minds couldn't interact with it. But, our minds do interact with empirical reality. Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental).

P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't you find trying to prove God with an equation pointless? It's like the program contemplating the programmer.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:51:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:32:24 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Don't you find trying to prove God with an equation pointless? It's like the program contemplating the programmer.

I believe the programmer wants us to contemplate him. Either way, the laws of logic are a necessary condition for all statements to be either true or false and must be presupposed if anybody is going to claim anything. If an argument is logically valid and the premises are true then the conclusion must follow. To deny this would be illogical in itself because you would be denying the very thing that potentially could make your claim true in the first place.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:54:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an argument for God (it is in two parts, and both parts are valid via Modus Ponens ). God will be defined as "The mind that is/ grounds empirical reality".

P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental
P2: Our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa
C: Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental)

P2 I take as self-evident and not controversial at all. P1 becomes easy to accept once understanding what interaction is. Interaction is what occurs when properties cohere. For example, the properties of a knife are that of an object composed of atoms, and the bread it slices is composed of atoms as well; they interact. However, if two things are metaphysically distinct, and are of two fundamentally different types of things then their properties would not cohere or "acknowledge" each other... Interaction would not occur. Our mental world of emotions, love, hate, feelings, thoughts, mental imagery, perceptions and what not is nothing like a world of mindless atomic interactions and dead matter moving around due to unconscious forces. The conscious experience of an orgasm is not at all like an non-mental electron moving in the void. If empirical reality is really made up of these objects with non-mental properties then it would be impossible for this reality to interact with our minds, and our minds couldn't interact with it. But, our minds do interact with empirical reality. Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental).

P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.

On the reverse some take the monism route of materialism. And infer that the mind is really just mindless unconscious atoms interacting with each other. In this respect everything is of one substance.

But I have question and see how you reconcile it. If we are thoughts in a greater mind, how is it that our own thoughts say imaginary friends don't seem to have self-awareness?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:14:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:54:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an argument for God (it is in two parts, and both parts are valid via Modus Ponens ). God will be defined as "The mind that is/ grounds empirical reality".

P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental
P2: Our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa
C: Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental)

P2 I take as self-evident and not controversial at all. P1 becomes easy to accept once understanding what interaction is. Interaction is what occurs when properties cohere. For example, the properties of a knife are that of an object composed of atoms, and the bread it slices is composed of atoms as well; they interact. However, if two things are metaphysically distinct, and are of two fundamentally different types of things then their properties would not cohere or "acknowledge" each other... Interaction would not occur. Our mental world of emotions, love, hate, feelings, thoughts, mental imagery, perceptions and what not is nothing like a world of mindless atomic interactions and dead matter moving around due to unconscious forces. The conscious experience of an orgasm is not at all like an non-mental electron moving in the void. If empirical reality is really made up of these objects with non-mental properties then it would be impossible for this reality to interact with our minds, and our minds couldn't interact with it. But, our minds do interact with empirical reality. Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental).

P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.

On the reverse some take the monism route of materialism. And infer that the mind is really just mindless unconscious atoms interacting with each other. In this respect everything is of one substance.

That is a contradiction. The mind cannot be mindless. That is like saying something can be physical, but physicalless.

Either way, the mind cannot be doubted logically, as "doubt" is mental by definition and would presuppose the mind. If we know anything, then we "know" the mind exists as knowledge is mental by definition. Therefore, if we know anything, we know 100% that the mind exists and we cannot doubt it coherently .

On the flip side, the material can be doubted, after all, for all you know you are in The Matrix, or Solipsism is true. You take for granted that you live in a material world but it can be coherently doubted none the less.

This means that if Monism is true, then the logical conclusion would be to have the substance be mental because if we know anything; we know the mental has to exist necessarily. However, we can doubt the non-mental meaning that it is "weaker" as a posit for the type of substance we should deem is the only one.

After all, what's the safer bet to be true? Something we know 100% to be true, or something that can be doubted? I would put my money on something we know 100% has to be true, and cannot be doubted coherently. That is mentality...


But I have question and see how you reconcile it. If we are thoughts in a greater mind, how is it that our own thoughts say imaginary friends don't seem to have self-awareness?

Our minds are localized states in mind-at-large. This is analogous to how a whirlpool is a localized state of water... Meaning that the water as a whole (the grand mind) isn't exactly like the whirlpool (the localized states of mind; us). There would be no reason to expect the images that stem from our obfuscated aspects of mind to be conscious like the beings that stem from mind-at-large.

Also, perhaps our imagined beings are conscious but at some very rudimentary level not comparable to us. Either way, I don't see this as a problem for Idealism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:32:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:54:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an argument for God (it is in two parts, and both parts are valid via Modus Ponens ). God will be defined as "The mind that is/ grounds empirical reality".

P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental
P2: Our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa
C: Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental)

P2 I take as self-evident and not controversial at all. P1 becomes easy to accept once understanding what interaction is. Interaction is what occurs when properties cohere. For example, the properties of a knife are that of an object composed of atoms, and the bread it slices is composed of atoms as well; they interact. However, if two things are metaphysically distinct, and are of two fundamentally different types of things then their properties would not cohere or "acknowledge" each other... Interaction would not occur. Our mental world of emotions, love, hate, feelings, thoughts, mental imagery, perceptions and what not is nothing like a world of mindless atomic interactions and dead matter moving around due to unconscious forces. The conscious experience of an orgasm is not at all like an non-mental electron moving in the void. If empirical reality is really made up of these objects with non-mental properties then it would be impossible for this reality to interact with our minds, and our minds couldn't interact with it. But, our minds do interact with empirical reality. Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental).

P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.

On the reverse some take the monism route of materialism. And infer that the mind is really just mindless unconscious atoms interacting with each other. In this respect everything is of one substance.

But I have question and see how you reconcile it. If we are thoughts in a greater mind, how is it that our own thoughts say imaginary friends don't seem to have self-awareness?

Oh, and I see you are Christian. I would say that creation itself is better explained by Idealism as well and that Dualism is a metaphysically problematic approach to creation. Lets assume there is a state of affairs in which only God exists... If he is to create a universe it seems he has two options:

(i) Create a material universe from absolutely nothing
(ii) Create a mental/ spiritual universe from himself

Creation from nothing seems absurd. God may be all powerful, but he can only be all powerful with what exists. The idea that something can come into being from nothing still seems metaphysically impossible even if we throw God into the equation. Where did God get the material from to make the universe? This is just an appeal to "magic" and isn't a good explanation at all.

However, we know that creation involves acting on what exists. If I am to build a house, I must build it out of something that already exists. So, if God is going to create a universe, he must create it out of something that exists. If all that exists is God, then it follows he must create the universe from himself. If God himself is a mental/ conscious/ spiritual entity, then the universe must also be made of God's substance.

This means that Theistic creation makes WAY more sense under Idealism than Dualism.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 1:38:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:51:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:32:24 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Don't you find trying to prove God with an equation pointless? It's like the program contemplating the programmer.

I believe the programmer wants us to contemplate him. Either way, the laws of logic are a necessary condition for all statements to be either true or false and must be presupposed if anybody is going to claim anything. If an argument is logically valid and the premises are true then the conclusion must follow. To deny this would be illogical in itself because you would be denying the very thing that potentially could make your claim true in the first place.

;)
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 11:09:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.

Why would the properties have to cohere? Properties emerge from empirical reality, they don't create it. Density and color are emergent properties of matter, but they don't necessarily interact. It sounds like you're placing artificial limitations on reality to bolster your argument. Also, by definition we can't conceive of non-mental properties, so how can you make claims about what they can or must do?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 11:39:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:09:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.

Why would the properties have to cohere? Properties emerge from empirical reality, they don't create it. Density and color are emergent properties of matter, but they don't necessarily interact. It sounds like you're placing artificial limitations on reality to bolster your argument. Also, by definition we can't conceive of non-mental properties, so how can you make claims about what they can or must do?

I think this guy and BenShapiro have been watching the same video and reading the same literature. Both want to say that only the mental actually exists and if it's exists as a 'mental' thing it is real. It's apparent that they are at least peripherally part of the Sye Ten Bruggencate school where 'how do you know you know?' is the question used to rebut factual evidence.

Before we start discussing things, define 'mental' versus 'non-mental' properties for us there Rational_Thinker9119 and let us evaluate your statement that they are nothing alike.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:01:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:39:43 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:09:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.

Why would the properties have to cohere? Properties emerge from empirical reality, they don't create it. Density and color are emergent properties of matter, but they don't necessarily interact. It sounds like you're placing artificial limitations on reality to bolster your argument. Also, by definition we can't conceive of non-mental properties, so how can you make claims about what they can or must do?

I think this guy and BenShapiro have been watching the same video and reading the same literature. Both want to say that only the mental actually exists and if it's exists as a 'mental' thing it is real. It's apparent that they are at least peripherally part of the Sye Ten Bruggencate school where 'how do you know you know?' is the question used to rebut factual evidence.

Not exactly. I'm not claiming that only the mental exists. I'm saying that ontological claims (which reference a fundamental reality), like "God exists" presupposes that reality is fundamentally mental. But if reality is fundamentally mental, God exists. If reality is not fundamentally mental, ontological claims cannot be made because they don't pertain to the fundamental reality.

Before we start discussing things, define 'mental' versus 'non-mental' properties for us there Rational_Thinker9119 and let us evaluate your statement that they are nothing alike.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:09:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.

Why would the properties have to cohere?

Because if they don't then interaction wouldn't occur. The properties wouldn't "recognize" each other as they are so different and there could be no causation. One would "go through" the other without interaction.

Properties emerge from empirical reality, they don't create it.

Everything has properties, is the point.

Density and color are emergent properties of matter, but they don't necessarily interact.

I'm not saying the properties interact, I'm saying the properties have to cohere for interaction. And color is not a property of matter, color is what we experience in our minds after light bounces off the mater. Matter doesn't have the property of color.

It sounds like you're placing artificial limitations on reality to bolster your argument.

It's not artificial but very real. If two things have completely different properties then there would be no coherence between the two things. Interaction without coherence is nonsense.

Also, by definition we can't conceive of non-mental properties, so how can you make claims about what they can or must do?

We can't conceive of a perfectly round square either, but we still know it must have edges and not have edges.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:49:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.

P1 is only true if solipsism is false (and well, good luck ever disproving that if you are already comitted to the position of idealism, since you would need to disprove solipsism in a manner which does not undermine idealism itself. Unless you would call yourself God if solipsism is true.

Even if solipsism is false, P1 is still unsound, since reality being mental does not require a mind to "ground" it if reality doesn't need 'grounding" in the first place (it already exists in people's minds, so why would it exist anywhere else?).
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:52:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 4:38:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:09:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.

Why would the properties have to cohere?

Because if they don't then interaction wouldn't occur. The properties wouldn't "recognize" each other as they are so different and there could be no causation. One would "go through" the other without interaction.

Properties emerge from empirical reality, they don't create it.

Everything has properties, is the point.

Density and color are emergent properties of matter, but they don't necessarily interact.

I'm not saying the properties interact, I'm saying the properties have to cohere for interaction. And color is not a property of matter, color is what we experience in our minds after light bounces off the mater. Matter doesn't have the property of color.

Matter reflects certain wavelengths of light which are focused onto our retina and trigger certain cells to send signals along our ocular nerves to our brains where those signals are interpreted. Color is a convenient way to describe the wavelengths reflected. Each color has a specific wavelength of light that is associated with it. Matter does have the property of color as defined by the wavelengths reflected.

It sounds like you're placing artificial limitations on reality to bolster your argument.

It's not artificial but very real. If two things have completely different properties then there would be no coherence between the two things. Interaction without coherence is nonsense.

Are heat and air different? Strange, they still interact in a big way.

Also, by definition we can't conceive of non-mental properties, so how can you make claims about what they can or must do?

We can't conceive of a perfectly round square either, but we still know it must have edges and not have edges.

A square cannot be round and that is self contradicting term. Your assertion is meaningless.

PS, still waiting on clarification about what exactly 'mental' properties are versus 'non-mental'.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:55:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 4:38:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:09:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:59:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:41:50 AM, Burzmali wrote:
How do you know that objects have only mental properties? Why can't an object have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because mental properties are nothing like non-mental properties. Therefore, one object having both properties would be nonsensical. In order for two properties to be aspects of one object the properties would have to cohere. Again, the world of mentality (thoughts, perceptions, emotions, mental imagery, feelings, experiences ect.) is nothing like the non-mental world (dead particles, mindless forces, unconscious fields ect.). Thus, the properties would not cohere, and it could be incoherent to say that an object can have both mental properties and non-mental properties.

Why would the properties have to cohere?

Because if they don't then interaction wouldn't occur. The properties wouldn't "recognize" each other as they are so different and there could be no causation. One would "go through" the other without interaction.

Do the properties of all objects have to interact? Why do the properties of an object have to "recognize" each other?

Properties emerge from empirical reality, they don't create it.

Everything has properties, is the point.

The maybe you should explain what definition of "cohere" you're using. Because the context you're using it in would indicate that properties cohere to create/form something.

Density and color are emergent properties of matter, but they don't necessarily interact.

I'm not saying the properties interact, I'm saying the properties have to cohere for interaction. And color is not a property of matter, color is what we experience in our minds after light bounces off the mater. Matter doesn't have the property of color.

Substitute "light refraction" for color, if you insist on being that pedantic about it. Regardless, your language seems to be a bit garbled. What must all of the properties of an object "cohere?"

It sounds like you're placing artificial limitations on reality to bolster your argument.

It's not artificial but very real. If two things have completely different properties then there would be no coherence between the two things. Interaction without coherence is nonsense.

I'm talking about a single object having both mental and non-mental properties.

Also, by definition we can't conceive of non-mental properties, so how can you make claims about what they can or must do?

We can't conceive of a perfectly round square either, but we still know it must have edges and not have edges.

We wouldn't be able to know how that square interacts with anything, though, which is what you're claiming about the set of all non-mental properties.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:56:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an argument for God (it is in two parts, and both parts are valid via Modus Ponens ). God will be defined as "The mind that is/ grounds empirical reality".

P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental
P2: Our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa
C: Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental)

P2 I take as self-evident and not controversial at all. P1 becomes easy to accept once understanding what interaction is. Interaction is what occurs when properties cohere. For example, the properties of a knife are that of an object composed of atoms, and the bread it slices is composed of atoms as well; they interact. However, if two things are metaphysically distinct, and are of two fundamentally different types of things then their properties would not cohere or "acknowledge" each other... Interaction would not occur. Our mental world of emotions, love, hate, feelings, thoughts, mental imagery, perceptions and what not is nothing like a world of mindless atomic interactions and dead matter moving around due to unconscious forces. The conscious experience of an orgasm is not at all like an non-mental electron moving in the void. If empirical reality is really made up of these objects with non-mental properties then it would be impossible for this reality to interact with our minds, and our minds couldn't interact with it. But, our minds do interact with empirical reality. Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental).

P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.

I disagree with premise 1 that if empirical reality is mental, God exists. Why couldn't a mental reality be emergent from a non-mental one? Similar to how humans can only detect a certain frequency range between 20hz-20khz, why can't things which don't relate to our mind exist on a spectrum which affects the mental?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:40:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:14:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:54:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an argument for God (it is in two parts, and both parts are valid via Modus Ponens ). God will be defined as "The mind that is/ grounds empirical reality".

P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental
P2: Our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa
C: Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental)

P2 I take as self-evident and not controversial at all. P1 becomes easy to accept once understanding what interaction is. Interaction is what occurs when properties cohere. For example, the properties of a knife are that of an object composed of atoms, and the bread it slices is composed of atoms as well; they interact. However, if two things are metaphysically distinct, and are of two fundamentally different types of things then their properties would not cohere or "acknowledge" each other... Interaction would not occur. Our mental world of emotions, love, hate, feelings, thoughts, mental imagery, perceptions and what not is nothing like a world of mindless atomic interactions and dead matter moving around due to unconscious forces. The conscious experience of an orgasm is not at all like an non-mental electron moving in the void. If empirical reality is really made up of these objects with non-mental properties then it would be impossible for this reality to interact with our minds, and our minds couldn't interact with it. But, our minds do interact with empirical reality. Therefore, empirical reality is not non-mental (empirical reality is mental).

P1: If Empirical reality is mental, God exists
P2: Empirical reality is mental
C: Therefore, God exists

P2 has already been argued for with the last argument. P1 is true because if empirical reality is mental then it must either be a mind or be grounded in a mind by definition. Based on the definition of "God" I gave; the conclusion necessarily follows.

On the reverse some take the monism route of materialism. And infer that the mind is really just mindless unconscious atoms interacting with each other. In this respect everything is of one substance.

That is a contradiction. The mind cannot be mindless. That is like saying something can be physical, but physicalless.

Well I do see many materialist arguing that any mind like property found in matter just means matter has that property. Essentially everything attributed to the external world is a physical property. Even if that property is the ability to be in 2 places at once, react with oneself, be non-existent one second and exist the next.

But as your saying all comes from mind they say all comes from matter and energy. That all mental experiences or perceptions are emergent from interactions between material parts.

It's not that something is mental. It's that the matter in a brain is lighting up to produce an image of a thought that is in reality deducible to electrical signals and physical interactions. It's not the physical that can be doubted but the emergent phenomenon we call mental.


Either way, the mind cannot be doubted logically, as "doubt" is mental by definition and would presuppose the mind. If we know anything, then we "know" the mind exists as knowledge is mental by definition. Therefore, if we know anything, we know 100% that the mind exists and we cannot doubt it coherently .


"doubt" is mental by definition, but definition doesn't speak to where "doubt" comes form. In the Materialist view even the doubt itself is just emergent from the electrical potential of two electrical neural pathways. Evolutionarily speaking one circuit is competing with the other. This competition, as seen, in mirror neurons may be the physical interaction that causes the mental projection we "know" as self.

On the flip side, the material can be doubted, after all, for all you know you are in The Matrix, or Solipsism is true. You take for granted that you live in a material world but it can be coherently doubted none the less.

This means that if Monism is true, then the logical conclusion would be to have the substance be mental because if we know anything; we know the mental has to exist necessarily. However, we can doubt the non-mental meaning that it is "weaker" as a posit for the type of substance we should deem is the only one.

Perhaps this seems reasonable because the only perceptions of the world are mental abstractions of a physical reality.

In that physical world view we might see "mental" stuff more like holographic projections of the physical. Stimuli processed through a series of sense organs as transmissions are recombined in a way to write a pattern upon other matter. (memory, cognitive thought, emotional feelings)


After all, what's the safer bet to be true? Something we know 100% to be true, or something that can be doubted? I would put my money on something we know 100% has to be true, and cannot be doubted coherently. That is mentality...


I 100% doubt anything can be known with a 100% certainty without presumptions.


But I have question and see how you reconcile it. If we are thoughts in a greater mind, how is it that our own thoughts say imaginary friends don't seem to have self-awareness?

Our minds are localized states in mind-at-large. This is analogous to how a whirlpool is a localized state of water... Meaning that the water as a whole (the grand mind) isn't exactly like the whirlpool (the localized states of mind; us). There would be no reason to expect the images that stem from our obfuscated aspects of mind to be conscious like the beings that stem from mind-at-large.

I like the analogy and concede this point. My point was probably a fallacy of division.


Also, perhaps our imagined beings are conscious but at some very rudimentary level not comparable to us. Either way, I don't see this as a problem for Idealism.

Curious how would answer if someone accused this point of your argument as a fallacy of composition?

Why extend the properties of mental to the whole?

Could it be that consciousness like ours is a result from pressure from the whole pushing inward and causing a localization that makes a whirlpool. And thought, doubt, thinking is only possible in a whirlpool?

If i missed it what properties do you think define mental?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:55:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are a lot of reponses here, I'm going to try to respond to them all later at night when I'm home. Thank you for your input.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 11:43:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@ Envisage

Solipsism could be true, but I don't think it is inductively consistent. My consciousnes is correlated with a form (which people call "the body"). I see other very similar forms, so it would inconsistent to think that their forms wouldn't have a consciousness as well. After all, why should I be so special? Of course, this doesn't disprove solipsism, but it gives us a good reason to at least think it is not a good explanation. With the existence of a material/ non-mental world however there is no such explanatory power. Therefore, there is no problem with rejecting a non-mental world, while accepting other minds exist

Also, if empirical reality is mental, it either IS a mind, or is grounded in a mind by definition. This all depends on whether you feel the universe has a cause or not.

@ Dhardage

"Color is a convenient way to describe the wavelengths reflected..."

False. The wavelength reflected is is not color, color is what we actually experience mentally after the wavelength hits our eyes, interacts with our brains, and produce the mental image. Either way, it still wouldn't actually be a property of matter itself.

"Are heat and air different? Strange, they still interact in a big way."

I'm not saying two different things cannot interact, just two fundamentally different types of things cannot. Heat and air are still both non-mental, and have non-mental properties. They both still exist in a material world, governed by material laws (assuming Idealism is false for the sake of argument). Their properties would still cohere.

"A square cannot be round and that is self contradicting term. Your assertion is meaningless."

Of course it is a contradicting term; but we still know what properties it would have... It has the property of both having edges and no edges. With the non-mental, we know it must have the property of not being able to interact with mind.

"PS, still waiting on clarification about what exactly 'mental' properties are versus 'non-mental'."

It should be self-explanatory. You know what a mind is, right?

@ Burzmali

"Why do the properties of an object have to 'recognize' each other?"

Because if they don't it would be like both objects don't exist with respect to each other. They would "go through" one another like the other object didn't exist and they wouldn't interact. If I push you, the only reason this is possible is because my body is made of atoms, yours is too, my body can produce force, so can yours. The properties cohere, so our bodies interact. If we are talking about two fundamentally different types of things then their properties wouldn't recognize each other and nothing would happen. It would me like a man who only knows English trying to understand what a man who only knows Chines is yelling at him. They aren't speaking the same language, interaction would not occur.

"The maybe you should explain what definition of 'cohere' you're using. Because the context you're using it in would indicate that properties cohere to create/form something."

Well, the properties are the same. I am made of atoms, so are you, so if our forms met they would interact.

"I'm talking about a single object having both mental and non-mental properties."

If the properties don't cohere then ONE object cannot have them.

@ Benshapiro

"I disagree with premise 1 that if empirical reality is mental, God exists. Why couldn't a mental reality be emergent from a non-mental one?"

You cannot give what you do not have. If all that exists are dead and mindless material interactions then there is not potential for mind or consciousness to emerge. It would be like asking a man who has only oranges to give you an apple out of his possessions; it makes no sense. Also, the Interaction Problem against Dualism shows that a spiritual/ mental/ conscious world could not interact with a material one, or vice versa.

@ Mhykiel

"Well I do see many materialist arguing that any mind like property found in matter just means matter has that property."

Materialists argue a lot of nonsense. So what? You can clue consciousness on to a material object like "voila" it is now magically a property of the material.

"But as your saying all comes from mind they say all comes from matter and energy. That all mental experiences or perceptions are emergent from interactions between material parts."

But what I'm saying is more powerful an argument. Mentality cannot be doubted, but I can doubt the material. So, if we are going to go with Monism, then obviously choosing the one substance to exist that is the one I cannot consistently doubt is the best option. If we know anything, that presupposes the mind exists. There is no point in putting faith in a type of thing that can be doubted, over a type of thing that cannot be.

"It's not that something is mental. It's that the matter in a brain is lighting up to produce an image of a thought that is in reality deducible to electrical signals and physical interactions. It's not the physical that can be doubted but the emergent phenomenon we call mental."

The problem is there is no reason to believe in this material brain. The material brain could be an illusion, something that doesn't exist. However, if I know anything, that presupposes a mind has to exist (as knowledge is mental). If I doubt anything, I cannot doubt the mind as the mind is mental.

Therefore, if one is going to reduce to the other, then the non-mind reducing to mind makes more sense.

""doubt" is mental by definition, but definition doesn't speak to where "doubt" comes form. In the Materialist view even the doubt itself is just emergent from the electrical potential of two electrical neural pathways."

But these material neural pathways can be doubted, the mind cannot be. Again, there is no reason to put your faith behind something that we can doubt, and something that we don't know to be true, over something we cannot doubt, and something we know to be true. This materialistic argument is lunacy.

"Perhaps this seems reasonable because the only perceptions of the world are mental abstractions of a physical reality."

What physical reality? That is just a hypothesis, an idea. There is no evidence of a fundamentally non-mental physical reality. I am not going to put my faith in something there is 0 reason to believe in. If we know anything, we know the mind has to exist (knowledge is mental, it would be illogical to "know" something without presupposing the mind exists).

Again, if we have two options:

(i) The mental reduces to the material
(ii) The material reduces to the mental

(ii) Is the one that is most likely to be true, because we know that mentality has to exists if we know anything at all. The same cannot be said to be true with regards to the material.

I refuse to put my faith in some made up non-mental material substance there is 0 evidence for.

"I 100% doubt anything can be known with a 100% certainty without presumptions."

Some presuppositions are necessary. If we doubt anything, that presupposes the mind 100% has to exist, as doubt could not exist without the mind.

"Why extend the properties of mental to the whole?"

Because it best explains why our minds interact with reality and vice versa so easily. Everything is the same type of thing; mental.

Mind-at-large would still be a mind that can doubt, have thoughts, and think, but it does so from a more holistic perspective. We do it from a localized perspective.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 11:48:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(Correction)

*You can't glue consciousness on to a material object like "voila" it is now magically a property of the material.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:40:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental

I think you have that around the wrong way, RT. Reality is not a projection of mind. Rather, the mind has a physical interface to reality. Through that physical interface, the mind can sense reality, and model it.

That model is not reality; it is a model.

The model is mental, may be erroneous, and is certainly incomplete. Reality however, exists with or without the model, and also exists regardless of what the model contains.

So reality is in no sense a creation of mind; our model of reality, however is.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:45:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 11:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Why do the properties of an object have to 'recognize' each other?"

Because if they don't it would be like both objects don't exist with respect to each other. They would "go through" one another like the other object didn't exist and they wouldn't interact. If I push you, the only reason this is possible is because my body is made of atoms, yours is too, my body can produce force, so can yours. The properties cohere, so our bodies interact. If we are talking about two fundamentally different types of things then their properties wouldn't recognize each other and nothing would happen. It would me like a man who only knows English trying to understand what a man who only knows Chines is yelling at him. They aren't speaking the same language, interaction would not occur.

"The maybe you should explain what definition of 'cohere' you're using. Because the context you're using it in would indicate that properties cohere to create/form something."

Well, the properties are the same. I am made of atoms, so are you, so if our forms met they would interact.

"I'm talking about a single object having both mental and non-mental properties."

If the properties don't cohere then ONE object cannot have them.

With the exception of the last point, you responded to all of those as though I was talking about two objects with different properties. Again, can you define "cohere?" Why can't an object have two properties that don't cohere? Why can't a ball, for instance, have both mental and non-mental properties? You keep on insisting that this must be so, but you aren't providing any reasoning behind it.

And I noticed you conveniently ignored my response about how you can even make claims about the behavior of non-mental properties when you can't possible even conceive of them. Do you want to try to defend your claims about things that are inconceivable, or are you willing to admit that, with regard to the non-mental, you're really just speculating about something that can't be understood?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:40:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:24:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If our minds interact with empirical reality and vice versa, then empirical reality is not non-mental

I think you have that around the wrong way, RT. Reality is not a projection of mind.

If it is mental, then empirical reality is a projection of mind. And, as my argument shows, empirical reality is mental.

Rather, the mind has a physical interface to reality. Through that physical interface, the mind can sense reality, and model it.

But our minds would only be sensing another mental reality. Just because something exists outside of our finite human/ animal minds, that wouldn't mean it existed outside of any mind.


That model is not reality; it is a model.

The model is mental, may be erroneous, and is certainly incomplete. Reality however, exists with or without the model, and also exists regardless of what the model contains.

So reality is in no sense a creation of mind; our model of reality, however is.

But the model of reality corresponds to a ontologically mental state. The argument shows that empirical reality is mental, because if it wasn't, the necessary conditions for interaction with it would not be present.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 2:12:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:57:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:40:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Reality is in no sense a creation of mind; our model of reality, however is.
But the model of reality corresponds to a ontologically mental state. The argument shows that empirical reality is mental, because if it wasn't, the necessary conditions for interaction with it would not be present.

Err... no. You've conflated the model with the modeled. You have asserted the mind's inability to interface with reality as a disproof, when in fact you need to show why a mind should be unable to interface with reality and model it.

Moreover, you need to explain why reality, when the mind is damaged, unconscious or absent, continues to function perfectly well, and why mind can correct and refine its apprehensions of reality over time.

And probably, for tidiness, you should also stop describing reality in vague terms as 'mental'. Either say that reality is a projection of mind, apprehensable by mind, or both. Else you're avoiding accountability for meaning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 2:14:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:45:29 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/14/2015 11:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Why do the properties of an object have to 'recognize' each other?"

Because if they don't it would be like both objects don't exist with respect to each other. They would "go through" one another like the other object didn't exist and they wouldn't interact. If I push you, the only reason this is possible is because my body is made of atoms, yours is too, my body can produce force, so can yours. The properties cohere, so our bodies interact. If we are talking about two fundamentally different types of things then their properties wouldn't recognize each other and nothing would happen. It would me like a man who only knows English trying to understand what a man who only knows Chines is yelling at him. They aren't speaking the same language, interaction would not occur.

"The maybe you should explain what definition of 'cohere' you're using. Because the context you're using it in would indicate that properties cohere to create/form something."

Well, the properties are the same. I am made of atoms, so are you, so if our forms met they would interact.

"I'm talking about a single object having both mental and non-mental properties."

If the properties don't cohere then ONE object cannot have them.

With the exception of the last point, you responded to all of those as though I was talking about two objects with different properties. Again, can you define "cohere?" Why can't an object have two properties that don't cohere? Why can't a ball, for instance, have both mental and non-mental properties?

Because that would be contradictory nonsense. If X has mental properties, then it either is a mind or exists as an aspect of a mind by definition. If it is a mind or is an aspect of a mind then it cannot have non-mental properties, as to have non-mental properties is to exist beyond mind. The idea that a ball can have both mental and non-mental properties violates the law of non-contradiction.

You keep on insisting that this must be so, but you aren't providing any reasoning behind it.

I provided pretty good reasoning. Also, every part of an object coheres because if it didn't then there would be no recognition between the properties. The idea that one object can be described with properties that are nothing like each other and don't cohere is nonsense at its finest.

And I noticed you conveniently ignored my response about how you can even make claims about the behavior of non-mental properties when you can't possible even conceive of them. Do you want to try to defend your claims about things that are inconceivable, or are you willing to admit that, with regard to the non-mental, you're really just speculating about something that can't be understood?

I'm not making a claim about the behavior of the non-mental. I am making a claim about the lack of behavior. A perfectly round square is inconceivable, but I can still say that a perfectly round square could not sing opera. We can still talk about what inconceivable things could not do.

Also, if the non-mental is inconceivable, then that gives us even more reason to believe it doesn't exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 2:18:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 2:12:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:57:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:40:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Reality is in no sense a creation of mind; our model of reality, however is.
But the model of reality corresponds to a ontologically mental state. The argument shows that empirical reality is mental, because if it wasn't, the necessary conditions for interaction with it would not be present.

Err... no. You've conflated the model with the modeled.

Err... No I haven't.

You have asserted the mind's inability to interface with reality as a disproof, when in fact you need to show why a mind should be unable to interface with reality and model it.

This is a straw-man fallacy. I am not saying the mind cannot interact with reality, just that it cannot interact with reality if it is non-mental.


Moreover, you need to explain why reality, when the mind is damaged, unconscious or absent, continues to function perfectly well

This is a fallacy of assuming that if our finite human/ animal minds don't exist, then whatever is left must be non-mental. This begs the question against a Grand Mind.

, and why mind can correct and refine its apprehensions of reality over time.

Why shouldn't it be able to under my view? You aren't making much sense.


And probably, for tidiness, you should also stop describing reality in vague terms as 'mental'. Either say that reality is a projection of mind, apprehensable by mind, or both. Else you're avoiding accountability for meaning.

I thought what was meant by mental should be pretty self-evident.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 2:46:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 2:18:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 2:12:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:57:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:40:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Reality is in no sense a creation of mind; our model of reality, however is.
But the model of reality corresponds to a ontologically mental state. The argument shows that empirical reality is mental, because if it wasn't, the necessary conditions for interaction with it would not be present.

Err... no. You've conflated the model with the modeled.

Err... No I haven't.

Er... yes, you have. Do you intend 'mental' to mean 'produced by, stored in and managed by mind' or 'can be interacted with by mind'? Spit it out.

Here's what you actually have when you're honest about definitions:

P1. Reality can be modeled cognitively;
P2. Cognitive models are produced by, stored in and managed by the mind;
C. Uh... I'll get back to you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 3:14:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 2:46:30 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2015 2:18:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 2:12:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:57:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 1:40:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Reality is in no sense a creation of mind; our model of reality, however is.
But the model of reality corresponds to a ontologically mental state. The argument shows that empirical reality is mental, because if it wasn't, the necessary conditions for interaction with it would not be present.

Err... no. You've conflated the model with the modeled.

Err... No I haven't.

Er... yes, you have.

This is a straw-man.

Do you intend 'mental' to mean 'produced by, stored in and managed by mind' or 'can be interacted with by mind'? Spit it out.

The former, which entails the latter.


Here's what you actually have when you're honest about definitions:

P1. Reality can be modeled cognitively;

My claim is that mentality cannot interact with non-mentality. Therefore, the empirical reality we interact with is mental. I am not simply saying reality can be modeled cognitively.

P2. Cognitive models are produced by, stored in and managed by the mind;
C. Uh... I'll get back to you.

This is nothing more than a straw-man argument.

Next.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 5:49:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 3:14:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 2:46:30 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Do you intend 'mental' to mean 'produced by, stored in and managed by mind' or 'can be interacted with by mind'? Spit it out.

The former, which entails the latter.


Here's what you actually have when you're honest about definitions:

P1. Reality can be modeled cognitively;

My claim is that mentality cannot interact with non-mentality. Therefore, the empirical reality we interact with is mental. I am not simply saying reality can be modeled cognitively.

Yes, but that's an appeal to ignorance. Where's your evidence that it can't?

What are you arguing other than if something can't happen that we know happens routinely, then we need magic to make it happen, and you've called the magic God?

How about you ask how it happens that a mind can sense, observe, thence model and predict reality? And rather than saying it's impossible because you don't understand it, seek to understand it?

Then you wouldn't be appealing to ignorance, and wouldn't have to be hiding semantic slight of hand in a vague and ambiguous definition.