Premise 1:
The basis of reality is either mental (mind), material or a combination of both.
Taking premise 1 as true, anyone of these can be true:
A) Eternal material without mental properties gave rise to mental (mind).
B) Eternal mind without material properties gave rise to material and other minds.
C) Mind and material exists for eternity and gave rise to other material entities and other minds.
If premise 1 is true, it would appear that the probablity for the existence of an eternal mind is 66% (if the above three options are given equal weight of course) :P.
Let’s change the game a bit.
There are two strategies two avoid an infinite regress in describing reality (feel free to add more if you think there are).
There is a first uncaused cause.
Something came from nothing.
But, for the time being, let’s assume infinity and that something exists for infinity.
Change premise 1 a bit to the following:
Premise 2:
Something existing for infinity has the potential to give rise to minds and mental properties.
If premise 2 holds, what is this something?
A) A material “something” without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to minds.
B) A mental “something” without material properties that has the potential to give rise to other minds.
C) A material and mental “something” with the potential to give rise to other material entities and minds.
Here again the chance of infinite mind with the potential to give rise to other minds (if the above three options are given equal weight of course) has a 66% chance of being true. Even so, what would be the underlying cause be for this infinite “something” (A, B or C) to have the potential to give rise to other minds?
3 possiblities. 2 have the possibility that mind has existed for infinity. 2/3 = 66% (if you really want to be pedantic about it you can say 66.666…%)
Very simple maths if you accpet premise 1 or 2. I suppose you don’t, therefore think I am wrong (again in your mind).
You give no reason or argument to reject premise 1 or 2, just a simple assertion: The basis for reality is material.
I think you need to qualify that “[it doesn’t]” before coming to the conclusion that you are smart. I think the more important question you need to answer is the one in premise 2 though.
What would be the underlying cause be for this infinite “something” to have the potential to give rise to other minds?
Now I can be an arshole and point out to you that you haven’t actually answered the question and put in the “wow congratualtions for actually saying nothing”. But we are trying to have a civil discussion here free of silly ad homs and stupid “oooh, look, I am smarter than you” outburst not?
I hope your motives are to have a civil discussion, otherwise I am just wasting time here. Tone it down a bit, relax.
Would you like to go over premise 2/clause 2 bit by bit and then answer a few questions?
You are making both logical and statistical mistakes in the original post.
The first is a logical mistake. In its simplest form it is called a false dichotomy. You are setting up a scenario with the flawed assumption that the options you have provided are exhaustive.
A person is either dead or alive. That is an exhaustive set. In a rugby match, a team can win, lose, draw or the match can be cancelled. That is an exhaustive set.
In your scenario you provided 3 options, but they are not exhaustive – another obvious option is that the world is something that is neither mental nor material but something else.
Lastly your statistics is horrendous. You have 3 options and assign equal probabilities to each, while they are not equally probable.
When you flip a coin you have a 50% chance of heads and 50% chance of tails (ignoring the trivial probability of landing and staying on the rim).
In the above mentioned rugby match, the probability of each outcome is NOT 25%. For argument’s sake let say South Africa plays against Japan. Here the probability of an cancelled match is less than 1%, draw less than 1%, loss less than 1% while SA has a more than 97% chance of winning.
Fair enough. I am interested to listen what others might think the subset of possibilities are if “the world is something that is neither mental nor material but something else.”
Well I did say that IF the above three options are given equal weight of course
I guess then we will have to assign a wieght to each possibility then. And I think it would be interesting how people here would weigh each option.
You do suck at logic. How do I qualify something that doesn’t follow from the premise? You don’t even have a fucking premise in the first place! You are doing it wrong.
I think the more important question you need to answer is the one in premise 2 though.
Why should I accept this premise?
Now I can be an arshole and point out to you that you haven't actually answered the question and put in the "wow congratualtions for actually saying nothing". But we are trying to have a civil discussion here free of silly ad homs and stupid "oooh, look, I am smarter than you" outburst not?
I hope your motives are to have a civil discussion, otherwise I am just wasting time here. Tone it down a bit, relax.
And this way you think you aren't?
Would you like to go over premise 2/clause 2 bit by bit and then answer a few questions?
Right, let’s make a little reformulation. It seems not everyone is happy and apparently I suck at logic and don’t know the meaning of “premise” and how to use ::). Fair enough.
Here goes.
Statement X: Something existing for infinity has the potential to give rise to minds and mental properties.
What is this something?
A) A material “something” without mental properties that has the potential to give rise to minds.
B) A mental “something” without material properties that has the potential to give rise to other minds.
C) A material and mental “something” with the potential to give rise to other material entities and minds.
D) Something else with the potential to give rise to other material entities and minds.
What would be the underlying cause be for this infinite “something” (A, B, C or D) to have the potential to give rise to other minds?
This is really intersting, although maybe a bit over my head. Please allow two dumb questions.
Would a force like gravity be mental or material?
Would time be mental or material?
Here’s mine, which my gut (see option 3) tells me is wrong.
To me mental is something I can consciously observe, but can’t explain.
Let’s look at an apple falling from the tree. The apple is material.
If I don’t know what gravity is and wonder why the apple is falling, gravity is mental.
If I know what gravity is and why the apple is falling, gravity becomes material. Maybe material = quantifiable?
If I know instinctively (comparable to a child-like faith) that the apple will fall, but have never thought about why, gravity is neither material nor mental. It is a third option which I don’t have a name for yet. The moment I classify this third option, it (the option) will become material, since it will then be quantified.
Please note that thoughout this process the force known as gravity stayed physical. It never became non-physical or meta-physical.
And no apples were harmed during this process.
I think it is over my head too, but in response to “…views on what is meant by “mental”” I think one way to define this would be to describe what “mental” is not, rather what by what it is/may be. So ‘something’ that is purely mental would be something that does not have physical shape/form, as opposed to something material, that does. something material would have material properties (and could therefore be evaluated accordingly) where something mental would not. This poses problems for me though, because i do think that an idea/thought (which would be something mental according to my own definition) could and SHOULD be questioned and evaluated…
I think that gravity, though not a physical thing, is material, because we have scientific proof to back it up. gravity has certain laws that govern it, it has certain properties that cannot with our current knowledge be refuted, it is objective. Time on the other hand, due to its relative nature could be seen as being mental, even if only because time cannot be validated unless it is perceived by some or other material entity in a material space.
that you believe I must be wrong… again?