In fact micro does explain macro.
Personally, I believe that spirit is within the quantum world but the op has a specific question, which has changed.
He posits this
How does what you’re saying relate to this, or perhaps we could address this anyhow.
Or perhaps the simpler, how can we prove that other distinctly separate minds exist apart from Gods and his?
I would comment, but I’m just a figment of your own imagination, so I’d be telling you lies, which is wrong, and I don’t want you to be any more conflicted than you already are.
Pretty sure that your comment involved meta cognition. But I have an intuition that it won’t be enough, especially since intuition is notoriously unreliable and probably doesn’t exist.
Nearly time for tea.
My response would be: There is no such a thing as unconscious mind. They should perceive something if they cause a change. Unless he can show that my argument is wrong. Here is the argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist therefore X must vanishes before Y emerges. We however have nothing once X vanishes and Y cannot emerge from nothing. Therefore there must be a mind who is aware of X and cause Y.
So you use this argument, I don’t like it. You are X and I am Y.
So there’s at least two of us on the planet. Yes?
So he’s not alone with God.
If Catholic_here can show his reasoning about this hypothesis then that would be something tangible to talk about. But as it stands I don’t see it holds water any more than a bucket full of holes.
I don’t really understand why he distrusts the bible, which clearly talks to many souls, the Church calls them souls instead of minds apparently. Saying that it was written by automatons who weren’t aware of their condition is the biggest conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard. Not healthy in my opinion either.
He distrusts the bible because it may be a figment of his imagination. There is no proof the Church exists, so the Church cannot authenticate anything.
The biggest of them all.
No. X and Y are two state of affair in a system, like a moving ball in different instant. That is a change. I then proceed to argue that a mind is needed for a change. I then argue that there are at least two minds, one is you who is aware of change that you are in charge of it and another is in charge of rest of change.
I understood, though I think transition is necessary for many systems.
What I don’t understand is why you think mind causes anything? God can cause but with men mind can only cause change within the body it occupies, one thought firing another nueron and associated thoughts for example. Though it may be argued that our minds can affect others but only through the concept of interconnectedness, the universal mind or perhaps unified field theory or some such thing.
That sounds pretty far from most quantum theories. Schrödinger’s cat posits an intermediate state that could be X or Y, not a state of “nothing” prior to X or Y existing. Your account does not allow for that. It would have to be reworked to cat goes in box, is annihilated, cat comes out of box, either dead or alive. That is a completely different problem.
If you are going to use a quantum regime, you need explain why an intermediate state, whether nothing or something or possibilities, exists.
Because we are looking to reach to an end.
I don’t understand.
Are you saying that mind, any mind, is the ultimate cause of any change, physical or mental?
No. X and Y are two consecutive states of affair which happen in time.
Each mind is the cause of a change.
A change in the state of the universe?
Many other things cause change in the state of the universe, discreetly in a transitional way. Not state X then State Y, but A, B, C. No?
Also in two places at the same time
Universe is an example when you have at least two minds. The first proof is for the case that there is only one change related to one mind.
Yes. There could be many but I just have the proof for two.
You mean like an obstacle course set up individually for each person to get through to reach heaven? Interesting Sci-Fi concept, but I just don’t think it’s reality.
You can’t prove with absolute certainty that any particular mind exists. However, you are potentially receiving intelligent-information or knowledge that is not of your own making. Such information is not caused by you because you do not posses that information as a necessary expression of your being, but rather you only potentially posses that information. So it would seem that at least one other mind other than yours must exist unless you can show that you are the cause of that information.
So i think you can prove that another mind exists insofar as you can identify intelligent information that does not belong to you. And insofar as that is true, Descartes is wrong. But i don’t think you can prove that many minds other than yours exists.
Which is it? Do we have nothing after X vanishes and before Y emerges? Or are X and Y consecutive?
If X and Y are consecutive, why must there be a mind?
Oh, sorry. There is nothing between. So we have X then nothing then Y.