Could you elaborate that? (this other aspect?) — Prometheus2

The idea of beauty could be much effected from situations. For example, a beautiful person in the dental chair getting her teeth scaled may not look beautiful at all, as she would when she is dancing in the night club.

Likewise an ordinary looking person can look more beautiful when just out of shower or working out hard in the gym sweating than formally dressed and greeting her customers in the office.

Some situations can make beauty to climax, while other situations could decrease it. These situational aspects seem to indicate the idea of beauty is a contingent psychological feelings on the perceived objects.

I believe he is saying more or less one of the things that I have been saying in another thread: not everything is possible, not even at the level of pure theory, not even at the level of pure metaphysical speculation. — Arcane Sandwich

Thank you for your clarification on the point. I disagree with the point totally. Because whether something is alive or not, if something is imaginable, thinkable and conceivable, then it is possible to discuss about them.

If you deny that, then discussions on the mental activities or operations would be impossible limiting the discussions only to the daily physical objects in space and time. Well some folks live like that i.e. mundane, dry and materialistic only being aware of the materialistic objects in the world.

But there are vast majority of people in the world who are imaginative, creative and metaphysical and believe in the abstract existence, which means non living and non existent objects could be still very meaningful to discuss and think about.

If you still deny that, then no artistic, creative, idealistic activities would be possible. There would be no movies, novels, poems, abstract paintings and sculptures available in the world. There would be no religions. Is it the case? I certainly don't think so.

So this is how I would establish the universality of efficient causes. I feel like most graspings of it fail to account for time properly — although it is constantly in flux, its instants seem obviously brought about by necessity of the, sometimes immediate, past. What is, is only temporarily. And what will be, will only be potentially. But what has been, will always have been, and *must* have been, for the rest of history. This is the universality hiding right under our noses in the ever-changing current of time. — Pretty

You seem to be mixing together sufficient and efficient cause here. There is a pretty big difference between the Aristotelian Four Causes and Humean constant conjunction and counterfactual analysis, although the two notions can be used in concert. I am not sure about "antiquated." Both concepts are employed in the sciences all the time, e.g. do-calculus, etc. Any student in the natural or social sciences has to take statistics and they will be taught again and again that "correlation does not equal causation." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ok, great analysis and explanation on Efficient cause. I must admit I learnt something from this thread. I was not familiar with the concept of Efficient cause before. I was only aware of the Humean Causal theory. I will come back for any points in your explanations and counter points, if I find any points to be clarified. Thanks. :up: :pray:

and those people were indeed alive, because they had DNA, RNA, and body cells, — Arcane Sandwich

Dead bodies also have DNA. So having DNA is not the right criteria for being alive.

even though they did not know that specific fact about themselves and about the world in general. They were, I guess you could say, ignorant of that fact. — Arcane Sandwich

Ok, fair point. But it is still possible to talk about non-alive objects such as the fire breathing dragons and demons. Because many people know about them, and like them obviously from the video.
It means the dragons and demons exist in their mind and imagination. Therefore they exist in the mind as mental objects. With the mental objects, they made up the physical objects which look like fully living dragon. It gives fun and realistic experience to the viewers.

Therefore it is possible to discuss about the mental objects which exist in the mind from metaphysical point of view. Rejecting that sounds rejecting Metaphysics itself, because after all Metaphysics means going beyond physical existence.

Hi! Returning with a confusion towards this specific definition we concluded on: how does this explain efficient causes? Would the parent not be considered the efficient cause of the child? Or the craftsman an efficient cause of their works? And we know these clearly don’t fall under the stricter consideration of cause and effect, so would we say efficient cause is something different altogether? — Pretty

I feel efficient cause is an antiquated ancient concept, which has logical problems. Sure, we can say that parent is a sufficient cause for the child, but I am not sure if there is philosophical or logical point in doing so.

It is like saying, there was a postman when the rain started coming down today, therefore does it mean the rain is the sufficient cause for the postman? Or I was waiting for the bus to go to the town, and a taxi passed me by. Does it mean I was the sufficient cause for the taxi passing me?

It just happened once out of random events, and it was a unique event which has little chance to be repeated (in the case of the parent giving birth to the child X, it will never be repeated. Because no parent can give a birth to the same child twice in their life.)

Therefore, it is like the antiquated concept PSR. It doesn't make logical sense to say the sufficient cause was the relationship between the parent and child.

I am not quite sure what the presenter is trying to say in his video. But my point was this.

If dualism was true, then soul can survive the bodily death.
We don't know soul can survive bodily death.
Therefore we don't know Dualism is true.

There are many things in the universe, we don't know the answers.

No. They cannot be alive, because they are like stones in that sense. A machine is not alive (i.e., it does not have genetic material, it does not have DNA and/or RNA, and it is not composed of cells, it is not "made" of cells). — Arcane Sandwich

Does it mean that no one was alive before DNA RNA and body cells were discovered?

In the example of the video that you showed, the "dragon" only meets one of the two criteria: it breaths fire, but it is not alive. And, technically speaking, it doesn't breathe fire either, because only living beings (only some of them, not all) can breathe. — Arcane Sandwich

But what makes something alive? What do you mean by "alive"?
Can machines be not alive?

Many chronically and pharmaceutically untreatable depressed and/or anxiety-ridden people won’t miss this world when they finally pass away. — FrankGSterleJr

But from logical point of view, if we don't know what the state of death is, could we be sure that death will end the sufferings?

If the state of death has some sort of continuation of after-life consciousness, perception or feelings, could you be certain that the suffering might not even get worse or permanent during and after death?

If that is the case, there is no point of death, hence living forever is best? No?

For example, the idea that there might be a living, fire-breathing dragon somewhere on planet Earth, right now, in the year 2024, is an idea that is theoretically impossible, in the literal sense: it is incompatible with the body of knowledge that modern science currently has. Technically speaking, they do not co-here, there would be no coherence within a theoretical system that accepts, at the same time and in the same sense, the idea of a living, fire-breathing dragon in the world and the body of knowledge of modern science. — Arcane Sandwich

:chin: :grin:

The problem is, if you publish a paper on the metaphysics of demons, people laugh at you. But if you publish a paper on the metaphysics of Pegasus, people at least have the basic decency to tell you why your ideas are wrong. — Arcane Sandwich

Wouldn't it depend on what the definition of demon is? In the ordinary folk's mind perhaps demon means some evil with horrible looking face and body destroying and doing bad things to people. That's just a vulgar idea from the movies or comics.

Rise above from that, and you could define demon as a negative side of God, humans or anything really. There are always positive and negative sides of everything. The positive side of the world, life, mind, pleasure etc could be defined as the angelic property, and the negative side of these objects such death, war, pain, hatred ... etc could be branded as the demonic properties of the existence.

In that system, there is nothing to laugh about, but it could be a good topic to have discussions or thoughts on.

Anyhow my point is, you could make anything possible theoretically, because theoretically means you are presuming, supposing or assuming such and such might be the case. You are not claiming anything true or false here. In the modal situation, anything can be made possible or impossible.
But physically, many things would be impossible to implement and prove. There is a difference.

Wow, yeah, I quite like that thought. These two sides of beauty. — Prometheus2

Yes, interesting. Would you say beauty could be also from the other aspect of the world or situations?

The Permanent Ultimate Something is not alive, but as we see, the potential for life was there for the Temporaries. — PoeticUniverse

What could transform the potential for life into life?

Right, but here's my question, as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such), — Arcane Sandwich

So you are a professional Metaphysician. Cool.

Are there people out there, in the world, that are somehow under another impression? I'm extremely curious about that. I'm a bit of an amateur anthropologist, you could say. What do you think? What is your opinion on the Metaphysics of ghosts and demons? — Arcane Sandwich

I think Metaphysics could discuss such topics e.g. Demons, Ghosts and God, Souls and Freedom etc. That is what Metaphysics is about. No one would suggest to discuss these topics under Physics or Chemistry. If you say, even Metaphysics cannot discuss them, then what is the point of Metaphysics?

I mean it is not the whole topic of Metaphysics of course. It has the other topics too. But I would have thought Metaphysics can discuss the entities which are in the out of the boundaries of normative reason.

If you still deny that freedom and authority of Metaphysics, then I would say you are limiting the scope of Metaphysics unreasonable and unnecessary way, and it would be stripped of much of its attraction.

What do you mean? — Arcane Sandwich

Well you said that the demons and ghosts don't exist in the external world, so it is impossible to explain about them theoretically, and even metaphysically.

I was saying they are the perfect topics in Metaphysics, and why is it impossible to explain or discuss. That was what I mean.

Cool, I’ve been slowly gathering this as the thread continued, I’m surprised it took this long to get explicated. Thanks!! It really does clear up a lot — Pretty

That sounds pretty cool, Pretty. Thanks for the great OP. :up: :cool:

And what I'm arguing is that ghost and demons do not exist. They do not have the property of existence, because in my personal philosophy, existence is a property. Ghosts and demons do not have that property, therefore they do not exist. I did not invent this idea myself, this is simply something that I took from Mario Bunge's philosophy. — Arcane Sandwich

OK, I see what you mean. But I was under the impression that Metaphysics allows us to discuss the objects we can imagine, contemplate, and conceptualize but has no material existence such as God, Souls, Demons and Ghosts etc.

When you said, even in Metaphysics, those concepts are impossible to exist, I was not sure if you were talking about a different Metaphysics from the traditional classic Metaphysics.

I think this is what Kant had been talking about in his CPR - if Metaphysics was possible as a Science, when it deals with the topics of non material existences such as God, Souls, Freedom etc.

When you are talking about God, Souls, Freedom, and even Demons or Ghosts, we are not saying they do exist in the external world. But rather what Metaphysical inquiries are asking is, how is it possible for us to think about those concepts when they are not existing in the external world, and what if they do exist. If they don't exist in the external world, then could it be possible that they might exist in our mind? And how do we form such immaterial concepts which are not in space and time?

These are perfectly reasonable questions to ask and discuss, and especially if you are a Modalist, I would have thought you would embrace the possibilities for the inquiries and discussions, rather than rejecting it.

Why not? Why do you say that it would not happen? The circumstances of the case, of every case, become irrelevant if you abandon the PSR in its strongest form. And that's the only way to sensibly deny it. — Arcane Sandwich

It is not total abandoning as you try to make out. It is a modification of the PSR. We could say the principle of possible reasoning instead of the principle of sufficient reasoning. So the new name of the PSR must be the PPR.

Some events and objects in the universe have reasons for its existence, but some don't. Yeah we managed to induce a new concept from the old nonworking wrong concept of the PSR.

The new more flexible and logical concept is called the PPR i.e. the Principle of Possible Reason. Hows that?

Of course it's a groundless and irrational belief. But to abandon it is to say that a dragon or a squid can suddenly pop up into existence, anywhere, at any time, for no reason whatsoever (since we've abandoned the strongest version of the PSR, which is the only version of the PSR that "makes sense", and yes, the appeal to good common sense is a fallacy, it's an "appeal to the stone"). — Arcane Sandwich

Somethings have causes and reasons, but some other things in the universe don't. Hence the PSR doesn't qualify as a principle. A principle means it must work for all the incidents, events and objects. When it is the case for some, and not the case for the others is not a principle.

:ok: :sparkle:

‘Nothing’ cannot even be meant, as per Parmedies’ philosophy; — PoeticUniverse

I think I can understand Nothing better. In math, it is simple. 1-1 =0. 0 is nothing. There was 1, but 1 was subtracted from 1 or taken away from 1, hence 0, Nothing.

the Ultimate Something has no opposite, and as such it has no alternative; so, it has to be. — PoeticUniverse

I had problems trying to understand the Ultimate Something there. But after some reflection,
I understand the Ultimate Something as death. Eventually everything and every life dies by the natural law. Hence we could say Death is the Ultimate Something.

The Ultimate Something has no opposite? I agree. Death has no opposite. Death is nothing. The opposite of Death is life, but once dead, it is impossible to go back to life, no alternative.

I would say there is more. — Gmak

Is false identity also identity? Can there be identity of identity? If so, which identity is the real identity?

Can identity exist without thing it identifies with? When the identified thing dies or becomes non-existence, what happens to the identity?

I'm an atheist. I hold that it's metaphysically impossible for beings of a divine nature to exist. But if such beings, or such a being, existed, then we would be debating theology: does God have the moral obligation to intervene in reality, in every act? That's what the occasionalists believed, in matters of theology. — Arcane Sandwich

I find it a bit difficult to follow the flow of your argument and point here i.e you deny God's existence, but you suggest God has the moral obligation to intervene your time travel to the past world mentioning the claims of the occasionalists. What is this about?

I would like to clarify your points one by one instead of so many added up into one large sheet of message with loads of quotes, because it seems to make the points and flow of the arguments unclear and conflated at times. I hope it is OK with you. Thanks.

Ok this explanation as made the most sense to me. — Pretty

:up: :cool:

As a cause, it necessary implies the existence of its effect, yes? So let’s take a person who is a parent — surely as a person they exist far before their child, and their child does not have to necessarily exist, but as a *parent*, a causal thing, it is necessarily implied that their effect exists too, which we call the “child.” Is this correct? — Pretty

Cause and effect theory is a scientific concept. If you say A caused B, then whenever there was A, then B must follow in all occasions. Here the important point is that A must produce the exact same state, entity or result or effect condition B on all occasions.

Therefore your example of a parent X producing the child X1, is not a cause and effect relationship. Because the parent cannot willfully produce the child X1 next time they try to produce X1. No persons in the universe are exactly the same in the universe, and every person is unique in their identity by the law.

The X might produce another child X2, or may not produce any child at all, or might produce twins next time called X2 and X2a.

Therefore the offspring X1 is not an effect of the parent X under the eyes of causal relationship. They are a parent and offspring relationship.

Ok. How about this. Numbers primitively seem to correlate with things. But are there in fact things? Or are there really only processes, whose synchronic slices appear intermittently as things? In which case, numbers would really correlate with processes. Or again, we can only count insofar as we abstractly identify the things being counted. So we count one-hundred peanuts. Be we don't count one-hundred "things" as one-peanut, two-jar, three-house, four-planet, five-universe....etc. Numeracy is itself just the culmination of abstraction. Short of objective correlation, what inherent reality do numbers have except the cumulative set of interrelations which are defined by all the possible mathematical constructs in which they appear? — Pantagruel

Counting can be a process. So, yes, we can see the things being counted as the elements of the process. But you know, you can still count without things. What does it tell you? Numbers are not the things themselves. Numbers are real of course, but they are real in the sense that we know them, use them and apply them to the external world objects, events and motions, as well as we can think about them, and demonstrate them as pure concepts.

Numbers are not just the culmination of abstractions. Numbers can describe the whole universe as long as you know how they work. You can make up formulas, equations and axioms and replace the variable with the numeric data, from which you can understand the workings of the universe.

Not really. They're mental in the way of being an interpretation of reality, but the categorization of things still end up in amounts. We can argue about how categories are human constructs, but at some point we get to things like 1 atom, 2 atoms. In relation to what numbers represent you cannot have 2 atoms if you didn't have 1 atom first. The same kind of works the other way around, how can you define something as 1 object if there wasn't the possibility of there being 2? — Christoffer

Counting doesn't have to start from 1 always. It can start from 2n, where n = 1/2. As Pantagruel suggested, if we suppose counting is a process, you don't even need things such as particles. They would be just the elements in the counting process, or sets.

Likewise, you don't always count each individual object which is 1. When you say 1, it might be 2 in reality. In the case of your shoes, or soaks, you count them as 1 pair of shoes, but there are 2 shoes in the pair.

. If you have 2, you have 9, and 5 and 4 and 1. — Christoffer

Could your explain what you mean by this?

The interesting thing, however, is whether or not "0" has a relation. That concept has more of a constructed meaning than single existence. What is "0.5"? Is it half of a one thing, or is it half of nothingness? — Christoffer

0 is just a description of objects or states of nothingness. It is a very handy concept in math.

I disagree with this, honestly. I think that there are things that are not possible even at the level of theory. I'm a realist about modality: some things are metaphysically impossible. For example, it is metaphysically impossible that demons exist. The same goes for unicorns, basilisks, ghosts, etc. Scientism, to me, is not just a series of epistemic claims, it is also a series of metaphysical claims, and some of the latter use the language of modal logic (i.e., terms like "possible", "impossible", "contingent", "necessary"). — Arcane Sandwich

Sure you can disagree. But if you explain logically and understandably where the disagreement comes from, that is perfectly understandable.

It sounds like you seem to emphasize theoretically demons and ghosts can't exist metaphysically. I don't exactly understand what you mean by that. Why suddenly metaphysically? What does metaphysics have to do with the existence of demons and ghosts?

Why are they not possible to exist metaphysically? What is your definition of metaphysics, and what and which objects do you mean by demons and ghosts?

I would like to clarify this point of yours first before progressing further down the line.

I think numbers are like words i.e. adjectives describing the objects such as red apple. The red is an adjective describing the apple's colour. When we say 1 apple. 1 describes the apple's existence i.e. the quantity which is 1.

If you look at the Hebrew language, they don't have number system. Words are also numbers.
Numbers are descriptive language of the objects and motions in quantity in existence. It is purely psychological and conceptual descriptive tool.

It's just an empirical observation for me. But I see no reason to discount the reality of numbers. — Pantagruel

Sure. Some folks believe God is the absolute reality, or the big bang is the absolute truth. One's belief can be real to the believer, but it can be irrational and illogical too.

I am not saying numbers are false, or unreal. All I am saying is it has different mode of reality i.e. we know numbers as concepts and use them to describe the real world objects, motions or workings. But they don't exist like the physical objects do.

The sun is yellow. Yellow is not a physical object. But the light being emitted at 510 Terahertz is. — Pantagruel

If you wore a green sunglasses, and look up at the sun, it will look "green". When I measure the light of the sun with the optical light meter, it says f16 1/1000 sec.

As always, one can only deduce one truth: "I exist", whoever "I" is... :-) — A Realist

You cannot deduce "you exist" as the only truth, if you doubt everything in the reality. You will be doubting your existence is illusion.

My go-to example is the use of Fibonacci-sequence timed laser pulses to stimulate atoms into a new phase state of matter. Nature is "resonant" to numerical properties.... — Pantagruel

Sure, numbers describe the external objects, events and motions. But it is an illusion to think they are the same, or numbers are the physical reality. Math formulas, equations and functions are descriptions of the physical world. Description is not physical objects.

For example, the word apple is not the real apple. You cannot eat the word apple. You can only eat the real apple which can be peeled. To say the word apple is same as the real apple is an illusion.

Physical reality is the things and objects you can see, touch, access and physically handle.

My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you; but if my senses cannot be always trusted then your existence must also might be an illusion. — A Realist

If you admit and are sure that you doubt everything in the world, then you cannot deny the fact you doubt everything in the world. Therefore you found one thing in the world that you cannot doubt, which is the fact that you doubt everything in the world. So the fact that you doubt everything in the world is your ultimate truth about the reality? Makes sense?

can also exist as a mental concept. — Pantagruel

Maybe. I just don't see the point saying mental objects "exist". It is a misuse of language.
We know, or are aware of the mental objects. They don't exist like the physical objects in the external world.

I am trying to see the existence of "3" in the external world. I see none. I can see 3 books, 3 cups, 3 trees, 3 cars. But none of them are the pure "3".

In China, 3 is not the real 3 either. The real 3 is written as "三".
In Korea, 3 is written "셋".
Now, which is the real 3?

Does this hold? Surely this argument has been made plenty times before, no? — Pretty

No. it doesn't. Number can start from any number you decided to choose to start. Because numbers are the mental concept. There is no physical laws or principles on numbers.

After 1, counting can go on via the real or rational numbers never reaching 2. Or counting can proceed in the odd numbers skipping 2, and all the even numbers.

If 1 caused 2, then every time 1 appears immediately 2 must appear, if they have cause and effect relationship. But it doesn't. You order 1 coffee in the caffee, and you don't see 2 coffees served to you unless by mistake or confusion of the maid.

1 is a property of an object saying it only stands as 1. 2 only appears when there are 2 objects, and counted.

Are scientists sure about this? Time travel is not possible at all? Like, imagine a professional physicist, who understands theoretical physics to the utmost degree. Time travel is not even possible at the level of theoretical physics? Maybe it would be technologically impossible to fabricate a time-travelling machine, but are we really sure that it's completely impossible from a theoretical standpoint? — Arcane Sandwich

Time travel had been discussed before in the forum, but I am not sure what the conclusion or agreement on the topic was.  My thought was that time travel is not possible physically.  Theoretically anything is possible, but to prove it is meaningful you must prove it physically.  As far as I know, no time travel has ever been conducted physically since the beginning of the universe.  Hence my idea on it was,  inductively not a possible or feasible concept.

But more importantly, my stance is that time is an illusion i.e. it doesn't exist.  Time is like numbers. It is only in the mind of folks, not in the real world.  In the real world, there are only motions, and some motions are regular and constant like the sunrise and sunsets.  From the motions, folks made up the concept of time i.e. the calendar.   Outside of the earth in the other planets, the sunrise and sunsets motions have different intervals, hence they will have different length for 1 year, month, and hours, if any folks lived there.  

Out of the solar planetary space, in the other stars and galaxies, the sunrise and sunset motions won't be available, hence there is no such thing as time.

Therefore time doesn't exist.  Time is an illusion, hence it would be sound to conclude that you cannot travel in time.

But that's what I'm saying. God, if He (or She, or They, or whatever) existed, that (divine) Being could indeed intervene. Think of God like a character in a novel. God is not really a character, but the author. The author can do anything with the novel (with the fictional world that such a Being has authored). I don't believe in God though, I'm an atheist. But is there no scientific equivalent to the notion of "something", whatever that may be, that makes physical time-travel possible? — Arcane Sandwich

If God existed, why do you believe he/she must intervene? It is like saying, if God existed, he must make everyone on the planet, lottery jackpot winner. Why shouldn't? - Well why should he/she? But the point is that God may not exist. Even if he existed, there is no reason why God has to intervene for anything. Especially if God existed, he would have known (being omniscient) time doesn't exist. He would know it would be a total waste of time even talking about time travel.

And that's the scary part. The Principle of Sufficient Reason, it seems to me (I could be wrong, though), is an "all or nothing" deal. Either it applies to everything, or it applies to nothing. It cannot apply to some things, but not to other things. That just makes no sense to me. It just strikes me as an odd thing to say, from an ontological POV.

Or can it (apply to some things but not to others)? What is your opinion on that? — Arcane Sandwich

The PSR is not something that comes with every event in the universe. That is what the PSR believers seem to believe, which is a groundless and irrational belief.

When events happen, folks would perceive them, and think about the reasons. That is how reasoning works. It is not the case that reasoning happens and then the corresponding events happen afterwards.

If we accept that, then you know that on some events in the universe, we know the reasons because we have enough data for the events for us to reason. But in some cases, there is no data available for us to reason such as the beginning of the universe, because no one was standing on the earth observing the event. But we see the universe existing solidly, and things happening in space. We infer on the beginning of the universe suggesting various theories, but none are concrete. We have many reasons for the universe's existence, but at the same time, none are definite reasons. We can only conclude that some events have no reasons.

Likewise why you were born in 1985 not 1700, has no reason apart from your parents having given birth to you at the year, which is just so obvious. If you accepted that answer, then maybe you were not seeking philosophical answers.

The squids might suddenly jump and dance in your room. You ask what is the reason for that? Under no circumstances would such an event happen unless someone secretly placed some lively caught squids from the sea, and placed them in your room while you were asleep. This event definitely has reasons, and can be verified by investigation. While the reasons for the beginning of the universe, and birth of you in 1985 cannot be found apart from the fact that some events have no compelling reasons.

Honestly, I don't want to monopolize the Main Page of the Forum. I already started three OP, and I'm actively discussing in about half a dozen or so. So, I'm reluctant to open a new OP, about anything. Besides, why not start that OP yourself? It might be better, since you can start it with your own question, and ask for the best answer to it. I can then contribute to the best of my ability. — Arcane Sandwich

I am too lazy. :D

There are two modalities that are directly clashing with each other, and those modalities are: contingency, on the one hand, and necessity, on the other hand. — Arcane Sandwich

If you talk about modality, that's interesting.  I did some experiments with modal thinking before. I concluded that all modal thinking is only practical for the future applications in life.  Once the event has passed, and becomes past, modal thinking just becomes imagination.  Even if there were good conclusions from the modal thinking, it was only useful for the lessons for future applications or situations.

When we are all locked up and bound by space and time and heading forward to the future in a linear universe, doing anything about the past events is not an option.

What if thinking and stories are not meaningful for human lives once it has passed the event. Even God cannot intervene.

But modal thinking could be useful for perhaps the other applications such as planting trees, or cutting grass - what if an apple tree was planted instead of birch, what if grass was left uncut for the whole year?  It could be done in real life, and the result will be available in reality.

But why was I born in 1985 instead of 1700?  Why was I born in South America instead of Australia? These What-If, and Whys will never be altered no matter how you tried (for the reason you are a physically bound being into space and time, I have already told you), and the why questions could only be answered either by Science in the most commonsensical way, or by the religion in the esoteric way. These are some of the factual properties and events in the universe that the PSR doesn't apply by another principle.

That is just my opinion of course, which might be not true. Whatever the case, I think this is an interesting topic, and we could keep thinking on until the best answer was found and mutually agreed. I am sure someone in the forum will have more to contribute for coming up to better answers for your questions.

There's scientists working on those sorts of problems, that's all I can say about that, honestly. We don't know the exact, detailed mechanisms of such processes. But scientists do have more or less a general picture of what's going on. We know what parts of the brain are responsible for language, which parts are responsible for memory, which parts are responsible for feelings, etc. — Arcane Sandwich

That's interesting. If you would open a new OP for that topic, and analyse what the details of their findings are, I would be keen to read and jump in.

I disagree, and not because I want to fight. I disagree here because I think that science does give the answers to those questions, but those answers are "unsatisfactory". As you correctly said, the reason why I have the factual properties that I have, is because of my two biological parents. That's the scientific explanation. But it's unsatisfactory. Why was I born in 1985 and not the Middle Ages, or the Future? It just makes no sense to me, from a First Person Perspective. — Arcane Sandwich

If you are happy accepting the answer as the best answer available even if it is unsatisfactory, then I think we have arrived at somewhat meaningful point of the discussion. And I am happy with that.
But as all philosophical discussions has dialectical progress side, it might keep continuing for searching and finding better answers.

For your why question, you could ask first, why do you find the question compelling too i.e. what made you to ask the question first place. If you could answer that, and I am sure, only you could answer that question, then maybe it would help finding the answers for the other question? Just guessing. :)

It's option (4). I am effectively saying that your mind is simply what your brain does, because the mind is a process (a neuro-cognitive process) that the brain undergoes. — Arcane Sandwich

I am not sure if it is that simple. I also wonder if it would be much point to say mind is what brain does, when we don't know any details about the "does" part of brain. I mean when you say 2+2=4, what exactly is happening in the brain with which chemicals, which links to what cells.

Fair enough. Is that what you would like to talk about? Explain your point of view to me, then, if that's what you would prefer to discuss. — Arcane Sandwich

Those are just my main interests, but I would talk about anything if it is philosophical and interesting topic. Not limiting my self to just talk about certain topics at all.

But my point was that talking about brain as a biological or neurological point of view wouldn't get us very far trying to find out what mind is, and getting back to the OP - answering what the factual properties of a person are, and why the factual properties cannot be altered. Science will simply not be able to answer the questions.

Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing. — Arcane Sandwich

When you claimed your mind is simply what you brain does. It was not clear. It sounded like,

1) Your mind is your brain, or
2) Your brain does something to the mind, or
3) Your brain tells your mind to do all the things, or
4) Your mind is simply what your brain does.
5) So you have your brain, and also the mind which sounded like the Cartesian dualist.
6) But then you say, your mind is your brain.

Anyhow, you brought in brain into the discussion, hence my point was we get very little philosophical juice out of brain, because it is not really the central topic of the subject, and also even in the neurology and neurocognitive science, the researches on the hard gap between mind and brain is ongoing without resolute answers yet. Recall what you said on your previous posts?

No Corvus, brain does not tell mind what to do. Brain does mind. Brain undergoes a process, and that process is mind. And that is what my brain is telling your brain, right now. You are free to disbelieve it. But I am just as free to believe it. Right? — Arcane Sandwich

Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree. — Arcane Sandwich

I am more interested in the discussions of perception, consciousness, reasoning, propositions, belief, truth and logical proof in philosophy. Not really into biology or neurology at all.