Is the mind material or non-material?

[DBT]

Not intended as a debate, but a poll born out of curiousity in regard to the percentage of members who support one or the other option. Give a reason for your choice, if you like.

 

[none]

hell I have only had a couple of conversations about mind body dualism, and I still don't know what a mind is...

 

[DBT]

An example of a cognitive experiment on the neural basis of consciousness.

'The findings of this study could also help unravel the neural basis of consciousness.

“The most fundamental characteristic of consciousness is its limited capacity. You only can hold a very few thoughts in mind simultaneously,” Miller says. These oscillations may explain why that is: Previous studies have shown that when an animal is holding two thoughts in mind, two different ensembles oscillate in beta frequencies, out of phase with one another.

“That immediately suggests why there’s a limited capacity to consciousness: Only so many balls can be kept in the air at the same time, only a limited amount of information can fit into one oscillatory cycle,” Miller says.

Studies have shown that patients with schizophrenia have reduced beta oscillations, suggesting that disruptions of these oscillations may be involved in such neurological disorders.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not intended as a debate, but a poll born out of curiousity in regard to the percentage of members who support one or the other option. Give a reason for your choice, if you like.

To the question "Is the mind a material activity of a brain?", the only reasonable answer we have is "we don't know".

Unsurprisingly this option is not even offered in your poll.
EB

 

[DBT]

Not intended as a debate, but a poll born out of curiousity in regard to the percentage of members who support one or the other option. Give a reason for your choice, if you like.

To the question "Is the mind a material activity of a brain?", the only reasonable answer we have is "we don't know".

Unsurprisingly this option is not even offered in your poll.
EB

This poll was in response to discussion on whether the mind is physical or non physical in the ''physicalism'' thread. As one side claimed physical and the other claimed non physical mind, the option of ''unknown'' did not arise. What is this ''non physical substance anyway? What do we know about things that are not physical? What can we know?

It is completely unfounded. I may as well have included ''invisible magic pixies'' as an option?

What I have been saying is: we do not know how a brain generates the experience of mind, but the evidence supports physical brain activity as the basis of mind.

Hence a simple two question poll.

 

[fast]

The mind isn't the brain or the brain's activity; it is the product of the brain and its activity. The mind is no more material than is a class of dogs. Each dog and even the entire group of dogs within a class of dogs is material, but the classification itself in not of material substance--it is non-material. Both the brain and the brain's activity is material, but the mind that is born of that activity, however, is as non-material as is the classification of particular kinds of dogs.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is completely unfounded. I may as well have included ''invisible magic pixies'' as an option?

Me I think that most polls include a "d'ont know" option. Give people a chance to be honest for once.

we do not know how a brain generates the experience of mind,

Which is why you don't know that the mind is physical.

but the evidence supports physical brain activity as the basis of mind.

Evidence does not amount to knowledge. Evidence amounts to a belief that a particular course of actions should be followed rather than some other.

Further, while our ideas could be correlated to what we take to be material processes I personally don't know of any evidence that supports the idea that subjective experience is somehow material. The only evidence I have in this respect is my knowledge of my subjective experience itself and it does not seem material to me, in any way.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The mind is no more material than is a class of dogs.

Circular argument. A class may be an idea and nothing else but if the mind is material then so would ideas and so would classes.
EB

 

[DBT]

Me I think that most polls include a "d'ont know" option. Give people a chance to be honest for once.

As I've already said, this poll was specifically posted in response to a posters claim in the 'physicalism' thread who claimed that the mind is in fact non material.

Given your objection, I'd be quite happy to have your option included in the poll, but unless a moderator steps in and adds the question, there is not much I can do to edit the poll questions.

Again, this poll was posted specifically posted in response to the claim that the mind is non material.

Which is why you don't know that the mind is physical.

I have no idea what 'non physical' is. Given that we inhabit a physical world of physical processes, I have no idea what anything 'non physical' may be.

Given our physical world and our physical bodies and brain, senses, etc, 'non physical' seems to be synonymous with 'non existent'
Seeing I know nothing about non physical things, I'll ask you to explain: What is the nature of this non physical stuff? How does it interact with the physical world?

The only evidence I have in this respect is my knowledge of my subjective experience itself and it does not seem material to me, in any way.
EB

'Does not seem....?'' How do you know what it seems like, given that perception (subjective experience) does not encompass the neural production mechanisms and electrochemical activity that shapes and forms that very experience?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The mind isn't the brain or the brain's activity; it is the product of the brain and its activity.

This is nice and all but you don't have any evidence this is the case.

 

[aupmanyav]

Poll questions:
The mind a material activity of a brain.
The mind is not a material activity of a brain, a mind is non-material.

DBT, IMHO, the poll is not worded correctly. I did not vote.
The mind a material activity of a brain. But by itself, mind is non-material. It is a thought produced by a physical brain.

 

[DBT]

Poll questions:
The mind a material activity of a brain.
The mind is not a material activity of a brain, a mind is non-material.

DBT, IMHO, the poll is not worded correctly. I did not vote.
The mind a material activity of a brain. But by itself, mind is non-material. It is a thought produced by a physical brain.

Looks like a contradiction. If the mind is a material activity of a brain, mind must be material (being a material activity), rather than a ''non material entity'' or a ''non material activity'' (whatever that is).

Thought cannot be separated from the physical activity of thought formation... unless you are proposing duality?

 

[aupmanyav]

You know I do not propose duality. I think you have a point here. However ephimeral, mind still might be a material activity.

 

[fast]

The mind isn't the brain or the brain's activity; it is the product of the brain and its activity.

This is nice and all but you don't have any evidence this is the case.

I thought it was a necessary truth --a statement of fact so self-evident that there would be no need for an argument. My bad.

 

[DBT]

You know I do not propose duality. I think you have a point here. However ephemeral, mind still might be a material activity.

I know you didn't propose duality intentionally. But it is implied when thoughts and mind are said to be ephemeral, or non material. I don't mean you, but these words and references are being used by posters without a clear description of the actual thing they are supposed to refer to.

So what exactly is the nature of 'ephemeral' thought or mind? What is the nature of this 'non material' substance? That is what I'd like to see described, and not just used as handy catch phrases to support a belief.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The mind isn't the brain or the brain's activity; it is the product of the brain and its activity.

This is nice and all but you don't have any evidence this is the case.

I thought it was a necessary truth --a statement of fact so self-evident that there would be no need for an argument. My bad.

Oh, I meant to quote the part where you claim the mind is non-material. Woops.

 

[fast]

The mind isn't the brain or the brain's activity; it is the product of the brain and its activity.

This is nice and all but you don't have any evidence this is the case.

I thought it was a necessary truth --a statement of fact so self-evident that there would be no need for an argument. My bad.

Oh, I meant to quote the part where you claim the mind is non-material. Woops.

A healthy grasp of what's not being insinuated by the statement that there exists non-material entities (eg happiness) can cure us of our misdirection predicated by the subtleties of language. There would be no mind in a world where there are no brains, but the mind's lack of material substance is no good reason to either a) deny it's existence or b) demand it be of material form. Perhaps an extraordinary propensity for some to deny the supernatural is enough to maintain one's drive to blanketly deny the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically observed, but a healthy grasp of the fact our language usage to say of a mind that it's not composed of material matter does not imply a supernatural aspect to the nature of minds. Evidence? It's material or non material nature has more to do with our language usage than it does with scientific inquiry.

 

[Underseer]

Why the [bad word] would you need a poll on this? You're at an atheist web site, so of course you're going to find that very few respondents are substance dualists. Yeesh.

 

[DBT]

Why the [bad word] would you need a poll on this? You're at an atheist web site, so of course you're going to find that very few respondents are substance dualists. Yeesh.

Because I didn't know exactly how few. Or what the percentage may turn out to be. And better yet, it didn't cost me anything to post the poll.

 

[DBT]

The mind isn't the brain or the brain's activity; it is the product of the brain and its activity.

This is nice and all but you don't have any evidence this is the case.

I thought it was a necessary truth --a statement of fact so self-evident that there would be no need for an argument. My bad.

Oh, I meant to quote the part where you claim the mind is non-material. Woops.

A healthy grasp of what's not being insinuated by the statement that there exists non-material entities (eg happiness) can cure us of our misdirection predicated by the subtleties of language. There would be no mind in a world where there are no brains, but the mind's lack of material substance is no good reason to either a) deny it's existence or b) demand it be of material form. Perhaps an extraordinary propensity for some to deny the supernatural is enough to maintain one's drive to blanketly deny the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically observed, but a healthy grasp of the fact our language usage to say of a mind that it's not composed of material matter does not imply a supernatural aspect to the nature of minds. Evidence? It's material or non material nature has more to do with our language usage than it does with scientific inquiry.

Fast, how do you know that mind, happiness, etc, is not composed of material matter? Which raises the question: what is mind?