Is the mind material or non-material?

[Togo]

Ok, you've yet again taken what I've said and replied purely on the basis of it's relation to your stated position.

Why wouldn't I? Considering that you have been disputing what I said about the relationship between science and philosophy, what you are saying in relation to my stated position on the subject is my point of contention.

Yes. You're only willing to discuss matters that relate to your own position. I can't force you to be interested in a broader discussion, or in philosophy in general, so I'm leaving the matter here.

 

[DBT]

Ok, you've yet again taken what I've said and replied purely on the basis of it's relation to your stated position.

Why wouldn't I? Considering that you have been disputing what I said about the relationship between science and philosophy, what you are saying in relation to my stated position on the subject is my point of contention.

Yes. You're only willing to discuss matters that relate to your own position. I can't force you to be interested in a broader discussion, or in philosophy in general, so I'm leaving the matter here.

Togo, now you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel of desperation. My position is directly related to a broader discussion: the relationship between science and philosophy. The very subject matter, the necessity of scientific information for philosophical inquiry into physical processes (the brain/mind issue), that you have been disputing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is the question of material or nonmaterial mind material to the mind itself?

How are we to know?

More to the point, if the mind is immaterial, how cam we we have a material discussion?

Even more to the point, is there even something like a material discussion? And the answers has already been given: How are we to know?

A subsidiary question would be: What does "material" mean? I know what I mean by this word but I don't remember anybody providing any proper definition of it, ever.
The notion of subjective experience does not suffer from the same flaw. I know pain whenever I am in pain and therefore I don't have a need for any kind of definition of pain. But what is the material world? I don't know.
EB

 

[DBT]

What is that physicists study? Astronomers? Geneticists, etc?

Isn't it something that they are examining and testing?

Something rather than Nothing. Presumably it is this very ''something'' that we call ''matter'' or ''material'' and ''nothing'' referring to non material, or perhaps non existence.

This ''Nothing'' or 'non material' having no observable or testable interaction with the ''Material World'' - which is ''Something'' rather than ''Nothing.''

 

[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.

So my answer is a follows:
I know my mind and only my mind (what I call my mind anyway and I can only assume that other people are talking about the same thing but in fact I don't know that). So, is my mind material? To answer that question by "yes" or "no" I would need to know what people mean by "material". But I don't. All I know is what are my private beliefs that there is what I call "a material world". However, I don't know this putative material world. All I know on top of my belief are qualia and the fact that they vaguely suggest that there is something beyond the qualia themselves, something philosophers usually call "external world". So, if I assume that "material" really means "external", i.e. external to my mind, the question has to be reframed: Is my mind a part of an external world? The answer, however, is again that I don't know and I haven't seen any argument that would make it necessarily so. It's possible of course. But it's also possible that my mind is somehow outside of this external world or even that there is no external world at all. I would generously grant the bemused that it seems hard to conceive this but unfortunately we can't even say that it's improbable since the notion of probabilities assumes a material world to begin with.

Of course, we can fall back on our beliefs but, doing so, we cannot expect to find any proper justification of them that would not assume first that they are true.
EB

 

[steve_bnk]

Paraphrasing from what I remember of Durant's intro to his book on philosophy, as he put it science deals with that which can be quantified and the rest is metaphysics, aesthetics, religion and so on.

If you assert mind brain duality, for science to address it, it as to be quantofiable and reduced to a model.

There is no basis for such a model to date. On the past show Theory Of Everything some scientists considered String Theory more philosophy than science. Too speculative and untestable.

 

[Kharakov]

What is that physicists study? Astronomers? Geneticists, etc?

Isn't it something that they are examining and testing?

Something rather than Nothing. Presumably it is this very ''something'' that we call ''matter'' or ''material'' and ''nothing'' referring to non material, or perhaps non existence.

This ''Nothing'' or 'non material' having no observable or testable interaction with the ''Material World'' - which is ''Something'' rather than ''Nothing.''

So, your idea about nothing doesn't have an effect on the physical world? How, pray tell, do I read your words?

I am a jerk, or what?

 

[DBT]

What is that physicists study? Astronomers? Geneticists, etc?

Isn't it something that they are examining and testing?

Something rather than Nothing. Presumably it is this very ''something'' that we call ''matter'' or ''material'' and ''nothing'' referring to non material, or perhaps non existence.

This ''Nothing'' or 'non material' having no observable or testable interaction with the ''Material World'' - which is ''Something'' rather than ''Nothing.''

So, your idea about nothing doesn't have an effect on the physical world? How, pray tell, do I read your words?

I am a jerk, or what?

You read the words according to the immediate information state of the brain, inputs interacting with experience in the form of memory. ''The brain'' being the source and agency of 'you' the reader. So I wouldn't expect anything other than precisely how you happen to perceive the words and precisely how you respond to them.

 

[Kharakov]

So would thoughts be the infinitesimal materials- those which exist, yet have such fleeting existence that they are infinitesimal in regard to the larger infinitesimal aspects of reality?

From a philosophical standpoint, borrowing from mathematical concepts, anything existing as a finite object within an eternally existing reality is an infinitesimal object. Only those things which are preserved (or persist as part of an eternal recurrence) eternally would be truly non-finite, although they themselves may be an infinitesimal portion of the larger infinite set of totality.

So thoughts, which arise with infinitesimal existence within reality, although some recur, are an order of magnitude more infinitesimal than other objects within reality. Is the thought of a winged horse lower in the hierarchy of eternal existence (being less present) than an actual stallion (which have existence as both a thought form, and the infinitesimally existing bodily form). Between infinitesimals, there are relations where one is many orders of magnitude more existent than another.

Although an object, such as this computer, also has an infinitesimal existence in relationship to non-finite reality, this particular computer will not recur, but the thought of a winged horse will recur many more times in actual reality, and have a larger actual existence that this particular computer, which exists outside of our brains.

So now we have the idea of something having a greater total existence within infinite reality than an object outside of our brains. So which of the 2 objects has a greater existence value? The thought, or the computer?

Both are forms assumed by the matter/energy/spacetime that we exist within and are part of. So does a thought, which recurs many times in reality, have greater existence than an object, which only exists for a finite amount of time?

Methinks this would mean that eternally recurring thoughts have greater overall existence than any material object, and that the persistence of material objects in external reality is less great than the existence of the thoughts that arise again and again, with great persistence, about material reality.

And then we have another thing: do thoughts about natural laws have greater magnitude of existence than natural laws themselves? IE, if from this point on in time, greater than 1000 individuals is thinking about natural laws at any given point in time, and natural laws are just what they are (existing as they do singularly), do not the thoughts about natural law have a greater magnitude of existence in reality than the laws themselves?

 

[Togo]

Paraphrasing from what I remember of Durant's intro to his book on philosophy, as he put it science deals with that which can be quantified and the rest is metaphysics, aesthetics, religion and so on.

On what basis?

The traditional objection to such divisions is that the justification for the division itself always ends up on the unquantified/unmeasureable/speculative side of the fence. Some writers deal quite well with this limitation, others... don't.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So would thoughts be the infinitesimal materials- those which exist, yet have such fleeting existence that they are infinitesimal in regard to the larger infinitesimal aspects of reality?

From a philosophical standpoint, borrowing from mathematical concepts, anything existing as a finite object within an eternally existing reality is an infinitesimal object. Only those things which are preserved (or persist as part of an eternal recurrence) eternally would be truly non-finite, although they themselves may be an infinitesimal portion of the larger infinite set of totality.

So thoughts, which arise with infinitesimal existence within reality, although some recur, are an order of magnitude more infinitesimal than other objects within reality. Is the thought of a winged horse lower in the hierarchy of eternal existence (being less present) than an actual stallion (which have existence as both a thought form, and the infinitesimally existing bodily form). Between infinitesimals, there are relations where one is many orders of magnitude more existent than another.

Although an object, such as this computer, also has an infinitesimal existence in relationship to non-finite reality, this particular computer will not recur, but the thought of a winged horse will recur many more times in actual reality, and have a larger actual existence that this particular computer, which exists outside of our brains.

So now we have the idea of something having a greater total existence within infinite reality than an object outside of our brains. So which of the 2 objects has a greater existence value? The thought, or the computer?

Both are forms assumed by the matter/energy/spacetime that we exist within and are part of. So does a thought, which recurs many times in reality, have greater existence than an object, which only exists for a finite amount of time?

Methinks this would mean that eternally recurring thoughts have greater overall existence than any material object, and that the persistence of material objects in external reality is less great than the existence of the thoughts that arise again and again, with great persistence, about material reality.

And then we have another thing: do thoughts about natural laws have greater magnitude of existence than natural laws themselves? IE, if from this point on in time, greater than 1000 individuals is thinking about natural laws at any given point in time, and natural laws are just what they are (existing as they do singularly), do not the thoughts about natural law have a greater magnitude of existence in reality than the laws themselves?

Somewhat reminiscent of Saint Anselm's onlogical argument...

It's a bit shabby dog rhetoric so you may want to tighten up a bit but you could make yourself a name for posterity... for good or bad.
EB

 

[steve_bnk]

Paraphrasing from what I remember of Durant's intro to his book on philosophy, as he put it science deals with that which can be quantified and the rest is metaphysics, aesthetics, religion and so on.

On what basis?

The traditional objection to such divisions is that the justification for the division itself always ends up on the unquantified/unmeasureable/speculative side of the fence. Some writers deal quite well with this limitation, others... don't.

Divisions and categories based on metaphysical abstractions are inescapably imprecise.


It is all human thought, categories of applied human thought are useful and necessary.


Someone just used the word jerk, howmany different meanings and shades o inference are associated with the term?


Quantification means numbers. The unambiguous lexicon of science is Systems International. Everythingin science reduces to these definitions. That is the philosophy--science dichotomy.


http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html


No such unambiguous lexicon exists inphilosophy to describe reality. The obvious question , what is the difference between material and non-material in these debates? Are photons material or non-material?


As Popper put it, when you go beyondthese bits of objective numerical data points, science becomes progressively subjective and moves towards philosophy. In popularculture the term science includes popular speculative science.


Science can not address something without an observable measurable phenomena, or an extrapolation fromobservation.


So far all repeatable demonstrable phenomena show that mind, or what we self perceive as mind, is a function of the brain. Drugs in predictable scientifically understoodways affect mind. Brain damage in specific areas affect specificfunctions like speech.

 

[Togo]

Science can not address something without an observable measurable phenomena, or an extrapolation from observation.

That would make what you can extrapolate from an observation, and any consideration of how far you can extrapolate, a matter of philosophy, not science.

So far all repeatable demonstrable phenomena show that mind...

As would any concept of what constitutes repeatable or demonstrable.

My take on this is that it's very hard to define science and philosophy as separate without removing much of what makes science useful to philosophy's side of the fence. That's not a problem in itself, and it remains useful to have the separation between what is measureable and what is a matter of logical speculation, but it's not generally the end point that people want to reach.

 

[Underseer]

You can't say for certain that Pinocchio never existed because it is always possible that the author was accidentally correct.

Sure, it's highly unlikely that a wooden puppet sprung to life and became a real boy, but you can't say with 100% certainty that such a being does not exist and never existed.

 

[Juma]

You can't say for certain that Pinocchio never existed because it is always possible that the author was accidentally correct.

Sure, it's highly unlikely that a wooden puppet sprung to life and became a real boy, but you can't say with 100% certainty that such a being does not exist and never existed.

Of course we can. That is only two valid digits.

 

[DBT]

The obvious question , what is the difference between material and non-material in these debates? Are photons material or non-material?

If photons were non material, would we know they exist?

 

[steve_bnk]

The obvious question , what is the difference between material and non-material in these debates? Are photons material or non-material?

If photons were non material, would we know they exist?

If you can answer the question as to the difference between material-physical and non-material physical in the context of the op I will be suitably impressed with your hilosophical prowess..

 

[DBT]

The obvious question , what is the difference between material and non-material in these debates? Are photons material or non-material?

If photons were non material, would we know they exist?

If you can answer the question as to the difference between material-physical and non-material physical in the context of the op I will be suitably impressed with your hilosophical prowess..

What we call photons, fundamental wave/particles of what we call 'matter,'interact with the structures of the eye, rods, cones, optic nerve function and are represented as colour and shape of the object of reflection. These are defined as physical interactions. So the question: what is this non physical 'stuff?' How does this non physical 'stuff' supposed to interact with what we call physical structures and processes, eyes, optic nerves and neural networks? And the question, what do we know about the properties of non physical 'things?'

 

[Speakpigeon]

You can't say for certain that Pinocchio never existed because it is always possible that the author was accidentally correct.

Sure, it's highly unlikely that a wooden puppet sprung to life and became a real boy, but you can't say with 100% certainty that such a being does not exist and never existed.

So presumably you can't even have 100% certainty about how certain you can be about Pinocchio or indeed anything at all.

I knew it! I knew it!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

R U certain?