Is the mind material or non-material?

[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.

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

Because there is no physical substance to instantiate it. Our understanding of what it means to say of something that it is or isn't material matter makes it obviously clear that those things (broad sense of the term) are not material. To even suggest otherwise flies in the face of how such terms are collectively used by fluent speakers of our language. We must be careful not to unwittingly increase the scope to which these terms cover. If we do not remain grounded in our analysis while we philosophize and keep true to the lexical usage of quite self-evident usages of such terms that lack a referent that is physical in nature, we are destined to come away with a very warped sense of the things we ought to clearly grasp. Philosophy is bombarded with such needless extremism, and continued examination of such things while stuck in the grip of a theory is the very thing, ironically, that has led great philosophers to become highly recognized; hence, it's the greatness of their mistakes that propelled their notoriety. Do not underestimate the degree to which our language bears responsibility for such a relentless pursuit of such answers.

 

[Underseer]

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?

Because there is no physical substance to instantiate it. Our understanding of what it means to say of something that it is or isn't material matter makes it obviously clear that those things (broad sense of the term) are not material. To even suggest otherwise flies in the face of how such terms are collectively used by fluent speakers of our language. We must be careful not to unwittingly increase the scope to which these terms cover. If we do not remain grounded in our analysis while we philosophize and keep true to the lexical usage of quite self-evident usages of such terms that lack a referent that is physical in nature, we are destined to come away with a very warped sense of the things we ought to clearly grasp. Philosophy is bombarded with such needless extremism, and continued examination of such things while stuck in the grip of a theory is the very thing, ironically, that has led great philosophers to become highly recognized; hence, it's the greatness of their mistakes that propelled their notoriety. Do not underestimate the degree to which our language bears responsibility for such a relentless pursuit of such answers.

Great.

Then you should have no problem designing an experiment demonstrating the existence of this non-physical material, and perhaps even determine the properties of this non-material substance. I look forward to telling everyone that I knew you before you were famous!

 

[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.

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

Because there is no physical substance to instantiate it. Our understanding of what it means to say of something that it is or isn't material matter makes it obviously clear that those things (broad sense of the term) are not material. To even suggest otherwise flies in the face of how such terms are collectively used by fluent speakers of our language. We must be careful not to unwittingly increase the scope to which these terms cover. If we do not remain grounded in our analysis while we philosophize and keep true to the lexical usage of quite self-evident usages of such terms that lack a referent that is physical in nature, we are destined to come away with a very warped sense of the things we ought to clearly grasp. Philosophy is bombarded with such needless extremism, and continued examination of such things while stuck in the grip of a theory is the very thing, ironically, that has led great philosophers to become highly recognized; hence, it's the greatness of their mistakes that propelled their notoriety. Do not underestimate the degree to which our language bears responsibility for such a relentless pursuit of such answers.

Great.

Then you should have no problem designing an experiment demonstrating the existence of this non-physical material, and perhaps even determine the properties of this non-material substance. I look forward to telling everyone that I knew you before you were famous!

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, and the mind has the property of being brain-dependent, so the mind exists. There is no physical or material substance to instantiate the term, "mind", and because the mind exists, the mind is neither physical or material.

 

[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?

Because there is no physical substance to instantiate it. Our understanding of what it means to say of something that it is or isn't material matter makes it obviously clear that those things (broad sense of the term) are not material. To even suggest otherwise flies in the face of how such terms are collectively used by fluent speakers of our language. We must be careful not to unwittingly increase the scope to which these terms cover. If we do not remain grounded in our analysis while we philosophize and keep true to the lexical usage of quite self-evident usages of such terms that lack a referent that is physical in nature, we are destined to come away with a very warped sense of the things we ought to clearly grasp. Philosophy is bombarded with such needless extremism, and continued examination of such things while stuck in the grip of a theory is the very thing, ironically, that has led great philosophers to become highly recognized; hence, it's the greatness of their mistakes that propelled their notoriety. Do not underestimate the degree to which our language bears responsibility for such a relentless pursuit of such answers.

Interesting, but this still does not answer my questions.

1 - What is 'mind?'

2 - If mind is defined or described as being 'non physical' - what is the nature non physical mind in terms of its relationship to the physical properties of a brain?

3 -How do you know that mind (thought, happiness, etc), is not composed of physical matter in the form of neural electrochemical activity?

 

[fast]

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-mind-and-brain/

 

[Perspicuo]

Neutral Monist of the Bertrand Russell sort, reporting.

In complete agreement with the vast majority of behavioral scientists, I believe the mind is brain function. Function is not matter itself strictly speaking, it is the working of material systems. So in a way it is material, and in a way, thanks to human linguistic usage (pragmatics), it is not material, as it doesn't have mass.

Put it this way in comparison: Movement is the function of a moving object. It does not have mass itself, because it is a linguistic abstraction of something entirely physical. Words, words, words, dear Hamlet... funny little things that allow human understanding but frequently also get in the way of it.

 

[fast]

In complete agreement with the vast majority of behavioral scientists, I believe the mind is brain function. Function is not matter itself strictly speaking, it is the working of material systems.

I used to believe that, but just as there is a difference between the brain and brain function (or brain activity), so too is there a difference between brain function and the mind. Yes, there is most certainly a difference between the material substances that are active and the activity itself, but the activity itself (or the function that wouldn't result had there been no substances to be active) is not therefore the mind. However, the inability for some to distinguish between brain function and mind does not serve as an impediment to the future successes of behavioral scientists, as the commonality between the two (brain function and mind) are such that no meaningful difference (not to say there aren't meaningful differences (and I believe there are) are manifested in the material world. There is, simply put, a higher level of abstraction between that of brain function and that of mind.

 

[steve_bnk]

If you asked if the mind is zork or non-zork my question would be what is the definition of zork?

So, what are the definitions of material and non-material.?

 

[fast]

If you asked if the mind is zork or non-zork my question would be what is the definition of zork?

So, what are the definitions of material and non-material.?

First, be aware of the commonplace confusion between terms and their referents, and while we're discussing the important distinction, don't be misguided by yet another often confusion--that of the distinction between that which is a referent and meaning. You speak of definitions and yet even that too is not quite the same as meaning.

I won't embark on a journey to outline every distinction, but it's important to note that terms (or rather noun phrases) are composed of one or more words. For instance, the word, "cat" (and notice the double quote--which is a commonplace clarification that it is the word (and not the referent of the word, being discussed) (also often regarded as the use/mention distinction) is a one-worded term. In comparison, the term "free will" is a two-worded term.

My cat is fat. I spoke of my cat. I did not speak of the word "cat". In fact, I used (used, I say) the word, "cat". Now, the word, "cat" has three letters. In this instance, I mentioned (mentioned, I say) the word, "cat".

Now, let's look at a real-world example. The name of my cat is, "crooked tail kitty." That's a three-worded term by the way. Do you think the name of my cat is hungry? Bet not! The referent to the term, namely my actual purring, couch-clawing cat is hungry--always, go figure! The point is that we must be very focused on exactly what it is we're talking about.

Granted, we often talk in what can be regarded as short-hand, so if you were to ask me aloud to spell cat, I (and most others) would readily understand that you wanted me to spell the word--certainly not cat. Despite this, in philosophy, where confusion is abound, it often becomes quite necessary to expound with remarkable precision so as to avoid further misunderstanding.

With that in mind (whatever that is, right!), rest assured that there is a difference between material and "material". One is a word, and one is not. With that in mind, let it be understood that it is always the word (and never the referent of words) that have definitions.

Your question, if to be taken as if not written in short-hand makes a category error, yet with my explanation prefacing my response, I will assume that you desire the definition of the word. Interesting. Like many words, the written definitions are housed in dictionaries, and they are explanations that help us glean their meaning--there lexical meaning--as collectively used by fluent speakers of our language.

 

[steve_bnk]

If you asked if the mind is zork or non-zork my question would be what is the definition of zork?

So, what are the definitions of material and non-material.?

First, be aware of the commonplace confusion between terms and their referents, and while we're discussing the important distinction, don't be misguided by yet another often confusion--that of the distinction between that which is a referent and meaning. You speak of definitions and yet even that too is not quite the same as meaning.

I won't embark on a journey to outline every distinction, but it's important to note that terms (or rather noun phrases) are composed of one or more words. For instance, the word, "cat" (and notice the double quote--which is a commonplace clarification that it is the word (and not the referent of the word, being discussed) (also often regarded as the use/mention distinction) is a one-worded term. In comparison, the term "free will" is a two-worded term.

My cat is fat. I spoke of my cat. I did not speak of the word "cat". In fact, I used (used, I say) the word, "cat". Now, the word, "cat" has three letters. In this instance, I mentioned (mentioned, I say) the word, "cat".

Now, let's look at a real-world example. The name of my cat is, "crooked tail kitty." That's a three-worded term by the way. Do you think the name of my cat is hungry? Bet not! The referent to the term, namely my actual purring, couch-clawing cat is hungry--always, go figure! The point is that we must be very focused on exactly what it is we're talking about.

Granted, we often talk in what can be regarded as short-hand, so if you were to ask me aloud to spell cat, I (and most others) would readily understand that you wanted me to spell the word--certainly not cat. Despite this, in philosophy, where confusion is abound, it often becomes quite necessary to expound with remarkable precision so as to avoid further misunderstanding.

With that in mind (whatever that is, right!), rest assured that there is a difference between material and "material". One is a word, and one is not. With that in mind, let it be understood that it is always the word (and never the referent of words) that have definitions.

Your question, if to be taken as if not written in short-hand makes a category error, yet with my explanation prefacing my response, I will assume that you desire the definition of the word. Interesting. Like many words, the written definitions are housed in dictionaries, and they are explanations that help us glean their meaning--there lexical meaning--as collectively used by fluent speakers of our language.

And thus you eloquently describe the difference between science and philosophy and why philosophy fails in describing reality. Science uses the System International physical definitions.


Philosophy is always self referential.Science is that which can be described via SI units, and mind becomesa process that can be described in terms of SI definitions notsubject to interpretation.


As this is a philosophy forum, the question can never be answered. On the science side it is said thereis no evidence of any manifestation outside of the biochemicalprocesses in the brain.




So, going back to the old site beaucoup threads on the material vs non-materiel with some people desperately trying to find some logical basis for a belief. People searching for some meaning and hope beyond our physical reality.


I thumbed through Hegel's Phenomenologyback in the 90s. What I got from it was he thought philosophy hadlost its way becoming focused on meaning and debates over meaning.


Running philosophical discourse overquestions unanswerable for thousands of years is pointless.

Definitions and communications require an object as reference. We learn as kids by immersion what the words rocks and trees are. you can point to an object and say rock, and I know what rock means. it is all subjective with meing defined by co=groupo copsensus oer time.

The problem with defining material and non material is there is no non-material to point to. in science all that exist is matter which has the properties of mass and energy which can be quantified.

I go with Naturalism which broadly saysall that exists by definition is part of reality whether or not wecan detect it. As such there can be no material non-materialdichotomy or supernatural.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I voted non-material, but I have to qualify my vote. What I regard as real and yet non-material is the intelligibility of the universe that can only be comprehended by mind.

As for the mind itself being non-material, I doubt it.

 

[fast]

If you asked if the mind is zork or non-zork my question would be what is the definition of zork?

So, what are the definitions of material and non-material.?

First, be aware of the commonplace confusion between terms and their referents, and while we're discussing the important distinction, don't be misguided by yet another often confusion--that of the distinction between that which is a referent and meaning. You speak of definitions and yet even that too is not quite the same as meaning.

I won't embark on a journey to outline every distinction, but it's important to note that terms (or rather noun phrases) are composed of one or more words. For instance, the word, "cat" (and notice the double quote--which is a commonplace clarification that it is the word (and not the referent of the word, being discussed) (also often regarded as the use/mention distinction) is a one-worded term. In comparison, the term "free will" is a two-worded term.

My cat is fat. I spoke of my cat. I did not speak of the word "cat". In fact, I used (used, I say) the word, "cat". Now, the word, "cat" has three letters. In this instance, I mentioned (mentioned, I say) the word, "cat".

Now, let's look at a real-world example. The name of my cat is, "crooked tail kitty." That's a three-worded term by the way. Do you think the name of my cat is hungry? Bet not! The referent to the term, namely my actual purring, couch-clawing cat is hungry--always, go figure! The point is that we must be very focused on exactly what it is we're talking about.

Granted, we often talk in what can be regarded as short-hand, so if you were to ask me aloud to spell cat, I (and most others) would readily understand that you wanted me to spell the word--certainly not cat. Despite this, in philosophy, where confusion is abound, it often becomes quite necessary to expound with remarkable precision so as to avoid further misunderstanding.

With that in mind (whatever that is, right!), rest assured that there is a difference between material and "material". One is a word, and one is not. With that in mind, let it be understood that it is always the word (and never the referent of words) that have definitions.

Your question, if to be taken as if not written in short-hand makes a category error, yet with my explanation prefacing my response, I will assume that you desire the definition of the word. Interesting. Like many words, the written definitions are housed in dictionaries, and they are explanations that help us glean their meaning--there lexical meaning--as collectively used by fluent speakers of our language.

And thus you eloquently describe the difference between science and philosophy and why philosophy fails in describing reality. Science uses the System International physical definitions.


Philosophy is always self referential.Science is that which can be described via SI units, and mind becomesa process that can be described in terms of SI definitions notsubject to interpretation.


As this is a philosophy forum, the question can never be answered. On the science side it is said thereis no evidence of any manifestation outside of the biochemicalprocesses in the brain.




So, going back to the old site beaucoup threads on the material vs non-materiel with some people desperately trying to find some logical basis for a belief. People searching for some meaning and hope beyond our physical reality.


I thumbed through Hegel's Phenomenologyback in the 90s. What I got from it was he thought philosophy hadlost its way becoming focused on meaning and debates over meaning.


Running philosophical discourse overquestions unanswerable for thousands of years is pointless.

Definitions and communications require an object as reference. We learn as kids by immersion what the words rocks and trees are. you can point to an object and say rock, and I know what rock means. it is all subjective with meing defined by co=groupo copsensus oer time.

The problem with defining material and non material is there is no non-material to point to. in science all that exist is matter which has the properties of mass and energy which can be quantified.

I go with Naturalism which broadly saysall that exists by definition is part of reality whether or not wecan detect it. As such there can be no material non-materialdichotomy or supernatural.

SI definitions eh

I have been using strictly lexical definitions to the exclusion of stipulative definitions. I would have (as is customary to do so) used single quotation marks had I been using a word in an alternative or unusual way. There is a difference between mind, 'mind', and "mind". The first refers to the quasi-abstract entity under discussion, and the latter refers to the very word itself. Interestingly enough, you have chosen to use a stipulative definition of the term in a discussion about the mind. You understand, however, that your actions pave way for talking pass one another.

Your response btw, gives me reason to think you're not following what I've been saying, but it's all good. Take care.

 

[steve_bnk]

If you asked if the mind is zork or non-zork my question would be what is the definition of zork?

So, what are the definitions of material and non-material.?

First, be aware of the commonplace confusion between terms and their referents, and while we're discussing the important distinction, don't be misguided by yet another often confusion--that of the distinction between that which is a referent and meaning. You speak of definitions and yet even that too is not quite the same as meaning.

I won't embark on a journey to outline every distinction, but it's important to note that terms (or rather noun phrases) are composed of one or more words. For instance, the word, "cat" (and notice the double quote--which is a commonplace clarification that it is the word (and not the referent of the word, being discussed) (also often regarded as the use/mention distinction) is a one-worded term. In comparison, the term "free will" is a two-worded term.

My cat is fat. I spoke of my cat. I did not speak of the word "cat". In fact, I used (used, I say) the word, "cat". Now, the word, "cat" has three letters. In this instance, I mentioned (mentioned, I say) the word, "cat".

Now, let's look at a real-world example. The name of my cat is, "crooked tail kitty." That's a three-worded term by the way. Do you think the name of my cat is hungry? Bet not! The referent to the term, namely my actual purring, couch-clawing cat is hungry--always, go figure! The point is that we must be very focused on exactly what it is we're talking about.

Granted, we often talk in what can be regarded as short-hand, so if you were to ask me aloud to spell cat, I (and most others) would readily understand that you wanted me to spell the word--certainly not cat. Despite this, in philosophy, where confusion is abound, it often becomes quite necessary to expound with remarkable precision so as to avoid further misunderstanding.

With that in mind (whatever that is, right!), rest assured that there is a difference between material and "material". One is a word, and one is not. With that in mind, let it be understood that it is always the word (and never the referent of words) that have definitions.

Your question, if to be taken as if not written in short-hand makes a category error, yet with my explanation prefacing my response, I will assume that you desire the definition of the word. Interesting. Like many words, the written definitions are housed in dictionaries, and they are explanations that help us glean their meaning--there lexical meaning--as collectively used by fluent speakers of our language.

And thus you eloquently describe the difference between science and philosophy and why philosophy fails in describing reality. Science uses the System International physical definitions.


Philosophy is always self referential.Science is that which can be described via SI units, and mind becomesa process that can be described in terms of SI definitions notsubject to interpretation.


As this is a philosophy forum, the question can never be answered. On the science side it is said thereis no evidence of any manifestation outside of the biochemicalprocesses in the brain.




So, going back to the old site beaucoup threads on the material vs non-materiel with some people desperately trying to find some logical basis for a belief. People searching for some meaning and hope beyond our physical reality.


I thumbed through Hegel's Phenomenologyback in the 90s. What I got from it was he thought philosophy hadlost its way becoming focused on meaning and debates over meaning.


Running philosophical discourse overquestions unanswerable for thousands of years is pointless.

Definitions and communications require an object as reference. We learn as kids by immersion what the words rocks and trees are. you can point to an object and say rock, and I know what rock means. it is all subjective with meing defined by co=groupo copsensus oer time.

The problem with defining material and non material is there is no non-material to point to. in science all that exist is matter which has the properties of mass and energy which can be quantified.

I go with Naturalism which broadly saysall that exists by definition is part of reality whether or not wecan detect it. As such there can be no material non-materialdichotomy or supernatural.

SI definitions eh

I have been using strictly lexical definitions to the exclusion of stipulative definitions. I would have (as is customary to do so) used single quotation marks had I been using a word in an alternative or unusual way. There is a difference between mind, 'mind', and "mind". The first refers to the quasi-abstract entity under discussion, and the latter refers to the very word itself. Interestingly enough, you have chosen to use a stipulative definition of the term in a discussion about the mind. You understand, however, that your actions pave way for talking pass one another.

Your response btw, gives me reason to think you're not following what I've been saying, but it's all good. Take care.

like I said you go on about meaning without getting anywhere.

It is more like I se no value in making the effort to wade through your post. I do not see it clarifying the debate of material vs non-material. Philosophy can not answer the question.

 

[fast]

It's not a debate. It's a discussion.

 

[steve_bnk]

It's not a debate. It's a discussion.

You just opened a debate.

 

[4321lynx]

What a pity this question was put in a Philosophy forum. Philosophy only obscures the study of the brain and its function we call a "Mind" with endless bickering and bitching about semantics. It has no useful contribution to the study of the mind, as, for instance, it has no useful contribution to the study of other functions of the brain, such as muscle movement and control, eyesight, hearing, touch and pain sensation etc. The contributions of poetry or of music are much more useful in this context than those of philosophy. We are out of the Dark Ages, there is science to be used to solve the many riddles of the mind; in the end it is a question of physics and chemistry.

 

[fast]

Philosophy is talk about talk, so semantics becomes a big issue when trying to provide clarity of thought about what it means to say of something. For instance, if I were to ask you what's on your mind, never would the highly astute hold the view that I were inquiring of your brain activity. Yes, thinking requires brain activity, and yes, there would be no activity without the presence of physical matter, but to call thoughts, for instance, something that is material, would be an inappropriate use of the term, "material". We ought not alter our common sense and distort word usage because we think we understand the nature of things. There is nothing truly spooky about saying the mind is not composed of material matter, nor should anyone's mistaken conviction that nothing exists that is not of material matter sway them into making incorrect conclusions about the implications of declaring such things, especially once they understand that it's not our views that are out of line with reality. The elephant in the room is language, not distorted views about the nature of things.

 

[Perspicuo]

In complete agreement with the vast majority of behavioral scientists, I believe the mind is brain function. Function is not matter itself strictly speaking, it is the working of material systems.

I used to believe that, but just as there is a difference between the brain and brain function (or brain activity), so too is there a difference between brain function and the mind. Yes, there is most certainly a difference between the material substances that are active and the activity itself, but the activity itself (or the function that wouldn't result had there been no substances to be active) is not therefore the mind. However, the inability for some to distinguish between brain function and mind does not serve as an impediment to the future successes of behavioral scientists, as the commonality between the two (brain function and mind) are such that no meaningful difference (not to say there aren't meaningful differences (and I believe there are) are manifested in the material world. There is, simply put, a higher level of abstraction between that of brain function and that of mind.

In primo loco, I did not say "there is a difference between the brain and brain function", but the opposite. A healthy brain's functioning and the healthy brain itself cannot be separated. Both are physical events. Language is the only one separating them. "Function" is an abstraction, and abstractions are artifacts of language. There is no such thing as "justice", only just decisions and actions.

Second, you say you thought brain function and mind were the same but somehow you changed your mind. What made you change your mind?

 

[fast]

In complete agreement with the vast majority of behavioral scientists, I believe the mind is brain function. Function is not matter itself strictly speaking, it is the working of material systems.

I used to believe that, but just as there is a difference between the brain and brain function (or brain activity), so too is there a difference between brain function and the mind. Yes, there is most certainly a difference between the material substances that are active and the activity itself, but the activity itself (or the function that wouldn't result had there been no substances to be active) is not therefore the mind. However, the inability for some to distinguish between brain function and mind does not serve as an impediment to the future successes of behavioral scientists, as the commonality between the two (brain function and mind) are such that no meaningful difference (not to say there aren't meaningful differences (and I believe there are) are manifested in the material world. There is, simply put, a higher level of abstraction between that of brain function and that of mind.

In primo loco, I did not say "there is a difference between the brain and brain function", but the opposite. A healthy brain's functioning and the healthy brain itself cannot be separated. Both are physical events. Language is the only one separating them. "Function" is an abstraction, and abstractions are artifacts of language. There is no such thing as "justice", only just decisions and actions.

Second, you say you thought brain function and mind were the same but somehow you changed your mind. What made you change your mind?

The brain is an organ. The brain is not an event. There are events, but the brain itself is not an event.

A car is not necessarily a properly working car.

That healthy brain's function isn't to say there is no difference between the organ and it's operation. Of course, there is no healthy brain unless there is a functioning brain, but because the inverse is not necessarily true, that shows there's a difference between the organ and it's operation, so just because there is no healthy brain without one that is properly functioning, there is still an important difference between the organ and its function.

I changed my mind, yes, but I'm typing on an iPad mini one letter at a time, and being concise is not in my nature, unfortunately. I realized the importance of not confusing abstractions. May discuss in more detail later.

 

[Perspicuo]

A brain is an event. A person is an event. What is more, they are systems made of wave-particle events. Everything in the universe is an event.

A healthy brain cannot but have function. A brain without function is not a healthy brain--it is dysfunctional for some reason. The difference between talking about brain versus function is basically the linguistic difference between anatomy and physiology. The difference is useful to humans, but in the actual physical world they are two sides of the same coin, that is to say, two aspects of one reality.

We could go on forever debating this with no end in sight. Such is the nature of philosophical discussions, because in them language reigns and nothing reins it.