Is the mind material or non-material?

[DBT]

Sad to break it to ya, really am, no joke, but what you think are properties of Santa are not in fact properties of Santa at all, just as a statue depicting a horn is not a property of unicorns but rather what would be properties if they exist.

Eh... Bullshit. There is a model (santa, santa unicorn, moon etc with properties. The only difference between a model whose reference doesnt exist and one with a existing reference is that the existing one actually has to be counted for.

This is specially explicit if you consider models that you dont know if they exist or not.

If there is not an instance of something, then there is no property of something. A characterization of something does not necessarily stand good as also being a property of something.

Ok, based on what you say, how then does a non material mind have properties? Given what you say, non material mind appears to be equivalent to a Unicorn or a Santa Claus, because none of these have physical existence, therefore they have no properties?

 

[fast]

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

Sorry, fast, but that article doesn't tell me anything about the nature of things non physical, thoughts, feelings, mind or anything else immaterial or non physical. Nor does the artice demonstrate that mind is in fact non physical.

The article is based on a set of undefined assumptions:

1 - That non physical things are not only possible, but exist.
2 - that something produced by physical process (a brain producing thoughts, etc), may be 'non physical. An assumption that is not based on evidence.
3 - that conscious thoughts, feelings and emotions (mind), must be non physical.

The proposition of non physical mind is stated, but not described or proven.

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties. For instance, the number three exists, and we know this because the number three has properties. An example of a property that the number three has is that it is odd. That's one of it properties that instantiates the numeral three which in turn refers to the number three.

In contrast, unicorns do not exist, for unicorns do not have properties. Unicorn statues exist, and a property they have is the depiction of an equine with a horn, but there are no worldly horn born equines to observe in nature to instantiate the term "unicorn" leaving the term still with a meaning but without a referent.

If there were unicorns, they would have properties we could identify in nature because they would be the kinds of things that could be observed in nature, but the properties of things like the number three do not therefore not exist simply because we cannot observe them in nature, and that is because they are not the kind of things that exist in nature. We shouldn't deny existence simply because there are no instances of them in nature...we should deny them when they have no properties. Both the mind and the number three are things that exist, and they both have properties, but because neither are composed of physical matter, we shouldn't expect to identify them in the same manner as we would something else that would be composed of physical matter had they existed.

The propensity for some to deny existence based on the absence of physical matter is not a mistake when the proposed object should be composed of physical matter if it exists, but when regarding abstract objects, we shouldn't be too quick to deny their existence when they don't manifest themselves in ways only physical objects would if they existed.

Does this clear anything up for you?

Not really. To me it looks like a case of equivocation. You don't actually know that the mind is non material. You believe it is on the basis of an assumption. So you are still assuming that the mind is non material, and you have yet to explain why it is non material.

Based on your assumption that the mind is indeed non material, which is unproven, you compare the assumption of non material mind to a concept such as numbers. But numbers also have physical references, three bottles of beer on the counter, four people in the room....in other words numbers, though a concept, usually relate to physical things. So, because you are working on the unproven assumption of non physical mind, your comparison has not been established.

I think it's nots only true but indeed a necessary truth that the mind is non-physical. Although I don't think the mind is non-spatiotemporal, I do believe it is partly so, as I hold the position that where there is no brain, there is no mind, so it is temporal, but I deny that it's somewhere, as some suggest, in the head. It is without location, so one might call it quasi-abstract.

As to numbers being a concept, I whole-heatedly disagree with that.

 

[fast]

Sad to break it to ya, really am, no joke, but what you think are properties of Santa are not in fact properties of Santa at all, just as a statue depicting a horn is not a property of unicorns but rather what would be properties if they exist.

Eh... Bullshit. There is a model (santa, santa unicorn, moon etc with properties. The only difference between a model whose reference doesnt exist and one with a existing reference is that the existing one actually has to be counted for.

This is specially explicit if you consider models that you dont know if they exist or not.

If there is not an instance of something, then there is no property of something. A characterization of something does not necessarily stand good as also being a property of something.

Ok, based on what you say, how then does a non material mind have properties? Given what you say, non material mind appears to be equivalent to a Unicorn or a Santa Claus, because none of these have physical existence, therefore they have no properties?

There can be abstract properties. The number three has the abstract property of being an odd number. A unicorn is not an abstract object. It wouldn't be abstract even if it did exist.

 

[Juma]

There can be abstract properties. The number three has the abstract property of being an odd number. A unicorn is not an abstract object. It wouldn't be abstract even if it did exist.

My point is: existens is not depending on quality of properties. That is just a buraucratic afterthought: "let's see, which box goes this in?"

 

[DBT]

I think it's nots only true but indeed a necessary truth that the mind is non-physical. Although I don't think the mind is non-spatiotemporal, I do believe it is partly so, as I hold the position that where there is no brain, there is no mind, so it is temporal, but I deny that it's somewhere, as some suggest, in the head. It is without location, so one might call it quasi-abstract.

Yet when the brain is damaged, dendrites fail to connect, entanglement, lesions, etc, memory fails, self awareness fails, consciousness unravels and consequently, mind fails. Which strongly supports the proposition that mind/consciousness is the physical activity of a brain.

Mind is not a single thing. Mind is a collection of cognitive attributes, vision, hearing, smell, thoughts, desires, etc that are directly related to the senses and neural structures that gather, process and integrate information in order to form conscious representation followed by motor response. All of the available evidence supports, not non physical mind, but mind as a physical activity of the brain.

The claim of non physical mind is an assumption without evidential support.

 

[fast]

A ball is, well, a ball--a trivial truism; afterall, what else could something be if not itself? A ball in motion (not to be confused with the non-motionlessness ascribed to all things brought to us by wave-theory) is, of course a ball, but motion is not a ball, and even though we can not only touch a ball, be it in motion or not, never can we (oh say) touch motion. Sure, we can touch that which is in motion, but motion, we cannot.

If the ball that is in motion is in the field, and if we're not in the field, then where oh where is the thing that which is motion--not to be confused with the ball that is in motion? Surely, it's not in my mind. It's too full of things like concepts and ideas to possibly leave room for other stuff like that. Besides, should we all be taken at the moment the ball leaves the bat, the ball is already in flight--in motion. Well, clearly, or at least clearly to me, motion is not something that is anywhere.

The mind is a lot like motion. We invented the word motion to ascribe movement of objects in the real world, but the movement of objects transpires whether we have a word for it or not, just like the referent of the term moon (namely, the physical object bright in the night sky) was in rotation long before there were humans to make the observations.

Just as it's silly to look for motion independent of an object, so too is it silly to look for a mind independent of a brain, but just as motion is not a kind of independent thing to observe by itself, so too can mind not be in isolation to anything. You cannot reach out and grasp motion itself. Where is it? Forget the ball. Where is motion? In our heads? Where is it? No such thing as motion independent of objects maybe?

I dont have time to clean up this post. Gotta run.

 

[Juma]

A ball is, well, a ball--a trivial truism; afterall, what else could something be if not itself? A ball in motion (not to be confused with the non-motionlessness ascribed to all things brought to us by wave-theory) is, of course a ball, but motion is not a ball, and even though we can not only touch a ball, be it in motion or not, never can we (oh say) touch motion. Sure, we can touch that which is in motion, but motion, we cannot.

If the ball that is in motion is in the field, and if we're not in the field, then where oh where is the thing that which is motion--not to be confused with the ball that is in motion? Surely, it's not in my mind. It's too full of things like concepts and ideas to possibly leave room for other stuff like that. Besides, should we all be taken at the moment the ball leaves the bat, the ball is already in flight--in motion. Well, clearly, or at least clearly to me, motion is not something that is anywhere.

The mind is a lot like motion. We invented the word motion to ascribe movement of objects in the real world, but the movement of objects transpires whether we have a word for it or not, just like the referent of the term moon (namely, the physical object bright in the night sky) was in rotation long before there were humans to make the observations.

Just as it's silly to look for motion independent of an object, so too is it silly to look for a mind independent of a brain, but just as motion is not a kind of independent thing to observe by itself, so too can mind not be in isolation to anything. You cannot reach out and grasp motion itself. Where is it? Forget the ball. Where is motion? In our heads? Where is it? No such thing as motion independent of objects maybe?

I dont have time to clean up this post. Gotta run.

You seem confusing the specific motion of the ball with mohion in general.

The motion of the ball is where the ball is. Why would that be a problem?

 

[fromderinside]

The motion of the ball is where the ball is. Why would that be a problem?

Not a problem. Material things have material properties and attributes, among them location, relative location, shape, color, density,....... Each of those properties and attributes are also material things, can be materially specified.

 

[ryan]

The motion of the ball is where the ball is. Why would that be a problem?

Not a problem. Material things have material properties and attributes, among them location, relative location, shape, color, density,....... Each of those properties and attributes are also material things, can be materially specified.

But then they are not properties.

 

[Juma]

The motion of the ball is where the ball is. Why would that be a problem?

Not a problem. Material things have material properties and attributes, among them location, relative location, shape, color, density,....... Each of those properties and attributes are also material things, can be materially specified.

But then they are not properties.

Eh? Explain why.

 

[ryan]

The motion of the ball is where the ball is. Why would that be a problem?

Not a problem. Material things have material properties and attributes, among them location, relative location, shape, color, density,....... Each of those properties and attributes are also material things, can be materially specified.

But then they are not properties.

Eh? Explain why.

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

 

[none]

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

you use the words "property would mean material"
why would the definition of property be changed to match that of material?
if the intent of the word property is different that the intent of the word material why change the definitions?
curious as always your pen pal.

 

[ryan]

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

you use the words "property would mean material"
why would the definition of property be changed to match that of material?
if the intent of the word property is different that the intent of the word material why change the definitions?
curious as always your pen pal.

Fromderinside seems to be saying that a property can be a part of the object like a peel is part of an orange. Properties are not usually material too.

 

[Juma]

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

you use the words "property would mean material"
why would the definition of property be changed to match that of material?
if the intent of the word property is different that the intent of the word material why change the definitions?
curious as always your pen pal.

Fromderinside seems to be saying that a property can be a part of the object like a peel is part of an orange. Properties are not usually material too.

"Material" does not mean "is a collection of atoms/particles"

 

[ryan]

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

you use the words "property would mean material"
why would the definition of property be changed to match that of material?
if the intent of the word property is different that the intent of the word material why change the definitions?
curious as always your pen pal.

Fromderinside seems to be saying that a property can be a part of the object like a peel is part of an orange. Properties are not usually material too.

"Material" does not mean "is a collection of atoms/particles"

Well, when I see "material", I assume matter. And forget the meaning of material for now, fromderinside clearly established an equivalence between the object and its properties. Then what is it, the object or the property?

 

[DBT]

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

you use the words "property would mean material"
why would the definition of property be changed to match that of material?
if the intent of the word property is different that the intent of the word material why change the definitions?
curious as always your pen pal.

What about context? We are we using the words 'material' and 'property' in reference to what in relation to context?

 

[none]

Because then there wouldn't be a difference between a property and material. Property would mean material.

you use the words "property would mean material"
why would the definition of property be changed to match that of material?
if the intent of the word property is different that the intent of the word material why change the definitions?
curious as always your pen pal.

What about context? We are we using the words 'material' and 'property' in reference to what in relation to context?

I couldn't tell you what we are talking about.
maybe an orange.

 

[DBT]

maybe an orange.

Maybe we are talking about nothing? If such things exist, what properties or attributes do non material things have? How are we to know?

 

[Perspicuo]

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.

The brain is material, but mind is not material. It is a process that relies on having a material brain in good working order. The poll choices are inadequate.

Conundrum that is easily solved by speaking of "physical". Processes are physical events, even if they don't have mass or can be cut into pieces and saved in your pocket. So then the mind is physical: it is a process involving physical entities (or better: a system of physical elements), even if it is not per se ipsum a form of matter (having mass) although they do have energy (both mass and energy).

Now that I mention mass and energy... well, why not? Mind as a physical process can be said to have energy (a form of matter), although most of the time when we think of mind we do so from the standpoint of language (when someone "has in mind" some idea or recollection, we know so because s/he said so). But language, remember, is a way in which we know other minds, and is not the minds themselves. That would be analogous to mistaking the x-ray film for the bone inside the arm.

 

[none]

maybe an orange.

Maybe we are talking about nothing? If such things exist, what properties or attributes do non material things have? How are we to know?

I am pretty sure something was being talked about more so than nothing.