Is the mind material or non-material?

[fast]

By the way, I am answering your question, not my mind.

To be quite specific, it is an information processor called a ''brain'' that is gathering, storing and correlating information and answering questions through the medium of conscious response and self identity in the form of a poster who goes by the name of 'fast.'

Afraid not buddy. You may have some partial truths interwoven in there, but my brain isn't answering questions. I am.

 

[DBT]

By the way, I am answering your question, not my mind.

To be quite specific, it is an information processor called a ''brain'' that is gathering, storing and correlating information and answering questions through the medium of conscious response and self identity in the form of a poster who goes by the name of 'fast.'

Afraid not buddy. You may have some partial truths interwoven in there, but my brain isn't answering questions. I am.

You are saying that you are separate and distinct entity, and not the conscious activity of a brain?

 

[fast]

By the way, I am answering your question, not my mind.

To be quite specific, it is an information processor called a ''brain'' that is gathering, storing and correlating information and answering questions through the medium of conscious response and self identity in the form of a poster who goes by the name of 'fast.'

Afraid not buddy. You may have some partial truths interwoven in there, but my brain isn't answering questions. I am.

You are saying that you are separate and distinct entity, and not the conscious activity of a brain?

Conscious activity of a brain? I don't quite get that.

 

[Juma]

People breath, or if that's too much to ask, then most people breath, but imaginary people don't breath, so imaginary people are not people. Oh wait, is your counterargument that they can take an imaginary breath? But wait, I said breath, that's different. Let me guess, an imaginary breath is a kind of breath. Not.

You must realize that this is a discussion of langue.
Of words and how we use them.

People breath, or if that'I'm being completely serious when I say that "imaginary" is a denial term. People do have an imagination, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing (no actual instantiatory material) to serve as a referent for any term meant to indicate the presence of something imaginary--hence, no properties, and oh my(!) please don't regard imaginary properties as something that exists, especially on the highly misguided notion that the physical processes that allow for imagination somehow, someway makes them identifiable.

You have problem with word "exist". It really cannot be used without specifying in what way you suppose that something exist. "Exist" has not much of meaning in itself. It is like "is ".

 

[fast]

You must realize that this is a discussion of langue.
Of words and how we use them.

People breath, or if that'I'm being completely serious when I say that "imaginary" is a denial term. People do have an imagination, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing (no actual instantiatory material) to serve as a referent for any term meant to indicate the presence of something imaginary--hence, no properties, and oh my(!) please don't regard imaginary properties as something that exists, especially on the highly misguided notion that the physical processes that allow for imagination somehow, someway makes them identifiable.

You have problem with word "exist". It really cannot be used without specifying in what way you suppose that something exist. "Exist" has not much of meaning in itself. It is like "is ".

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

 

[DBT]

Conscious activity of a brain? I don't quite get that.

Do you experience self awareness if the brain is unconscious? How does conscious experience form, if not through the electrochemical activity of the brain? The electrochemical activity of a brain being both unconscious information processing and conscious representation of the relevant parts of that information exchange. Some of that information being related to 'you' - gender, name, family, language, life events.....

 

[fast]

Conscious activity of a brain? I don't quite get that.

Do you experience self awareness if the brain is unconscious? How does conscious experience form, if not through the electrochemical activity of the brain? The electrochemical activity of a brain being both unconscious information processing and conscious representation of the relevant parts of that information exchange. Some of that information being related to 'you' - gender, name, family, language, life events.....

You appear to be haphazardly making category errors. I can discuss this in more detail this afternoon. The idea that activity can be conscious or a brain unconscious seems kinda silly. By the way, like computers much?

 

[DBT]

Conscious activity of a brain? I don't quite get that.

Do you experience self awareness if the brain is unconscious? How does conscious experience form, if not through the electrochemical activity of the brain? The electrochemical activity of a brain being both unconscious information processing and conscious representation of the relevant parts of that information exchange. Some of that information being related to 'you' - gender, name, family, language, life events.....

You appear to be haphazardly making category errors. I can discuss this in more detail this afternoon.

I'd say the category error lies in the attempt to separate what cannot be separated, brain and mind. Mind being a function and attribute of a working brain.

The idea that activity can be conscious or a brain unconscious seems kinda silly.

Why do you say that?

 

[4321lynx]

Can your mind produce three short and clear answers to those three short and clear questions?

Number 1. By the way, I am answering your question, not my mind.

In my opinion you are your mind. Without your mind you are a living animal, with all the properties of those creatures, whether they possess minds of their own or not, but you are not the you that you once were. Just as you change when growing up, change as you grow older, because time and experience change the functioning of your brain, which is the cause of your mind, so later if you "lose" your mind to a greater or lesser extent due to physiological changes in your brain caused by time, drugs, disease or injury, you lose your identity, to a greater or lesser extent.

Your answer means you are a physicalist, does it not? A Non-reductive physicalist?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.[43][44][45]
Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.

"The mind of the other man is a dark forest." Ancient Russian saying.

 

[Juma]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

 

[fast]

Conscious activity of a brain? I don't quite get that.

Do you experience self awareness if the brain is unconscious? How does conscious experience form, if not through the electrochemical activity of the brain? The electrochemical activity of a brain being both unconscious information processing and conscious representation of the relevant parts of that information exchange. Some of that information being related to 'you' - gender, name, family, language, life events.....

You appear to be haphazardly making category errors. I can discuss this in more detail this afternoon.

I'd say the category error lies in the attempt to separate what cannot be separated, brain and mind. Mind being a function and attribute of a working brain.

The idea that activity can be conscious or a brain unconscious seems kinda silly.

Why do you say that?

A person can be conscious before being knocked unconscious, and if such a person is unconscious, then, of course, the person is not conscious, but a brain is an organ, and organs (not even the brain) is the kind of thing that can be conscious or unconscious. They are not conscious, and they are not unconscious. They can be active. They can function. They can, if you like, operate, but a person is what can be conscious or unconscious. I can be knocked unconscious. My brain can't. My mind can't. Activity can't. Those things cannot have consciousness or unconsciousness.

The mind is a product of the brain, and I have a brain (though some may beg to differ at times, lol), and I have a mind, but I am not my brain, and I am not my mind. There is no me without a brain, and there is no mind without a brain, but I am more than merely a brain, and I am more than merely a mind.

I drove my vehicle today. My brain didn't drive my vehicle today. I couldn't have driven it without one, but I am still not my brain, and my brain is not me. Same with mind. I used my mind in order to drive, something I could not have done without one.

 

[fast]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

Yes, i see, but just as lexical meaning is independent of individual usage, so too is the referent of a term independent of what you use it to refer to.

If you could accept and incorporate into your thinking that fluent speakers would ordinarily and accurately deny the existence of Superman yet understand that such fluent speakers would not therefore deny the existence of the created character we sometimes use shorthand and refer to as Superman, you might see that it's not the existence of the character that is being referred to when it's said of Superman that he doesn't exist. The referent of "Superman" without the shorthand is not a character of fiction. In fact, Superman is not a referring term at all, as it has no referent. The term 'fails to refer'. Words can have a meaning yet not have a referent, for instance, the term, "although".

 

[Juma]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

Yes, i see, but just as lexical meaning is independent of individual usage, so too is the referent of a term independent of what you use it to refer to.

If you could accept and incorporate into your thinking that fluent speakers would ordinarily and accurately deny the existence of Superman yet understand that such fluent speakers would not therefore deny the existence of the created character we sometimes use shorthand and refer to as Superman, you might see that it's not the existence of the character that is being referred to when it's said of Superman that he doesn't exist. The referent of "Superman" without the shorthand is not a character of fiction. In fact, Superman is not a referring term at all, as it has no referent. The term 'fails to refer'. Words can have a meaning yet not have a referent, for instance, the term, "although".

But... Superman is a comic book figure. That comic book figure exist.
The comic book figure is what "superman" refers to.

 

[fast]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

Yes, i see, but just as lexical meaning is independent of individual usage, so too is the referent of a term independent of what you use it to refer to.

If you could accept and incorporate into your thinking that fluent speakers would ordinarily and accurately deny the existence of Superman yet understand that such fluent speakers would not therefore deny the existence of the created character we sometimes use shorthand and refer to as Superman, you might see that it's not the existence of the character that is being referred to when it's said of Superman that he doesn't exist. The referent of "Superman" without the shorthand is not a character of fiction. In fact, Superman is not a referring term at all, as it has no referent. The term 'fails to refer'. Words can have a meaning yet not have a referent, for instance, the term, "although".

But... Superman is a comic book figure. That comic book figure exist.
The comic book figure is what "superman" refers to.

Maybe you think that because that's how we talk. The author imagines a real life being that can fly, and that would be Superman, but he doesn't exist, but he wants to depict this being that could fly if he did exist in a comic book, and so he creates a character, and what exists is not the real person that could fly if he did exist but rather the character in a book. So, on the one hand, we have Superman, and on the other, we have the character. He names the character Superman, yet we're still left with the person Superman on the one hand that doesn't exist and the character Superman on the other that does exist. We shouldn't confuse what his name would be if he did exist with the name of the character that does exist.

We speak in shorthand when referring to the character and instead of saying things like the character Superman does this and that, we shorten it and day Superman does this and that, but if we drop the shorthand and speak as things really are, it's not really Superman that is a character in the comic book but rather the character of fiction named Superman depicted as doing things in the comic book.

So, it doesn't surprise me that you think what you do.

 

[DBT]

A person can be conscious before being knocked unconscious, and if such a person is unconscious, then, of course, the person is not conscious, but a brain is an organ, and organs (not even the brain) is the kind of thing that can be conscious or unconscious. They are not conscious, and they are not unconscious. They can be active. They can function. They can, if you like, operate, but a person is what can be conscious or unconscious. I can be knocked unconscious. My brain can't. My mind can't. Activity can't. Those things cannot have consciousness or unconsciousness.

Given the function of a brain, as an organ (in fact a modular set of structures), is gathering and processing information and forming a virtual representation of the world and self...you are claiming dualism. You are claiming that 'you' as a 'person' is somehow independent from the brain and its consciousness forming activity. Based on you have stated above, your position entails the presence of ghost, soul or immaterial spirit that functions in relation to the brain, but not an inherit part of it.

The mind is a product of the brain, and I have a brain (though some may beg to differ at times, lol), and I have a mind, but I am not my brain, and I am not my mind. There is no me without a brain, and there is no mind without a brain, but I am more than merely a brain, and I am more than merely a mind.

There is your contradiction. If the mind is a product of a brain, as you correctly state, you cannot go on to state 'I have a brain' as if the mind is something that claims ownership of the brain when in fact the situation is as you first stated: the mind is a product of a brain. The mind that is a product of the brain being you.

I drove my vehicle today. My brain didn't drive my vehicle today. I couldn't have driven it without one, but I am still not my brain, and my brain is not me. Same with mind. I used my mind in order to drive, something I could not have done without one.

No, considering that you correctly stated as ''the mind is a product of the brain'' - the brain not only drove your vehicle today, it formed generated 'you' as a conscious entity who owns and drives a vehicle.

 

[Juma]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

Yes, i see, but just as lexical meaning is independent of individual usage, so too is the referent of a term independent of what you use it to refer to.

If you could accept and incorporate into your thinking that fluent speakers would ordinarily and accurately deny the existence of Superman yet understand that such fluent speakers would not therefore deny the existence of the created character we sometimes use shorthand and refer to as Superman, you might see that it's not the existence of the character that is being referred to when it's said of Superman that he doesn't exist. The referent of "Superman" without the shorthand is not a character of fiction. In fact, Superman is not a referring term at all, as it has no referent. The term 'fails to refer'. Words can have a meaning yet not have a referent, for instance, the term, "although".

But... Superman is a comic book figure. That comic book figure exist.
The comic book figure is what "superman" refers to.

Maybe you think that because that's how we talk. The author imagines a real life being that can fly, and that would be Superman, but he doesn't exist, but he wants to depict this being that could fly if he did exist in a comic book, and so he creates a character, and what exists is not the real person that could fly if he did exist but rather the character in a book. So, on the one hand, we have Superman, and on the other, we have the character. He names the character Superman, yet we're still left with the person Superman on the one hand that doesn't exist and the character Superman on the other that does exist. We shouldn't confuse what his name would be if he did exist with the name of the character that does exist.

We speak in shorthand when referring to the character and instead of saying things like the character Superman does this and that, we shorten it and day Superman does this and that, but if we drop the shorthand and speak as things really are, it's not really Superman that is a character in the comic book but rather the character of fiction named Superman depicted as doing things in the comic book.

So, it doesn't surprise me that you think what you do.

No. I clearly stated i dont do that. When I talk about Superman I do not talk about a fictive real life person. The reference is the comic book figure. The comic book figure is an abstract entity. It exist in our brains and their interaction.

 

[Juma]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

With "fictive real life person" I mean a concept that is meant to represent a real life person, but that person do not exist.

 

[fast]

I learned a long time ago that the expression "exists as" is often a tell tale sign that others don't fully grasp what it means to say of something that it exists. For instance, to say that a unicorn exists as a concept is virtually an announcement of one's ignorance to appreciate the distinction between a unicorn and a concept. Unicorns, should they exist, would exist in the only way a unicorn could exist, as a concrete object and more specifically, a biological animal. A concept of a unicorn exists as only a concept does, a product of one's mind. Imaginary objects don't exist at all. Percepts as percepts. Pictures as pictures. People as people. Characters as characters. There's an odd saying people say: "it is what it is." A true statement, yes, but a trivial truism.

When I use the name superman I refer to something that exists.

Yes, i see, but just as lexical meaning is independent of individual usage, so too is the referent of a term independent of what you use it to refer to.

If you could accept and incorporate into your thinking that fluent speakers would ordinarily and accurately deny the existence of Superman yet understand that such fluent speakers would not therefore deny the existence of the created character we sometimes use shorthand and refer to as Superman, you might see that it's not the existence of the character that is being referred to when it's said of Superman that he doesn't exist. The referent of "Superman" without the shorthand is not a character of fiction. In fact, Superman is not a referring term at all, as it has no referent. The term 'fails to refer'. Words can have a meaning yet not have a referent, for instance, the term, "although".

But... Superman is a comic book figure. That comic book figure exist.
The comic book figure is what "superman" refers to.

Maybe you think that because that's how we talk. The author imagines a real life being that can fly, and that would be Superman, but he doesn't exist, but he wants to depict this being that could fly if he did exist in a comic book, and so he creates a character, and what exists is not the real person that could fly if he did exist but rather the character in a book. So, on the one hand, we have Superman, and on the other, we have the character. He names the character Superman, yet we're still left with the person Superman on the one hand that doesn't exist and the character Superman on the other that does exist. We shouldn't confuse what his name would be if he did exist with the name of the character that does exist.

We speak in shorthand when referring to the character and instead of saying things like the character Superman does this and that, we shorten it and day Superman does this and that, but if we drop the shorthand and speak as things really are, it's not really Superman that is a character in the comic book but rather the character of fiction named Superman depicted as doing things in the comic book.

So, it doesn't surprise me that you think what you do.

No. I clearly stated i dont do that. When I talk about Superman I do not talk about a fictive real life person. The reference is the comic book figure. The comic book figure is an abstract entity. It exist in our brains and their interaction.

Not to jump subjects again, but an abstraction is not the same as an abstract entity.

 

[fast]

Given the function of a brain, as an organ (in fact a modular set of structures), is gathering and processing information and forming a virtual representation of the world and self...you are claiming dualism. You are claiming that 'you' as a 'person' is somehow independent from the brain and its consciousness forming activity. Based on you have stated above, your position entails the presence of ghost, soul or immaterial spirit that functions in relation to the brain, but not an inherit part of it.

i'm not claiming independence. There can be no me without a mind. I'm claiming distinction. My mind can't read a book. I can read a book. I can't read a book without a mind, but that i depend on a mind to read a book doesn't entail that I am what I am using.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The lexical definition of the word "person" does not have a lexical meaning with a scope sufficient enough to include these non-existent entities <snip>
, but lexical meanings are a function of how fluent speakers of a language collectively use a term <snip>

So is it the case that any use of a word that does not comply with how fluent speakers collectively use it is wrong?
EB

Not necessarily, but that is a good question. Any use of a word, as you qualify your question, doesn't necessarily entail a lexical usage, so a stipulative usage, for instance, wouldn't therefore be an incorrect use of a word simply because it doesn't accord with how a word is collectively used by fluent speakers of a language.

And any lexical use of a word not complying with how fluent speakers collectively use it is wrong, right?
EB