Is the mind material or non-material?

[Speakpigeon]

An imaginary friend is a friend of a sort.

It has been said (although not by you) that anything can be a kind of thing, so if we're to use the word "kind" in such an extreme fashion, perhaps an imaginary person is a kind of person, as preposterous (or at least highly misleading) as I think such a claim is. Perhaps the term, "type" would be preferable for you?

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.

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.

I understand what you say and I mostly agree. However, going back to the word "friend", what may be its reference would depend on what is meant by "friend". You seem to assume that a friend is necessarily of a sort that you should be able to drink a beer with you at your local pub. I don't see any good reason to make this sort of assumption. An imaginary friend won't risk being run over by a car or having a heart attack but it exists nonetheless, within some limits. I stil don't understand why you want to dismiss that possibility.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

So category error is the sword by which we can slice up other people's statements?

It seems to me that what you qualify as a category error is not even an error. Rather, different people have different linguistic mappings of reality. To show that what someone says is wrong on this count would require to prove that reality is not the way their statements suggests it is. In other words, to say that a statement is or contain a category error is really only saying that you disagree with it on the ground that you believe reality is different from what it suggests it to be. If so, what is a category error to you is not to the person you claimed committed the offence. What's the use of it if not enitrely rhetorical?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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".

People will use the word "Superman" differently in different contexts and of course you could say that depending on that it will be short hand for "fictional character", "'real' person", i.e. "material person", or possibily something else. In the claim "Superman doesn't exist" the word "Superman" will usually mean "material person", so it could be translated as saying "the material person called 'Superman' doesn't exist", which we would all agree with, including hopefuly competent speakers. The expressions "fictional character", "comic book hero", "imaginary being" etc, all specify, usually, that we are talking not of things in the material world but things that exist in our minds, where they can only exist exactly as we think of them.

This requires that we take into account what people mean, not what we think words should mean as per 'competent speakers usage'. The same occurs with most fictional characters. A child may mean "Santa Claus exists in the material world" where an adult could mean "Santa Claus exists as an idea in my mind". The same situation occurs with "God" and I don't think you actually know that God doesn't exist. What is the competent speaker's lexical meaning of God, do you know?
EB

 

[fast]

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

Do you deny inaccurate usage and proclaim different usage?

 

[Juma]

Do you deny inaccurate usage and proclaim different usage?

The accurate usage? How do you define accurate usage or words?

I would say the most economical way to get your meaning across.

 

[DBT]

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.

But you are still implying independence when you claim: 'My mind can't read a book. I can read a book.''

You imply that you can do something 'your' mind cannot do, as if the 'mind' is something you as an independent agent have possession of, like a house or a car...rather than what you really are: a mind. A mind being formed by the electrochemical activity of a brain.

 

[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.

But you are still implying independence when you claim: 'My mind can't read a book. I can read a book.''

You imply that you can do something 'your' mind cannot do, as if the 'mind' is something you as an independent agent have possession of, like a house or a car...rather than what you really are: a mind. A mind being formed by the electrochemical activity of a brain.

my mind has no eyes, and things without eyes (or fingers if ya wanna consider brail) cannot read, so my mind cannot read.

Eta: i cannot read without a mind, so my ability to read is dependent (not independent) on my mind

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Do you deny inaccurate usage and proclaim different usage?

Not entirely. It's somewhat like this discussion about speed you have with Wiploc. The idea that there are competent and incompetent speakers is not applicable because it's essentially relative. You have a so much variety in the way people express themselves that you are not going to identify a group of people that would work as the reference. Instead, you have groups that mostly ignore each other and occasionally members of these groups experience friction with members of other groups: the young, the aged, the ladies, the immigrant, the posh, the middle class, the media type, the intellectual, etc etc etc. The all disagree to a degree about so many words you're not going to find a consensus of 'competent' speakers. Further, any group that you might want to consider has essentially beliefs about the world rather than knowledge. Scientists may have better science but they are often short on literacy while the really 'competent' speaker is more likely to fell short on science. Look at philosophers. They may be regarded collectively as more competent than most but they still disagree on many issue and not least on exactly what it is words mean and refer to (nominalism v. realism).
EB

 

[DBT]

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.

But you are still implying independence when you claim: 'My mind can't read a book. I can read a book.''

You imply that you can do something 'your' mind cannot do, as if the 'mind' is something you as an independent agent have possession of, like a house or a car...rather than what you really are: a mind. A mind being formed by the electrochemical activity of a brain.

my mind has no eyes, and things without eyes (or fingers if ya wanna consider brail) cannot read, so my mind cannot read.

Eta: i cannot read without a mind, so my ability to read is dependent (not independent) on my mind

What do you think mind is, if not the sum total of the information gathered by the senses, life experiences and self identity? Mind is the conscious perception of the world and self, mind is the thoughts, feelings, fears and desires, working, talking, interacting with other minds, reading a book, watching a movie. The senses gather information, which is conveyed to the brain and the brain forms a conscious mind based on an interaction of sensory information an memory. The conscious mind that the brain forms is you.

 

[4321lynx]

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.

But you are still implying independence when you claim: 'My mind can't read a book. I can read a book.''

You imply that you can do something 'your' mind cannot do, as if the 'mind' is something you as an independent agent have possession of, like a house or a car...rather than what you really are: a mind. A mind being formed by the electrochemical activity of a brain.

my mind has no eyes, and things without eyes (or fingers if ya wanna consider brail) cannot read, so my mind cannot read.

Eta: i cannot read without a mind, so my ability to read is dependent (not independent) on my mind

What do you think mind is, if not the sum total of the information gathered by the senses, life experiences and self identity? Mind is the conscious perception of the world and self, mind is the thoughts, feelings, fears and desires, working, talking, interacting with other minds, reading a book, watching a movie. The senses gather information, which is conveyed to the brain and the brain forms a conscious mind based on an interaction of sensory information an memory. The conscious mind that the brain forms is you.

Entirely agree with that and it seems that so do 24 of 28 voters.

As the existence of a mind is completely dependent on the functioning of the material brain, the mind itself can be said to be material. It is, like life itself, a dynamic equilibrium in a polyphasic system, dependent on electrochemical actions and reactions.

 

[fast]

Do brains get tired? Do minds get tired? Do people get tired?

 

[DBT]

Do brains get tired? Do minds get tired? Do people get tired?

Yes, indeed, to all three references...the mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain, and the generic term 'person' referring to the overall brain/mind/body organism.

 

[aupmanyav]

Accumulation of unwanted chemicals, which needs time to be cleared up.

 

[fast]

Do brains get tired? Do minds get tired? Do people get tired?

Yes, indeed, to all three references...the mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain, and the generic term 'person' referring to the overall brain/mind/body organism.

Interesting. I would agree that people get tired, but if I heard someone say that his brain or mind is tired, I would think it odd. I do kinda like your description of what the term person is referring to though. I still have a major problem with the notion that my mind stumped it's big toe, however.

 

[DBT]

Do brains get tired? Do minds get tired? Do people get tired?

Yes, indeed, to all three references...the mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain, and the generic term 'person' referring to the overall brain/mind/body organism.

Interesting. I would agree that people get tired, but if I heard someone say that his brain or mind is tired, I would think it odd. I do kinda like your description of what the term person is referring to though. I still have a major problem with the notion that my mind stumped it's big toe, however.

There is an example of your 'category errors.' The common reference of ''being tired'' - a person being tired - necessarily includes the brain/mind being being 'tired' because the brain/mind/organism is the underlying biological mechanism of the 'person.'

If the biological/physical mechanism is worn down, insufficient rest, overworked, the 'person' must necessarily be tired.

 

[4321lynx]

Do brains get tired? Do minds get tired? Do people get tired?

Yes, indeed, to all three references...the mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain, and the generic term 'person' referring to the overall brain/mind/body organism.

Interesting. I would agree that people get tired, but if I heard someone say that his brain or mind is tired, I would think it odd. I do kinda like your description of what the term person is referring to though. I still have a major problem with the notion that my mind stumped it's big toe, however.

My brain and my mind get tired reading this thread, but last week I stacked firewood for next winter and got tired in quite a different way and it was a joy to rest my mind in that way. And a joy again to rest my muscles in the evenings whilst reading this stuff and some poetry with a rested mind.

 

[fast]

Do brains get tired? Do minds get tired? Do people get tired?

Yes, indeed, to all three references...the mind being a reflection of the physical state of the brain, and the generic term 'person' referring to the overall brain/mind/body organism.

Interesting. I would agree that people get tired, but if I heard someone say that his brain or mind is tired, I would think it odd. I do kinda like your description of what the term person is referring to though. I still have a major problem with the notion that my mind stumped it's big toe, however.

My brain and my mind get tired reading this thread, but last week I stacked firewood for next winter and got tired in quite a different way and it was a joy to rest my mind in that way. And a joy again to rest my muscles in the evenings whilst reading this stuff and some poetry with a rested mind.

When we say things like what's on your mind, no one literally takes that to mean there is something that can be on a mind, so your pointing out that such usage does show up in language fails to demonstrate the absurd notions (no offense to others) i'm being told in this thread are actually true.

 

[DBT]

When we say things like what's on your mind, no one literally takes that to mean there is something that can be on a mind, so your pointing out that such usage does show up in language fails to demonstrate the absurd notions (no offense to others) i'm being told in this thread are actually true.

What are you being told on this thread, fast?

Given your remark, I wonder whether what I've said so far has be interpreted in a way that was not intended.

Language is of course symbolic, when someone asks 'what's on your mind,' it is not a literal reference to some thing being on the mind, but simply means ''what are you thinking about?''

What 'you' think about is the work of the brain, which forms conscious thoughts in relation to environment and self identity - it is the brain that not only thinks but forms a self image, me, in relation to thoughts and feelings that are being formed: ''I feel well today,'' ''I really need to go shopping,'' etc.

 

[4321lynx]

When we say things like what's on your mind, no one literally takes that to mean there is something that can be on a mind, so your pointing out that such usage does show up in language fails to demonstrate the absurd notions (no offense to others) i'm being told in this thread are actually true.

What are you being told on this thread, fast?

Given your remark, I wonder whether what I've said so far has be interpreted in a way that was not intended.

Language is of course symbolic, when someone asks 'what's on your mind,' it is not a literal reference to some thing being on the mind, but simply means ''what are you thinking about?''

What 'you' think about is the work of the brain, which forms conscious thoughts in relation to environment and self identity - it is the brain that not only thinks but forms a self image, me, in relation to thoughts and feelings that are being formed: ''I feel well today,'' ''I really need to go shopping,'' etc.

Too right, DBT.

This is what we get from philosophy, endless argument/discussion of the meaning of every word and every phrase.

Beyond this, philosophy has no place in an explanation of scientific facts, no more place than have phlogiston and aether.

(... but naturally it all depends on what I mean by "phlogiston" and "aether" :censored2: )

EDIT: Before the philosophers descend on the penultimate sentence I hasten to say that it should read in part, "in the scientific explanation of facts" and not "in an explanation of scientific facts". Thank you philosophy. )

 

[fast]

EDIT: Before the philosophers descend on the penultimate sentence I hasten to say that it should read in part, "in the scientific explanation of facts" and not "in an explanation of scientific facts". Thank you philosophy. )

Nice