Is the mind material or non-material?

[fast]

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.

That understanding is the typical consequence of failing to remain grounded when learning new information brought to us by science. That's not an insult, but it highlights the kind of extremism that often manifests itself. Even if every object is in constant flux amidst a never-ending array of micro-events, the object itself is not therefore an event. A brain is not an event, and a person is not an event. Sure, there are events taking place, but that's not at issue.

 

[DBT]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

That understanding is the typical consequence of failing to remain grounded when learning new information brought to us by science. That's not an insult, but it highlights the kind of extremism that often manifests itself. Even if every object is in constant flux amidst a never-ending array of micro-events, the object itself is not therefore an event. A brain is not an event, and a person is not an event. Sure, there are events taking place, but that's not at issue.

Of course, that is not the issue! The issue is whatever you want it to be and not any other, therefore preserving your authority as emperor of the universe and dictator of reality.

Excuse me, I have another discussion, with a 5 year old, pending.

 

[fast]

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.

That understanding is the typical consequence of failing to remain grounded when learning new information brought to us by science. That's not an insult, but it highlights the kind of extremism that often manifests itself. Even if every object is in constant flux amidst a never-ending array of micro-events, the object itself is not therefore an event. A brain is not an event, and a person is not an event. Sure, there are events taking place, but that's not at issue.

Of course, that is not the issue! The issue is whatever you want it to be and not any other, therefore preserving your authority as emperor of the universe and dictator of reality.

Excuse me, I have another discussion, with a 5 year old, pending.

Then ask the five year old to share with you the story of Humpty Dumpty, or if you're particularly open to reason, then take a look at Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll--and pay attention to the details, especially when Humpty Dumpty is referenced speaking "in a rather scornful tone". Hopefully, you'll see the shared extremism to which I referenced earlier regarding the meaning of words.

 

[Juma]

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties.

Funny. But not true. Santa has properties but doesnt exist.

To say that something exist means that that information is about something in the real world. That it must be taken in consideration for its own reason.

Saying that unicorn exist means that you actually can expect to see a real unicorn etc.

Not some lame shit about properties.

 

[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.

 

[fast]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/#EveVsObj

 

[Juma]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Juma]

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.

I dont agree, any way: postulating sonething about properties doesnt help you defining existence.

 

[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.

I dont agree, any way: postulating sonething about properties doesnt help you defining existence.

It's the best explanation I have come to learn to assist in explaining the meaning of "existence" Of course, even that has some peculiar consequences. For instance, if what I say is true (and as far I can tell, it is true--and widely accepted by analytical philosophers) "to say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties", then dinosaurs exist--even though they are extinct. Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

 

[Juma]

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.

Are processes not material?

 

[arkirk]

hell I have only had a couple of conversations about mind body dualism, and I still don't know what a mind is...

I'm with you on this one. I could not vote. This is a semantic problem because if you look up mind in the dictionary, you will find such a jumble of definitions (over half a page) sometimes a verb, sometimes a noun, and with modifiers, adjective, adverb, etc. etc. etc.

It makes a difference whether we are talking about an instantaneous definition or one that takes into account inhibitions and preferences that are not instantaneously active at the time you are considering. When I say, "to my mind," am I referring to something permanent or merely how things seem at the time...something that may change upon further consideration. It is a word that should be used sparingly. All words referring to consciousness seem to have the problem of being temporal and subject to further modification. I would class the mind as one of the functions of the brain.

Whatever we say about the mind, there will be somebody saying..."no it's not like that."

 

[Rilx]

Yes. "Material" or "physical" does in no way characterize mind. Maybe sometimes, years or decenniums ago, these discussions were about "spiritual or material mind", which made them reasonable, but since then it's been just a language game between "soft" and "hard" materialists. If someone honestly tries to resolve the question, bullets fly from both trenches.

When I joined IIDB these discussions were already perpetually going on. Now they sound to me like the song sung by WWI soldiers at the western front (tune: Auld Lang Syne):

We're here because we're here
because we're here because we're here,
we're here because we're here
because we're here because we're here ...

 

[aupmanyav]

Are we here or 'nowhere' (if the universe rose out of 'absolute nothing)? That is the point.

 

[Juma]

Are we here or 'nowhere' (if the universe rose out of 'absolute nothing)? That is the point.

Universe is "here" whatever its origin.

 

[DBT]

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.

I ask again: what is the nature of this 'not material' mind? Whatever the nature of this so called 'non material' mind may be, being non material, how does the physical brain form something that is composed of nothing? How does material, the physical world of the brain, relate to something that is not material ?

 

[DBT]

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.