The Mind is a Physical Thing

[bahman]

Lately there were controversies on whether the mind is physical or not.

What is Mind?

• The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct. Under the scientific physicalist interpretation, the mind is produced at least in part by the brain.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

These are mental activities, activities of mind rather than mind itself.

As I had stated the above definition of "mind" is recognized for the practical positives that can be generated for the individuals and humanity from within the various framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR], e.g. listed below;
8.0 Scientific study, 8.1 Neuroscience, 8.2 Cognitive Science, 8.3 Psychology, philosophy, Academic, intelligences, etc.
Do you deny the existence of the above practical positives?

What positive benefits do you have for the individual and humanity for your definition of what is mind?
I can tell you, the only benefit for your definition of what is mind is merely a very selfish psychological benefit as a consonance to relieve the pains of cognitive dissonance.


Just as it is crazy to insist to define a symphony-orchestra by its individual instruments every time it is referred to, it would be crazy to describe every mental activities which we collectively and efficiently called the 'mind'.

You cannot have any change in the state of matter without the mind activity. I have an argument for that.

[Terrapin Station]

These are mental activities, activities of mind rather than mind itself.

As I had stated the above definition of "mind" is recognized for the practical positives that can be generated for the individuals and humanity from within the various framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR], e.g. listed below;
8.0 Scientific study, 8.1 Neuroscience, 8.2 Cognitive Science, 8.3 Psychology, philosophy, Academic, intelligences, etc.
Do you deny the existence of the above practical positives?

What positive benefits do you have for the individual and humanity for your definition of what is mind?
I can tell you, the only benefit for your definition of what is mind is merely a very selfish psychological benefit as a consonance to relieve the pains of cognitive dissonance.


Just as it is crazy to insist to define a symphony-orchestra by its individual instruments every time it is referred to, it would be crazy to describe every mental activities which we collectively and efficiently called the 'mind'.

You cannot have any change in the state of matter without the mind activity. I have an argument for that.

I'd mention that your argument for it doesn't make much sense, but we're not going to get anywhere with that.

[bahman]

As I had stated the above definition of "mind" is recognized for the practical positives that can be generated for the individuals and humanity from within the various framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR], e.g. listed below;
8.0 Scientific study, 8.1 Neuroscience, 8.2 Cognitive Science, 8.3 Psychology, philosophy, Academic, intelligences, etc.
Do you deny the existence of the above practical positives?

What positive benefits do you have for the individual and humanity for your definition of what is mind?
I can tell you, the only benefit for your definition of what is mind is merely a very selfish psychological benefit as a consonance to relieve the pains of cognitive dissonance.


Just as it is crazy to insist to define a symphony-orchestra by its individual instruments every time it is referred to, it would be crazy to describe every mental activities which we collectively and efficiently called the 'mind'.

You cannot have any change in the state of matter without the mind activity. I have an argument for that.

I'd mention that your argument for it doesn't make much sense, but we're not going to get anywhere with that.

My argument makes sense.

[Age]

If the Mind was a physical thing, then It could be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and/or felt with and by the physical human body, correct?

If this is correct, then can the Mind be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and/or felt?

If yes, there where is this physical thing, which is being seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and/or felt?

[VVilliam]

We do understand that the brain appears to produce the mind, but we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

So we also do not know that our individual minds are all the same mind experiencing a myriad of outlooks through the primary devices of brains, all made to look and feel and be experienced as 'material' by the 'immaterial.'

Since we really do not know, I do not see how we can accept the definition of 'the mind' as per OP.

[Terrapin Station]

We do understand that the brain appears to produce the mind, but we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

So we also do not know that our individual minds are all the same mind experiencing a myriad of outlooks through the primary devices of brains, all made to look and feel and be experienced as 'material' by the 'immaterial.'

Since we really do not know, I do not see how we can accept the definition of 'the mind' as per OP.

The only thing that there's any evidence at all of is that mind is a subset of ways that brains function.

[VVilliam]

We do understand that the brain appears to produce the mind, but we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

So we also do not know that our individual minds are all the same mind experiencing a myriad of outlooks through the primary devices of brains, all made to look and feel and be experienced as 'material' by the 'immaterial.'

Since we really do not know, I do not see how we can accept the definition of 'the mind' as per OP.

The only thing that there's any evidence at all of is that mind is a subset of ways that brains function.

Or, what the evidence shows, is that brains are subsets of the mind...we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

These are mental activities, activities of mind rather than mind itself.

As I had stated the above definition of "mind" is recognized for the practical positives that can be generated for the individuals and humanity from within the various framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR], e.g. listed below;
8.0 Scientific study, 8.1 Neuroscience, 8.2 Cognitive Science, 8.3 Psychology, philosophy, Academic, intelligences, etc.
Do you deny the existence of the above practical positives?

What positive benefits do you have for the individual and humanity for your definition of what is mind?
I can tell you, the only benefit for your definition of what is mind is merely a very selfish psychological benefit as a consonance to relieve the pains of cognitive dissonance.


Just as it is crazy to insist to define a symphony-orchestra by its individual instruments every time it is referred to, it would be crazy to describe every mental activities which we collectively and efficiently called the 'mind'.

You cannot have any change in the state of matter without the mind activity. I have an argument for that.

How will your argument follow to reality, if you have not proved in the beginning, your mind [your definition] exists in reality.

Note you did not answer my question,

What positive benefits do you have for the individual[s] and humanity from your definition of what is mind?

I can tell you, the only benefit for your definition of what is mind is merely a very selfish psychological benefit as a consonance to relieve the pains of cognitive dissonance.

[Age]

We do understand that the brain appears to produce the mind,

'Who' is the 'we' here?

See, 'I' do NOT understand that the brain appears to produce the mind, AT ALL.

but we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

'I' do NOT know any such thing as this.

So we also do not know that our individual minds are all the same mind experiencing a myriad of outlooks through the primary devices of brains, all made to look and feel and be experienced as 'material' by the 'immaterial.'

But 'I' do KNOW what thee Truth ACTUALLY IS, here.

Since we really do not know, I do not see how we can accept the definition of 'the mind' as per OP.

'Who' is the 'we' here?

'I' REALLY do KNOW.

[Age]

We do understand that the brain appears to produce the mind, but we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

So we also do not know that our individual minds are all the same mind experiencing a myriad of outlooks through the primary devices of brains, all made to look and feel and be experienced as 'material' by the 'immaterial.'

Since we really do not know, I do not see how we can accept the definition of 'the mind' as per OP.

The only thing that there's any evidence at all of is that mind is a subset of ways that brains function.

Really?

So, 'where' is this 'evidence', EXACTLY?

[Age]

We do understand that the brain appears to produce the mind, but we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

So we also do not know that our individual minds are all the same mind experiencing a myriad of outlooks through the primary devices of brains, all made to look and feel and be experienced as 'material' by the 'immaterial.'

Since we really do not know, I do not see how we can accept the definition of 'the mind' as per OP.

The only thing that there's any evidence at all of is that mind is a subset of ways that brains function.

Or, what the evidence shows, is that brains are subsets of the mind...we do not know if we exist within a mind and that the universe itself - brains and everything - are the result of such a mind thinking those things into existence.

But there is NO evidence that shows NOR supports this.

Unless, OF COURSE, you will SHOW and REVEAL otherwise.

So, will you provide the, so called, "evidence"?

[Terrapin Station]

Or, what the evidence shows, is that brains are subsets of the mind...

What evidence do you think shows that?

[commonsense]

Change exists. The mind is needed for any change. Therefore, the mind exists.

It has already been shown to you that the mind is not necessary for every change.

[commonsense]

You cannot have any change in the state of matter without the mind activity. I have an argument for that.

I'd mention that your argument for it doesn't make much sense, but we're not going to get anywhere with that.

My argument makes sense.

Your argument failed to stand up to reason.

[VVilliam]

Or, what the evidence shows, is that brains are subsets of the mind...

What evidence do you think shows that?

The same evidence that you think shows that mind is a subset of ways that brains function.