Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Well, that not what you seem to be saying, if you then have to ask how the mind can be situated in the brain 100℅ of the time. It doesn't go anywhere else, Phil.

It doesn't have to (and remember the mind has no physical existence). Since the brain isn't fully present, then where would the mind be?

PhilX

Wherever you last left it. What else do you want me to say? Don't let QM rule your thinking Phil.

QM is my God.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
It doesn't have to (and remember the mind has no physical existence). Since the brain isn't fully present, then where would the mind be?

PhilX

Wherever you last left it. What else do you want me to say? Don't let QM rule your thinking Phil.

QM is my God.

PhilX

About as reliable as any other god, I suppose.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: physicists say there is no real solid

Physics says no such thing.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Since the brain isn't fully present

??? What in the world are you talking about?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: physicists say there is no real solid

Physics says no such thing.

You're looking for verbatim quotes so you can falsely claim you're not being responded to. Physicists do say it in terms that respond to your assertions.

PhilX

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Since the brain isn't fully present

??? What in the world are you talking about?

Don't play that game of pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. You definitely do.

PhilX

bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.

Again you speak of things that are not yet definite as if they are. Scientists are still coming to terms with the human mind. But as far as I know the mind is located within the brain, and is a combination of gray matter, chemistry, and electromagnetic energy, much like that which is believed to have created life in the beginning. So the mind is just as much material as any other fleshy part of the human body, chemically comprised of elements which are material, and then there are the four forces of the universe, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic flux, and lets not forget electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, quarks, and bosons, etc, etc, etc. The mind has a location!

Edit 1: Spelling

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: physicists say there is no real solid

Physics says no such thing.

You're looking for verbatim quotes so you can falsely claim you're not being responded to. Physicists do say it in terms that respond to your assertions.

PhilX

Physics states that what appears to be solid objects are mostly empty space, but the atomic forces give the illusion of solid objects. Since atoms do not usually intersect with each other, what is the difference if they are solid or only appear to be so, they still act the same. On a practical level, objects are composed of solid appearing mater, and that is what matters in the real world.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.

Again you speak of things that are not yet definite as if they are. Scientists are still coming to terms with the human mind. But as far as I know the mind is located within the brain, and is a combination of gray matter, chemistry, and electromagnetic energy, much like that which is believed to have created life in the beginning. So the mind is just as much material as any other fleshy part of the human body, chemically comprised of elements which are material, and then there are the four forces of the universe, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic flux, and lets not forget electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, quarks, and bosons, etc, etc, etc. The mind has a location!

Edit 1: Spelling

There is a paradox in your point view. All the stuff that you are made from move based on laws of nature. There is no need for mind to exist at all. Yet mind exists while the stuff that makes you moves independently of your mind (since the laws of nature do so). So the question is why what you expect as an aware person should exactly match to what happens? So monism is not anomaly free. Unfortunately dualism is problematic too so we don't have a proper framework which can resolve the mind and body problem.

I think this is the post that started this incredibly lengthy but slow moving off-topic exchange.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I'm going to add to the OP. Not only is mind immaterial, the brain is immaterial as well! There's no such thing as a solid. For those who skipped their science classes, we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a cornerstone of QM. This means we can't pinpoint the location of any atom because they get scattered throughout the galaxy. So how can we talk about the mind being located inside the brain when we can't specify with 100% accuracy the location of the brain?

PhilX

Phil, Your claim seems to be that science class teaches that matter is immaterial, which is wrong by definition. A brain is not a solid, it is made of different materials which makes it a mostly liquid emulsion. It is material (being made of matter). It is solid (different definition) in that it has mass and volume. It is made of parts that are not all in the same place (much like the galaxy) and thus has mass and volume and density. You seem to be working under a false assumption that empty space between objects must be discounted when computing volume.

This is only true if the empty space is functional. The volume of a boat hull is greater than a boat shape collection of rocks held apart with sticks. The volume is functional there (keeps the water out), so only water-repelling volume counts. Volume contained by the rocks counts despite space between the atoms there. Space between the rocks does not count since the question is if the rock thing will float.

Deep down, fundamental particles have never been found to have extension, or even defined location. The concept of density would thus not apply to them. That doesn't prevent macroscopic objects from having volume and location, or from being material.

QM just describes the state of any object with a wave function from which probabilities of measurement can be drawn. The wave function is fairly simple for small objects and very complex for brains, reducing their probability of location to a certainty to any reasonable precision.

bahman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.

Again you speak of things that are not yet definite as if they are. Scientists are still coming to terms with the human mind. But as far as I know the mind is located within the brain, and is a combination of gray matter, chemistry, and electromagnetic energy, much like that which is believed to have created life in the beginning. So the mind is just as much material as any other fleshy part of the human body, chemically comprised of elements which are material, and then there are the four forces of the universe, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic flux, and lets not forget electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, quarks, and bosons, etc, etc, etc. The mind has a location!

Edit 1: Spelling

There is a paradox in your point view. All the stuff that you are made from move based on laws of nature. There is no need for mind to exist at all. Yet mind exists while the stuff that makes you moves independently of your mind (since the laws of nature do so). So the question is why what you expect as an aware person should exactly match to what happens? So monism is not anomaly free. Unfortunately dualism is problematic too so we don't have a proper framework which can resolve the mind and body problem.

I see that there is no mind/body problem, that there is only one thing, namely, the universe. The dualism crap is just that, crap. You see, due to humans fearing their ultimate demise, they scramble to create all kinds of drama like concepts, meant to keep their minds off their inevitable death, that's why gods, leprechauns, trolls and other such fantasies were created. Crazy concepts supposedly meant to explain things, are often the same kind of fictitious crap. It's faux-food for the ignorant; a pacifier for the extremely fearful.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bahman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Again you speak of things that are not yet definite as if they are. Scientists are still coming to terms with the human mind. But as far as I know the mind is located within the brain, and is a combination of gray matter, chemistry, and electromagnetic energy, much like that which is believed to have created life in the beginning. So the mind is just as much material as any other fleshy part of the human body, chemically comprised of elements which are material, and then there are the four forces of the universe, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic flux, and lets not forget electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, quarks, and bosons, etc, etc, etc. The mind has a location!

Edit 1: Spelling

There is a paradox in your point view. All the stuff that you are made from move based on laws of nature. There is no need for mind to exist at all. Yet mind exists while the stuff that makes you moves independently of your mind (since the laws of nature do so). So the question is why what you expect as an aware person should exactly match to what happens? So monism is not anomaly free. Unfortunately dualism is problematic too so we don't have a proper framework which can resolve the mind and body problem.

I see that there is no mind/body problem, that there is only one thing, namely, the universe. The dualism crap is just that, crap. You see, due to humans fearing their ultimate demise, they scramble to create all kinds of drama like concepts, meant to keep their minds off their inevitable death, that's why gods, leprechauns, trolls and other such fantasies were created. Crazy concepts supposedly meant to explain things, are often the same kind of fictitious crap. It's faux-food for the ignorant; a pacifier for the extremely fearful.

Did you realise that there is an anomaly in monism too? I try to explain that too.

With this definition of Dualism, I would probably ascribe to non-dualism, I believe that the mind is not separate from the brain, the mind/thinking is what the brain does. The mind is a function of the brain, and normally can't be separated from it.

This makes the 3rd definition of dualism that I have encountered. A long time ago I became familiar with the Buddhist interpretation, and then my pastor used non-dualism and I'm still waiting for a full explanation of that.

thedoc wrote:Physics states that what appears to be solid objects are mostly empty space,

Which is in no manner saying that solid objects are not solid. At best, it's saying that a particular naive, pre-scientific, "folk notion" of what solidity is turns out to be mistaken. But that's not at all the same as saying that there are no solids.

but the atomic forces give the illusion of solid objects.

It's not an illusion. They ARE solid objects. It's just that the naive, pre-scientific, "folk notion" is mistaken.

Saying that this amounts to saying that there are no solids or that solidity is an illusion is akin to saying that there is no moon, or that the moon is an illusion, just because the notion that the moon is made of green cheese turns out to be mistaken.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: physicists say there is no real solid

Physics says no such thing.

You're looking for verbatim quotes so you can falsely claim you're not being responded to. Physicists do say it in terms that respond to your assertions.

PhilX

I'm pointing out that you can not cite ANY physics that states ANYTHING AT ALL resembling or implying "there are no solids." Because it says no such thing. You're some combination of full of shit, crazy, trolling and/or ignorant (a la being unaware of what physics does indeed say) or stupid (a la not being able to understand what you're reading) rather.