Mind is immortal

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is known is that there is a correlation between experience and brain activity. Consciousness is due to Matter activity. There is causation too. In the middle, we have a decision. Brain activity cannot resolve the conflict of interest in a situation when options are equally liked. That is true since the matter is a deterministic substance, one input and one output. There is no algorithm for free decision. It is not due to a deterministic object.

In simple words, the free decision is irreducible. The matter is reducible. Therefore, the free decision is not due to matter. It is due to the mind.

We have gone through the above before.

The simple fact is when the person is dead there is no ontological independent human mind to talk about.
The urge to insist there is an ontological independent human mind is due to desperate psychology.

No, we have not been through this before. In here I am saying that free decision is irreducible, therefore it is due to something irreducible instead of reducible, such as matter.

Absolute freedom is an impossibility, thus absolute free decision is non-existence.

Free decision where only humans are capable of is reducible to a region of the human brain, i.e. the neocortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus whatever is free-decision it is reducible to the brain and living physical self.
If the physical self is dead, there is no decision [free or otherwise] to be made.

Do you have knowledge of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex, i.e.

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2] This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

Matter can be annihilated. Therefore, it is reducible. Something which is irreducible cannot be created and therefore cannot be annihilated too. I have an argument for that in separate threads.

Question is, it is reducible to what fundamental element?

Yes, water is reducible to H2O atoms, atoms to nucleus and electrons, .....quarks, particles or waves, strings [speculation], higgs boson, ... what else?
but what is the ultimate element it is reducible to?
Without knowing the possible final element, such a reduction is merely a convenient linguistic term that things can be broken up with a certain limit but not to any ultimate level.

From another perspective, reduction is ultimately reduced partly to the observers, i.e. the subjects. I have argued for this from the Philosophical Anti-Realist perspective.

An electron and positron annihilate upon the collision. The result is photon. Matter obviously reducible. It cannot give rise to something irreducible, such as free decision.

Your knowledge on this is limited.

Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, their behavior featuring properties of both waves and particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

In this case of the wave/particle dilemma, the photon is reduced to the participator [the subjects].

Are you familiar with Quarks?

A quark (/kwɔːrk, kwɑːrk/) is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

In Science and Physics, there is no 100% certainty.
Obviously matter is reducible but only up to a limit and because there is a possibility infinite regression, the term "matter is reducible" cannot be an ultimate truth.

Note my argument above re free decision which is reducible to the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex of the human brain.

Note your limitation is you are ignorant of much general knowledge that are relevant to the argument of 'what is mind'.
Know Thyself!

[bahman]

We have gone through the above before.

The simple fact is when the person is dead there is no ontological independent human mind to talk about.
The urge to insist there is an ontological independent human mind is due to desperate psychology.

No, we have not been through this before. In here I am saying that free decision is irreducible, therefore it is due to something irreducible instead of reducible, such as matter.

Absolute freedom is an impossibility, thus absolute free decision is non-existence.

By free I mean that I am able to decide to write to you or not.

Free decision where only humans are capable of is reducible to a region of the human brain, i.e. the neocortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus whatever is free-decision it is reducible to the brain and living physical self.
If the physical self is dead, there is no decision [free or otherwise] to be made.

Do you have knowledge of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex, i.e.

The correlation between brain activity and the decision does not mean the decision is made by the brain. It means that the decision of mind is dictated to the brain through a specific area.

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2] This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

The decision is not due to matter.

Question is, it is reducible to what fundamental element?

Yes, water is reducible to H2O atoms, atoms to nucleus and electrons, .....quarks, particles or waves, strings [speculation], higgs boson, ... what else?
but what is the ultimate element it is reducible to?
Without knowing the possible final element, such a reduction is merely a convenient linguistic term that things can be broken up with a certain limit but not to any ultimate level.

From another perspective, reduction is ultimately reduced partly to the observers, i.e. the subjects. I have argued for this from the Philosophical Anti-Realist perspective.

An electron and positron annihilate upon the collision. The result is photon. Matter obviously reducible. It cannot give rise to something irreducible, such as free decision.

Your knowledge on this is limited.

No, I study particle physics to the very depth.

Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, their behavior featuring properties of both waves and particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

In this case of the wave/particle dilemma, the photon is reduced to the participator [the subjects].

Are you familiar with Quarks?

Of course, I am. I am a modeler, a physicist, etc.

A quark (/kwɔːrk, kwɑːrk/) is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

In Science and Physics, there is no 100% certainty.
Obviously matter is reducible but only up to a limit and because there is a possibility infinite regression, the term "matter is reducible" cannot be an ultimate truth.

Note my argument above re free decision which is reducible to the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex of the human brain.

Note your limitation is you are ignorant of much general knowledge that are relevant to the argument of 'what is mind'.
Know Thyself!

I am aware of what I am talking about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, we have not been through this before. In here I am saying that free decision is irreducible, therefore it is due to something irreducible instead of reducible, such as matter.

Absolute freedom is an impossibility, thus absolute free decision is non-existence.

By free I mean that I am able to decide to write to you or not.

That you are free to decide to write or not is conditioned upon you being alive with a normal human brain.
Thus if you are a normal human being and has a normal human brain, you will have to freedom to choose to write or not, so this is conditional.

Free decision where only humans are capable of is reducible to a region of the human brain, i.e. the neocortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus whatever is free-decision it is reducible to the brain and living physical self.
If the physical self is dead, there is no decision [free or otherwise] to be made.

Do you have knowledge of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex, i.e.

The correlation between brain activity and the decision does not mean the decision is made by the brain. It means that the decision of mind is dictated to the brain through a specific area.

It is imperative the decision has to be made via the normal human brain i.e. via the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus no normal human brain, there no decision can be made.
There is no need for a mind [as you defined it] it to make the decision.

A decision is make based on the specific neural algorithm in the brain.
There is no need for a mind [as you defined it] it to make the decision.

The mind in general is merely a collective term for all the various mental activities of the brain. This is to avoid having to detail every mental activity.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
  The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2] This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

The decision is not due to matter.

Yes not solely due to matter, but due to an interaction with matter.
Note wetness is not attributable to Hydrogen and Oxygen, but arises due to the interaction of the individual matter [H & O] within a certain states.

It is the same with decision making [more complex than wetness] which is based on the interactions of various matter [biological, physical, atomic, etc.] within the living human self.

An electron and positron annihilate upon the collision. The result is photon. Matter obviously reducible. It cannot give rise to something irreducible, such as free decision.

Your knowledge on this is limited.

No, I study particle physics to the very depth.

Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, their behavior featuring properties of both waves and particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

In this case of the wave/particle dilemma, the photon is reduced to the participator [the subjects].

Are you familiar with Quarks?

Of course, I am. I am a modeler, a physicist, etc.

A quark (/kwɔːrk, kwɑːrk/) is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

In Science and Physics, there is no 100% certainty.
Obviously matter is reducible but only up to a limit and because there is a possibility infinite regression, the term "matter is reducible" cannot be an ultimate truth.

Note my argument above re free decision which is reducible to the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex of the human brain.

Note your limitation is you are ignorant of much general knowledge that are relevant to the argument of 'what is mind'.
Know Thyself!

I am aware of what I am talking about.

Perhaps you have studied them but lack the intelligence to apply them effectively in this case.

[bahman]

Absolute freedom is an impossibility, thus absolute free decision is non-existence.

By free I mean that I am able to decide to write to you or not.

That you are free to decide to write or not is conditioned upon you being alive with a normal human brain.
Thus if you are a normal human being and has a normal human brain, you will have to freedom to choose to write or not, so this is conditional.

Can matter freely decide?

Free decision where only humans are capable of is reducible to a region of the human brain, i.e. the neocortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus whatever is free-decision it is reducible to the brain and living physical self.
If the physical self is dead, there is no decision [free or otherwise] to be made.

Do you have knowledge of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex, i.e.

The correlation between brain activity and the decision does not mean the decision is made by the brain. It means that the decision of mind is dictated to the brain through a specific area.

It is imperative the decision has to be made via the normal human brain i.e. via the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus no normal human brain, there no decision can be made.
There is no need for a mind [as you defined it] it to make the decision.

A decision is make based on the specific neural algorithm in the brain.
There is no need for a mind [as you defined it] it to make the decision.

The mind in general is merely a collective term for all the various mental activities of the brain. This is to avoid having to detail every mental activity.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
  The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.

Can matter freely decide?

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2] This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

The decision is not due to matter.

Yes not solely due to matter, but due to an interaction with matter.
Note wetness is not attributable to Hydrogen and Oxygen, but arises due to the interaction of the individual matter [H & O] within a certain states.

It is the same with decision making [more complex than wetness] which is based on the interactions of various matter [biological, physical, atomic, etc.] within the living human self.

Matter by definition is something which co-interact. It cannot freely decide though. Interaction just defines the behavior. Free will is the force over the behavior.

Your knowledge on this is limited.

No, I study particle physics to the very depth.

In this case of the wave/particle dilemma, the photon is reduced to the participator [the subjects].

Are you familiar with Quarks?

Of course, I am. I am a modeler, a physicist, etc.

In Science and Physics, there is no 100% certainty.
Obviously matter is reducible but only up to a limit and because there is a possibility infinite regression, the term "matter is reducible" cannot be an ultimate truth.

Note my argument above re free decision which is reducible to the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex of the human brain.

Note your limitation is you are ignorant of much general knowledge that are relevant to the argument of 'what is mind'.
Know Thyself!

I am aware of what I am talking about.

Perhaps you have studied them but lack the intelligence to apply them effectively in this case.

I don't think so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By free I mean that I am able to decide to write to you or not.

That you are free to decide to write or not is conditioned upon you being alive with a normal human brain.
Thus if you are a normal human being and has a normal human brain, you will have to freedom to choose to write or not, so this is conditional.

Can matter freely decide?

Obviously 'matter' itself do not decide freely.

What decides freely is the human being with a normal human brain.
Note it is always asserted by anyone "I decide freely" not my "mind" decides freely.
There is no need for a mind [as you have defined] to decide freely.

What is generally termed as 'mind' is merely a collective term to highlight the critical parts of the brain involved.

The correlation between brain activity and the decision does not mean the decision is made by the brain. It means that the decision of mind is dictated to the brain through a specific area.

It is imperative the decision has to be made via the normal human brain i.e. via the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex.
Thus no normal human brain, there no decision can be made.
There is no need for a mind [as you defined it] it to make the decision.

A decision is make based on the specific neural algorithm in the brain.
There is no need for a mind [as you defined it] it to make the decision.

The mind in general is merely a collective term for all the various mental activities of the brain. This is to avoid having to detail every mental activity.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
  The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.

Can matter freely decide?

Repeating from above.

Obviously 'matter' itself do not decide freely.

What decides freely is the human being with a normal human brain.
Note it is always asserted by anyone "I decide freely" not my "mind" decides freely.
There is no need for a "mind" [as you have defined] to decide freely.

What is generally termed as 'mind' is merely a collective term to highlight the critical parts in tandem with all parts of the brain and physical self involved in various mental activities.

Perhaps you have studied them [Physics in depth] but lack the intelligence to apply them effectively in this case.

I don't think so.

It would appear so, otherwise you would have given consideration to quarks, wave/particle dilemma, observers' effect, and that there is no certainty in Science thus Physics.

[bahman]

That you are free to decide to write or not is conditioned upon you being alive with a normal human brain.
Thus if you are a normal human being and has a normal human brain, you will have to freedom to choose to write or not, so this is conditional.

Can matter freely decide?

Obviously 'matter' itself do not decide freely.

What decides freely is the human being with a normal human brain.
Note it is always asserted by anyone "I decide freely" not my "mind" decides freely.
There is no need for a mind [as you have defined] to decide freely.

What is generally termed as 'mind' is merely a collective term to highlight the critical parts of the brain involved.

So you believe in emergence. Something which is not free suddenly becomes free when it takse shape of human brain? I think I said enough against emergence.

Perhaps you have studied them [Physics in depth] but lack the intelligence to apply them effectively in this case.

I don't think so.

It would appear so, otherwise you would have given consideration to quarks, wave/particle dilemma, observers' effect, and that there is no certainty in Science thus Physics.

There is of course certainty in science. Do you want absolute certainty?

[commonsense]

Without neurons minds wouldn't exist. But neurons also exist in the lower gut which has a mind of its own. This creates a quandary as to whether each is immortal or only one. My personal experience is that it's not unusual for the upper mind to cuss out the lower one telling it that whatever mind it has to blow it out of its caboose.

This is inconsistent with human anatomy

[Dubious]

Without neurons minds wouldn't exist. But neurons also exist in the lower gut which has a mind of its own. This creates a quandary as to whether each is immortal or only one. My personal experience is that it's not unusual for the upper mind to cuss out the lower one telling it that whatever mind it has to blow it out of its caboose.

This is inconsistent with human anatomy

It was just a lampoon on a dumb idea that mind is immortal. But it is true that neurons and the networks they form do exist in the walls of the gut.

[commonsense]

Without neurons minds wouldn't exist. But neurons also exist in the lower gut which has a mind of its own. This creates a quandary as to whether each is immortal or only one. My personal experience is that it's not unusual for the upper mind to cuss out the lower one telling it that whatever mind it has to blow it out of its caboose.

This is inconsistent with human anatomy

It was just a lampoon on a dumb idea that mind is immortal. But it is true that neurons and the networks they form do exist in the walls of the gut.

There is no lower mind in the colon

[Dubious]

This is inconsistent with human anatomy

It was just a lampoon on a dumb idea that mind is immortal. But it is true that neurons and the networks they form do exist in the walls of the gut.

There is no lower mind in the colon

...not the same as what we would normally call mind obviously but nevertheless it does have a mind of its own...

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... lly.html#!

...and many more stating the same.

Besides, as I said, it was merely meant as a lampoon on a mindless statement.

[commonsense]

It was just a lampoon on a dumb idea that mind is immortal. But it is true that neurons and the networks they form do exist in the walls of the gut.

There is no lower mind in the colon

...not the same as what we would normally call mind obviously but nevertheless it does have a mind of its own...

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... lly.html#!

...and many more stating the same.

Besides, as I said, it was merely meant as a lampoon on a mindless statement.

Sorry. I should have known it was a joke.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can matter freely decide?

Obviously 'matter' itself do not decide freely.

What decides freely is the human being with a normal human brain.
Note it is always asserted by anyone "I decide freely" not my "mind" decides freely.
There is no need for a mind [as you have defined] to decide freely.

What is generally termed as 'mind' is merely a collective term to highlight the critical parts of the brain involved.

So you believe in emergence. Something which is not free suddenly becomes free when it takse shape of human brain? I think I said enough against emergence.

Yes, I believe in the concept of "emergence" which is justified with empirical evidence [scientific] and philosophical reasoning.
I stated, example, 'wetness' 'water' H2O are "emergences" and these emergence[s] can be observed, experienced and verified by anyone.
You have not countered even once my concept of emergence and the examples I had given.

I don't think so.

It would appear so, otherwise you would have given consideration to quarks, wave/particle dilemma, observers' effect, and that there is no certainty in Science thus Physics.

There is of course certainty in science. Do you want absolute certainty?

Yes, there is certainty in Science and other knowledge but such certainty is always qualified to the specific Framework of Knowledge.
There is no absolute certainty which is an impossibility.

You appear [?] to claim your idea of 'what-is-mind' is based on absolute certainty.
If not, then your claim of 'what-is-mind' should be a relative certainty thus dependent a specific framework of knowledge.
If it is relative certainty, your mind cannot be an absolutely independent entity or thing.
What then is the specific framework of knowledge you are using to derive what you claimed as "mind" which is an independent entity?

What I claimed to be "mind" is relative-certainty, i.e. based on Science [verified via empirical evidence] and critical philosophical reasoning.

What then is the specific framework of knowledge you are using to derive what you claimed as "mind" which is an independent entity?

[bahman]

Obviously 'matter' itself do not decide freely.

What decides freely is the human being with a normal human brain.
Note it is always asserted by anyone "I decide freely" not my "mind" decides freely.
There is no need for a mind [as you have defined] to decide freely.

What is generally termed as 'mind' is merely a collective term to highlight the critical parts of the brain involved.

So you believe in emergence. Something which is not free suddenly becomes free when it takse shape of human brain? I think I said enough against emergence.

Yes, I believe in the concept of "emergence" which is justified with empirical evidence [scientific] and philosophical reasoning.
I stated, example, 'wetness' 'water' H2O are "emergences" and these emergence[s] can be observed, experienced and verified by anyone.
You have not countered even once my concept of emergence and the examples I had given.

Wetness of water like the solidity of ice is a property of water. They get magnified depending on the situation, the situation is defined by external and internal parameters. There is no emergence.

It would appear so, otherwise you would have given consideration to quarks, wave/particle dilemma, observers' effect, and that there is no certainty in Science thus Physics.

There is of course certainty in science. Do you want absolute certainty?

Yes, there is certainty in Science and other knowledge but such certainty is always qualified to the specific Framework of Knowledge.
There is no absolute certainty which is an impossibility.

You appear [?] to claim your idea of 'what-is-mind' is based on absolute certainty.
If not, then your claim of 'what-is-mind' should be a relative certainty thus dependent a specific framework of knowledge.
If it is relative certainty, your mind cannot be an absolutely independent entity or thing.
What then is the specific framework of knowledge you are using to derive what you claimed as "mind" which is an independent entity?

What I claimed to be "mind" is relative-certainty, i.e. based on Science [verified via empirical evidence] and critical philosophical reasoning.

What then is the specific framework of knowledge you are using to derive what you claimed as "mind" which is an independent entity?

The absolute truth is very simple and it is the base for any other form of truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you believe in emergence. Something which is not free suddenly becomes free when it takse shape of human brain? I think I said enough against emergence.

Yes, I believe in the concept of "emergence" which is justified with empirical evidence [scientific] and philosophical reasoning.
I stated, example, 'wetness' 'water' H2O are "emergences" and these emergence[s] can be observed, experienced and verified by anyone.
You have not countered even once my concept of emergence and the examples I had given.

Wetness of water like the solidity of ice is a property of water. They get magnified depending on the situation, the situation is defined by external and internal parameters. There is no emergence.

We have to agree on the definition of 'emergent'.
[we have gone tru this before].

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.
These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
For example, smooth forward motion emerges when a bicycle and its rider interoperate, but neither part can produce the behavior on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... _processes

Read the above carefully.
Hydrogen and Oxygen by themselves do not have 'wetness' thus 'wetness' of water [H2O] is an emergence as defined above.

The property or behavior is the emergent and this can be verified empirically and philosophically.
There is no way you should dispute my definition of emergence as qualified above.

You have to agree to the above, but you can say this definition do not serve your purpose.

Perhaps, you are defining 'emergence' from another perspective.
What is your definition of 'emergence' then?

The absolute truth is very simple and it is the base for any other form of truth.

Yes, in a way.
What you are referring to is the relative-absolute, e.g. as in absolute temperature, absolute monarch, absolute-X which is always conditional and relative to a specific thing.

There is no such thing as an absolutely-absolute which is unconditional.
Such an absolutely-absolute is often attributed to God.

You did not respond to my earlier question;

You appear [?] to claim your idea of 'what-is-mind' is based on absolute certainty.
If not, then your claim of 'what-is-mind' should be a relative certainty thus dependent a specific framework of knowledge.
If it is relative certainty, your mind cannot be an absolutely independent entity or thing.

What then is the specific framework of knowledge you are using to derive what you claimed as "mind" which is an independent entity?

As far as I note, your basis of "what is mind" is purely driven by a desperate psychological impulse to simply label the mind as a thing, but you don't have a basis to support its existence.
What you have presented are merely spurious arguments with false conclusions.

[bahman]

Yes, I believe in the concept of "emergence" which is justified with empirical evidence [scientific] and philosophical reasoning.
I stated, example, 'wetness' 'water' H2O are "emergences" and these emergence[s] can be observed, experienced and verified by anyone.
You have not countered even once my concept of emergence and the examples I had given.

Wetness of water like the solidity of ice is a property of water. They get magnified depending on the situation, the situation is defined by external and internal parameters. There is no emergence.

We have to agree on the definition of 'emergent'.
[we have gone tru this before].

By emergence I mean, some property which does not intrinsically exist in one state of matter appears in another state of matter.

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.
These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
For example, smooth forward motion emerges when a bicycle and its rider interoperate, but neither part can produce the behavior on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... _processes

The motion a biker and bicycle can be explained in terms of the properties of part. You can even simulate it.

Read the above carefully.
Hydrogen and Oxygen by themselves do not have 'wetness' thus 'wetness' of water [H2O] is an emergence as defined above.

That is not correct, any liquid is wet. The wetness is due to tension.

The property or behavior is the emergent and this can be verified empirically and philosophically.
There is no way you should dispute my definition of emergence as qualified above.

You have to agree to the above, but you can say this definition do not serve your purpose.

Perhaps, you are defining 'emergence' from another perspective.
What is your definition of 'emergence' then?

I already defined the emergence.