The Mind is a Physical Thing

[Veritas Aequitas]

I already proved that the mind is immortal. It cannot be created nor destroyed.


I already answer that. The brain is physical and is constantly subject to change. Therefore, there are minds in the charge of these changes.

That is not an answer to my question.

In my and the conventional definition of mind, that definition of mind has helped to cure mental problems of individuals and thus contributed to humanity. It is also related in progress in education, intelligence, emotional states, sports, etc.
Unfortunately it has negative implications as well when people understand they can program and influence the mind of others via various negative ideology.

So I ask in a similar vein,

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

Call mind as mental activity. Problem resolved.

So you agree with my definition of 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

There is no benefit in eternal life. It is just life.

At the extreme, the idea of an independent mind is about an independent soul that survives physical death to eternal life. This is related to an existential & soteriological cognitive dissonance and the subliminal threat of eternal death in hell.

But in general it also psychologically comforting to believe in an independent mind for various general reasons driven by crude reason [cause and effect] to relieve a general cognitive dissonance that there must be an independent mind.

I am already bored with my short life. I am very well aware that eternal life is like Hell. But we cannot avoid it.

There are ways out of that.
Buddhism-proper do not believe there are independent minds and independent souls that survive after death.
To deal with this cognitive dissonance, Buddhism introduces its Life's Problem Solving Technique.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

[Eodnhoj7]

That is not an answer to my question.

In my and the conventional definition of mind, that definition of mind has helped to cure mental problems of individuals and thus contributed to humanity. It is also related in progress in education, intelligence, emotional states, sports, etc.
Unfortunately it has negative implications as well when people understand they can program and influence the mind of others via various negative ideology.

So I ask in a similar vein,

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

Call mind as mental activity. Problem resolved.

So you agree with my definition of 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

At the extreme, the idea of an independent mind is about an independent soul that survives physical death to eternal life. This is related to an existential & soteriological cognitive dissonance and the subliminal threat of eternal death in hell.

But in general it also psychologically comforting to believe in an independent mind for various general reasons driven by crude reason [cause and effect] to relieve a general cognitive dissonance that there must be an independent mind.

I am already bored with my short life. I am very well aware that eternal life is like Hell. But we cannot avoid it.

There are ways out of that.
Buddhism-proper do not believe there are independent minds and independent souls that survive after death.
To deal with this cognitive dissonance, Buddhism introduces its Life's Problem Solving Technique.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

The absence of this life as a thing in itself, or rather it exists empty on it's own terms, necessitates a mode of being which exists beyond it.

Dually buddhism believes in different realms one can reincarnate in, this is founded in the Tibetan book of the dead.

[Advocate]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. This definition is both Necessary and Sufficient "for all intents and purposes". Can we please move forward?

[Eodnhoj7]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. This definition is both Necessary and Sufficient "for all intents and purposes". Can we please move forward?

Yet which came first: the brain or the pattern?

The brain itself is a pattern.

[bahman]

That is not an answer to my question.

In my and the conventional definition of mind, that definition of mind has helped to cure mental problems of individuals and thus contributed to humanity. It is also related in progress in education, intelligence, emotional states, sports, etc.
Unfortunately it has negative implications as well when people understand they can program and influence the mind of others via various negative ideology.

So I ask in a similar vein,

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

Call mind as mental activity. Problem resolved.

So you agree with my definition of 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

I call these mental activities.

At the extreme, the idea of an independent mind is about an independent soul that survives physical death to eternal life. This is related to an existential & soteriological cognitive dissonance and the subliminal threat of eternal death in hell.

But in general it also psychologically comforting to believe in an independent mind for various general reasons driven by crude reason [cause and effect] to relieve a general cognitive dissonance that there must be an independent mind.

I am already bored with my short life. I am very well aware that eternal life is like Hell. But we cannot avoid it.

There are ways out of that.
Buddhism-proper do not believe there are independent minds and independent souls that survive after death.
To deal with this cognitive dissonance, Buddhism introduces its Life's Problem Solving Technique.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

I heard about that but I don't think we can get rid of rebirth. Rebirth in my opinion is a very nice thing since everything seems fresh for you and you have a sense of wonder.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=501174 time=1615341815 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=501172 time=1615341085 user_id=15238]
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. This definition is both Necessary and Sufficient "for all intents and purposes". Can we please move forward?
[/quote]

Yet which came first: the brain or the pattern?

The brain itself is a pattern.
[/quote]

Mind is an emergent understanding. The brain came first, just like the first chicken came out of the last pre-chicken egg.

[Eodnhoj7]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. This definition is both Necessary and Sufficient "for all intents and purposes". Can we please move forward?

Yet which came first: the brain or the pattern?

The brain itself is a pattern.

Mind is an emergent understanding. The brain came first, just like the first chicken came out of the last pre-chicken egg.

In the question which came first the chicken or the egg, the chicken came with the egg inside of it. The same metaphor applies to the mind/brain understanding, both came simultaneously given the brain is a pattern.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Call mind as mental activity. Problem resolved.

So you agree with my definition of 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

I call these mental activities.

Do you call a group of musicians playing Beethoven Symphony No. 5 merely musical activities?

Note the fact of the existence of a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

An orchestra (/ˈɔːrkɪstrə/; Italian: [orˈkɛstra]) [symphony or philharmonic orchestra ] is a large instrumental ensemble typical of classical music, which combines instruments from different families, including bowed string instruments such as the violin, viola, cello, and double bass, woodwinds such as the flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon, brass instruments such as the horn, trumpet, trombone and tuba, and percussion instruments such as the timpani, bass drum, triangle, snare drum, cymbals, and mallet percussion instruments each grouped in sections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra

Naming the co-ordinated mental activities of a person as a driven by a 'mind' is the same as naming the organized and systematic musical activities as a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

As such you cannot deny what is mind is as defined above.

All you can do is to insist you have another meaning for 'what is mind' and then justified that it exists objectively empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK e.g. the scientific FSK. But you are unable to verify and justify your defined-mind exists empirically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yet which came first: the brain or the pattern?

The brain itself is a pattern.

Mind is an emergent understanding. The brain came first, just like the first chicken came out of the last pre-chicken egg.

In the question which came first the chicken or the egg, the chicken came with the egg inside of it. The same metaphor applies to the mind/brain understanding, both came simultaneously given the brain is a pattern.

The question of which comes first is purely a psychological issue of cognitive dissonance.

The focus should be on the empirically verifiable and justifiable 'egg' and 'chicken' so that we can rear the chicken, collect the eggs and eat them to survive.

[Age]

Mind is an emergent understanding. The brain came first, just like the first chicken came out of the last pre-chicken egg.

In the question which came first the chicken or the egg, the chicken came with the egg inside of it. The same metaphor applies to the mind/brain understanding, both came simultaneously given the brain is a pattern.

The question of which comes first is purely a psychological issue of cognitive dissonance.

The focus should be on the empirically verifiable and justifiable 'egg' and 'chicken' so that we can rear the chicken, collect the eggs and eat them to survive.

Can 'you' NOT survive without eating chickens, nor eggs?

Also, what came first is very easily UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN, when how the Mind and the brain work is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, 'first'.

By the way, you NEVER answered my questions posed in this thread, which were;

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?

Unless, of course, you did and I was just not notified of this.

[bahman]

So you agree with my definition of what is mind?

I call these mental activities.

Do you call a group of musicians playing Beethoven Symphony No. 5 merely musical activities?

Note the fact of the existence of a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

An orchestra (/ˈɔːrkɪstrə/; Italian: [orˈkɛstra]) [symphony or philharmonic orchestra ] is a large instrumental ensemble typical of classical music, which combines instruments from different families, including bowed string instruments such as the violin, viola, cello, and double bass, woodwinds such as the flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon, brass instruments such as the horn, trumpet, trombone and tuba, and percussion instruments such as the timpani, bass drum, triangle, snare drum, cymbals, and mallet percussion instruments each grouped in sections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra

Naming the co-ordinated mental activities of a person as a driven by a 'mind' is the same as naming the organized and systematic musical activities as a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

As such you cannot deny what is mind is as defined above.

All you can do is to insist you have another meaning for 'what is mind' and then justified that it exists objectively empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK e.g. the scientific FSK. But you are unable to verify and justify your defined-mind exists empirically.

Well, let's call mind in the substance dualism as self, and coherent mental activity as mind. That is just a naming anyway. Are you arguing that the self is physical? Mind is in fact due to self activity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I call these mental activities.

Do you call a group of musicians playing Beethoven Symphony No. 5 merely musical activities?

Note the fact of the existence of a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

An orchestra (/ˈɔːrkɪstrə/; Italian: [orˈkɛstra]) [symphony or philharmonic orchestra ] is a large instrumental ensemble typical of classical music, which combines instruments from different families, including bowed string instruments such as the violin, viola, cello, and double bass, woodwinds such as the flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon, brass instruments such as the horn, trumpet, trombone and tuba, and percussion instruments such as the timpani, bass drum, triangle, snare drum, cymbals, and mallet percussion instruments each grouped in sections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra

Naming the co-ordinated mental activities of a person as a driven by a 'mind' is the same as naming the organized and systematic musical activities as a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

As such you cannot deny what is mind is as defined above.

All you can do is to insist you have another meaning for 'what is mind' and then justified that it exists objectively empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK e.g. the scientific FSK. But you are unable to verify and justify your defined-mind exists empirically.

Well, let's call mind in the substance dualism as self, and coherent mental activity as mind. That is just a naming anyway. Are you arguing that the self is physical? Mind is in fact due to self activity.

Note the OP, I am discussing the mind [my definition] is physical.

In line with my argument, the empirical self is physical.

The transcendental self - I AM, is an illusion, do not exists as real, thus no need for the question whether it is real or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I call these mental activities.

Do you call a group of musicians playing Beethoven Symphony No. 5 merely musical activities?

Note the fact of the existence of a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

An orchestra (/ˈɔːrkɪstrə/; Italian: [orˈkɛstra]) [symphony or philharmonic orchestra ] is a large instrumental ensemble typical of classical music, which combines instruments from different families, including bowed string instruments such as the violin, viola, cello, and double bass, woodwinds such as the flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon, brass instruments such as the horn, trumpet, trombone and tuba, and percussion instruments such as the timpani, bass drum, triangle, snare drum, cymbals, and mallet percussion instruments each grouped in sections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra

Naming the co-ordinated mental activities of a person as a driven by a 'mind' is the same as naming the organized and systematic musical activities as a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

As such you cannot deny what is mind is as defined above.

All you can do is to insist you have another meaning for 'what is mind' and then justified that it exists objectively empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK e.g. the scientific FSK. But you are unable to verify and justify your defined-mind exists empirically.

Well, let's call mind in the substance dualism as self, and coherent mental activity as mind. That is just a naming anyway. Are you arguing that the self is physical? Mind is in fact due to self activity.

Note the OP, I am discussing the mind [my definition] is physical.

In line with my argument, the empirical self is physical, i.e. supervene upon a normal living physical body and brain. Note normal and 'living' or 'alive' are critical.

The transcendental self - the "I AM" [real and survives physical death], is an illusion, do not exists as real, thus no need for the question whether it is physical or not.

If you believe the self, i.e. the transcendent "I AM" exists as real and survives physical death, then I ask again;

What positive benefits do you have for the individual and humanity for your definition of what is self as a soul that can survive physical death ?

I'll reply the same, the main reason why you are insisting in such a definition of the self as a soul that can survive physical death [a falsehood] is purely as a consonance to resolve an existential cognitive dissonance.
You get a sense of psychological comfort and equanimity by clinging to such a definition.
Trying to give up this definition will trigger terrible psychological pains and unease.
Agree?

[bahman]

Do you call a group of musicians playing Beethoven Symphony No. 5 merely musical activities?

Note the fact of the existence of a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.



Naming the co-ordinated mental activities of a person as a driven by a 'mind' is the same as naming the organized and systematic musical activities as a symphony or philharmonic orchestra.

As such you cannot deny what is mind is as defined above.

All you can do is to insist you have another meaning for 'what is mind' and then justified that it exists objectively empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK e.g. the scientific FSK. But you are unable to verify and justify your defined-mind exists empirically.

Well, let's call mind in the substance dualism as self, and coherent mental activity as mind. That is just a naming anyway. Are you arguing that the self is physical? Mind is in fact due to self activity.

Note the OP, I am discussing the mind [my definition] is physical.

In line with my argument, the empirical self is physical, i.e. supervene upon a normal living physical body and brain. Note normal and 'living' or 'alive' are critical.

The transcendental self - the "I AM" [real and survives physical death], is an illusion, do not exists as real, thus no need for the question whether it is physical or not.

If you believe the self, i.e. the transcendent "I AM" exists as real and survives physical death, then I ask again;

What positive benefits do you have for the individual and humanity for your definition of what is self as a soul that can survive physical death ?

There is no benefit in surviving physical death. We just cannot escape it though. The reality is as it is.

I'll reply the same, the main reason why you are insisting in such a definition of the self as a soul that can survive physical death [a falsehood] is purely as a consonance to resolve an existential cognitive dissonance.
You get a sense of psychological comfort and equanimity by clinging to such a definition.
Trying to give up this definition will trigger terrible psychological pains and unease.
Agree?

What pain?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no benefit in surviving physical death. We just cannot escape it though. The reality is as it is.

Since it is inevitable and there are no benefits why worry with the future, in this case the idea is false anyway.

However for the majority, especially theists, there are psychological benefits in clinging on the to idea of surviving physical death even it is not provable and false.
You are not aware, but you also attempting to sustain consonance from cognitive dissonance with such a false belief.

I'll reply the same, the main reason why you are insisting in such a definition of the self as a soul that can survive physical death [a falsehood] is purely as a consonance to resolve an existential cognitive dissonance.
You get a sense of psychological comfort and equanimity by clinging to such a definition.
Trying to give up this definition will trigger terrible psychological pains and unease.
Agree?

What pain?

Not obvious physical pains, but subliminal pains.

Note for theists, the idea of a soul that survives physical death will suppress terrible subliminal pains from an existential cognitive dissonance.
If this idea is threatened, they will feel very uneasy and their inherent defense mechanisms will be triggered to defend that idea [illusory].

It is very common those who threaten such false ideas of eternal life are killed or subject to terrible evil acts.
Declaring Allah* do not exists in a city square in Afghanistan is very likely to get one killed by a mob of fundamentalist Muslims.
* an Allah who guaranteed their soul that survives physical death will be taken to paradise with a bonus of 72 virgins.
In the past non-Christians who threatened the ideas of eternal life of Christians were burned on stakes by paranoid Christians.