The Mind is a Physical Thing

[Terrapin Station]

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.

So the evidence I'm talking about is stuff like MRI imaging of mental events--here's a relatively random example:
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/n ... -technique

But then we also know that some brain function has no mental component--for example, with respect to the brain's role in regulating heart rate.

How would that same evidence count as evidence that there are somehow aspects of mind that are outside of the scope of brains?

[VVilliam]

What evidence do you think shows that?

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

So the evidence I'm talking about is stuff like MRI imaging of mental events--here's a relatively random example:
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/n ... -technique

But then we also know that some brain function has no mental component--for example, with respect to the brain's role in regulating heart rate.

How would that same evidence count as evidence that there are somehow aspects of mind that are outside of the scope of brains?

The point I am making is that the evidence can be interpreted either way. Yes. Consciousness might be shown to be emergent of brains or brains might be shown emergent of consciousness ...same evidence interpreted differently.

[VVilliam]

The internal voice and images one produces are not phisical but still exist and function within the external physical world. Likely without which human beings would not have been able to achieve what they have. So the immaterial is integral in relation to human beings.

[commonsense]

The internal voice and images one produces are not phisical but still exist and function within the external physical world. Likely without which human beings would not have been able to achieve what they have. So the immaterial is integral in relation to human beings.

Why do you say that the immaterial is integral to human beings? Couldn’t the human race get along without the immaterial? If not, please explain or give an example of this indispensable relationship.

[VVilliam]

The internal voice and images one produces are not phisical but still exist and function within the external physical world. Likely without which human beings would not have been able to achieve what they have. So the immaterial is integral in relation to human beings.

Why do you say that the immaterial is integral to human beings? Couldn’t the human race get along without the immaterial? If not, please explain or give an example of this indispensable relationship.

The immaterial is the mind. Without the mind, human beings would not have developed as they have done.

[Terrapin Station]

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

So the evidence I'm talking about is stuff like MRI imaging of mental events--here's a relatively random example:
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/n ... -technique

But then we also know that some brain function has no mental component--for example, with respect to the brain's role in regulating heart rate.

How would that same evidence count as evidence that there are somehow aspects of mind that are outside of the scope of brains?

The point I am making is that the evidence can be interpreted either way. Yes. Consciousness might be shown to be emergent of brains or brains might be shown emergent of consciousness ...same evidence interpreted differently.

Right, and what I'm challenging you to do is to interpret the evidence I gave above so that consciousness is broader than brains, so that brains are a subset of it.

(I don't believe that consciousness is "emergent" from brain activity, by the way. I believe it 's identical to a subset of brain activity.)

[VVilliam]

So the evidence I'm talking about is stuff like MRI imaging of mental events--here's a relatively random example:
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/n ... -technique

But then we also know that some brain function has no mental component--for example, with respect to the brain's role in regulating heart rate.

How would that same evidence count as evidence that there are somehow aspects of mind that are outside of the scope of brains?

The point I am making is that the evidence can be interpreted either way. Yes. Consciousness might be shown to be emergent of brains or brains might be shown emergent of consciousness ...same evidence interpreted differently.

Right, and what I'm challenging you to do is to interpret the evidence I gave above so that consciousness is broader than brains, so that brains are a subset of it.

You want my interpretation of your evidence...

How would that same evidence count as evidence that there are somehow aspects of mind that are outside of the scope of brains?

It can be seen that way. We can assume either way. We 'do not know' either way what the evidence is showing us.

(I don't believe that consciousness is "emergent" from brain activity, by the way. I believe it 's identical to a subset of brain activity.)

Can you expand on this idea please.

[Terrapin Station]

It can be seen that way. We can assume either way. We 'do not know' either way what the evidence is showing us.

Let's deal with this first.

We have:
(1) evidence of brain activity that is mental activity (I gave a link that demonstrates some MRI imaging of mental content--and by the way, we could just as well say that this is evidence of mental activity that is brain activity--that's fine, because the two are identical as far as we can tell),
and
(2) evidence of brain activity that isn't mental activity (I gave the example of autonomic control of heart rate; there's no mental correlate for that, but we can demonstrate that it's something that brains do.)

(1) is a subset of brain activity that is mental activity.
(2) is a subset of brain activity that isn't mental activity.

So the evidence shows that brain activity is mental activity, but it also shows that not all brain activity is mental activity. Brain function is broader than just mental function.

You're claiming that the same evidence somehow shows that brain activity (or at least some brain activity) is a subset of mental activity, but that mental activity is broader than brain activity, that there is some mental activity that is NOT brain activity. Where is the evidence of mental activity that is not brain activity?

Your claim makes no sense given the evidence I'm presenting. So I'm asking you to in detail explain how it's supposed to make sense.

[VVilliam]

It can be seen that way. We can assume either way. We 'do not know' either way what the evidence is showing us.

Let's deal with this first.

We have:
(1) evidence of brain activity that is mental activity (I gave a link that demonstrates some MRI imaging of mental content--and by the way, we could just as well say that this is evidence of mental activity that is brain activity--that's fine, because the two are identical as far as we can tell),
and
(2) evidence of brain activity that isn't mental activity (I gave the example of autonomic control of heart rate; there's no mental correlate for that, but we can demonstrate that it's something that brains do.)

(1) is a subset of brain activity that is mental activity.
(2) is a subset of brain activity that isn't mental activity.

So the evidence shows that brain activity is mental activity, but it also shows that not all brain activity is mental activity. Brain function is broader than just mental function.

You're claiming that the same evidence somehow shows that brains (or at least some brain activity) is a subset of mental activity, but that mental activity is broader than brain activity, that there is some mental activity that is NOT brain activity. Where is the evidence of mental activity that is not brain activity?

Your claim makes no sense given the evidence I'm presenting. So I'm asking you to in detail explain how it's supposed to make sense.

I am not really claiming anything other than the evidence can be interpreted differently depending on the platform/position the individual is arguing from.

From my perspective, I think that the universe is a construct of a larger mind in which all other minds [within the construct] are subsets of the 'over-mind'

Thus, I can interpret the evidence as possibly showing that is the case. I am not disagreeing with you that your way of interpreting said evidence is not also possible. I am saying that it is only one way of interpreting the evidence so far collected by those studying the brain in relation to consciousness.

[Terrapin Station]

I am not really claiming anything other than the evidence can be interpreted differently depending on the platform/position the individual is arguing from.

Okay, but you can't interpret the evidence I presented to show that brain function is a subset of mind, because the evidence shows just the opposite of that.

It would be like you saying that we could interpret evidence to show that automobiles are manufactured on the moon, but that makes no sense when the only evidence presented suggests that they're manufactured in plants here on Earth. You'd have to present some other evidence that suggests they're manufactured on the moon instead. You can't just say that evidence suggests any arbitrary fantasy, when it not only does no such thing, but it suggests just the opposite of a fantasy being suggested.

From my perspective, I think that the universe is a construct of a larger mind in which all other minds [within the construct] are subsets of the 'over-mind'

Okay, but would be any evidence of that? You can believe whatever you like, I suppose, but I'm asking for any evidence to support it.

[VVilliam]

I am not really claiming anything other than the evidence can be interpreted differently depending on the platform/position the individual is arguing from.

Okay, but you can't interpret the evidence I presented to show that brain function is a subset of mind, because the evidence shows just the opposite of that.

It would be like you saying that we could interpret evidence to show that automobiles are manufactured on the moon, but that makes no sense when the only evidence presented suggests that they're manufactured in plants here on Earth. You'd have to present some other evidence that suggests they're manufactured on the moon instead. You can't just say that evidence suggests any arbitrary fantasy, when it not only does no such thing, but it suggests just the opposite of a fantasy being suggested.

My position has to do with data of experience, to do with the mind. Subjective experience is then integrated with objective evidence.

From my perspective, I think that the universe is a construct of a larger mind in which all other minds [within the construct] are subsets of the 'over-mind'

Okay, but would be any evidence of that? You can believe whatever you like, I suppose, but I'm asking for any evidence to support it.

If I were to suggest that you find a way in which to experience leaving your own body, and in doing so you then had evidence as data of experience, how would this change your current beliefs about the mind?

(I don't believe that consciousness is "emergent" from brain activity, by the way. I believe it 's identical to a subset of brain activity.)

Also to note - emergent as a seed is from a tree...the seed is a subset of the tree...

[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.

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

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

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

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.

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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.

[Advocate]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It has no physicality of it's own.

[commonsense]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It has no physicality of it's own.

By “physicality” are you trying to avoid the more common terminology, “physical properties”, and artificially stilt your use of language?