I was just trying to find an argument in favour of the mind's physical nature. My reasoning was:
1. Everything that exists occupies a space.
2. The mind exists.
3. The mind occupies a space.
But what space does the mind occupy?
You made me think of another question: is everything that occupies a space of a material (physical?)* nature?
*some particles are said to be massless but still physical... they interact with mass and must occupy a space (right?). Mind could be massless but physical nonetheless.
I was just trying to find an argument in favour of the mind's physical nature. My reasoning was:
1. Everything that exists occupies a space.
2. The mind exists.
3. The mind occupies a space.
I think this is, in a way, backwards. Space describes the relations between physical objects. Fundamental particles don't necessarily "occupy" space so much as creating it.
You made me think of another question: is everything that occupies a space of a material (physical?)* nature?
*some particles are said to be massless but still physical... they interact with mass and must occupy a space (right?). Mind could be massless but physical nonetheless.
I tend to go with the notion that everything that can be observed (has observable effects) is physical.
The problem with the mind is that if you look at everything a body does, some specific things that happen in minds, like what the color red looks like, are nowhere to be found.
Reply to bert1 Could you give an example of a property of space other than the mind? Now, if you think the mind occupies a space, what would you say its limit is? I am asking this because it seems that everything that occupies a space is limited (i.e., it has a shape/form/limit).
Not sure. Maybe a mind is the space that a brain occupies.
Interesting definition. I have come to believe that the mind is the set of changes in the composition of the extracellular space surrounding neurons (and supportive cells) which occur throughout the life of an individual. In my definition, the mind is not the cells which form the brain nor is it the space they occupy; it is rather the microenvironment that surrounds such cells and its dynamics (change in composition). As such, the mind would occupy a space (the extracellular space) different to the space which the cells occupy.
For me to-exist is a synonym of to-be-a-particular/unity/discrete-entity. Something either exists or does not, no matter the state in which it exists. Space is the dimensions of height, width and depth within which all things exist and move (I borrowed this definition from a dictionary). An idea is a neuronal process dependent on physical elements (cells, molecules, and their interactions) which occupy a space. Every concept is an idea. Therefore, every concept exists as a neuronal process which occupies a space. Math and phase space are concepts. They exist as ideas. They must occupy a space.
It depends on your view. In the view of Monism mind and brain are the same thing so the mind does occupy a space, that of what ever space the brain matter occupies. In some types of dualism, like property dualism, the mind is a property of the brain matter so the mind itself does not have a location anymore than an electrons mass has a location.
Reply to Outlander Honestly, I do not know how to define the mind. When I think about "the mind" I think of that quality (of my body?) which allows my body to refer to itself as I and to reason as I... if that makes sense. But to be honest I have never been able to fully grasp the concept. I think this is the purpose of my question, to try to define it by finding its properties (if it occupies a space, in this case).
Reply to A Seagull I dunno Seagull... I'd say that something does not exist when it does not interact with anything at all. Therefore, I guess something would be a thing that interacts. I mean, I do not think it is possible to truly talk about something which does not exist... when we do, we are talking about an idea that represents the concept of non-existence, which does exist.
Also, like Pantagruel, I'd like to know what things do not fall in any of those categories?
Reply to Francis Is not to have a location the same as to not occupy a space? An electron's position might not be able to be stablished, but it will never be found in the nucleus of an atom. Makes sense?
Best keep that under wraps though. I often wonder if the majority of the thinking world ever starts thinking "nothing exists" the entirety of the universe and all existence would just vanish into nothingness.
Reminds me of an old episode of "Tales from the Darkside" called "Effect and Cause".
Not exactly my point and though I wouldn't say so it's not like I could or even would disprove it. I'd instead assert there is a unique quality about the human mind over self-awareness that is evidenced in animals. Usually lol.
It appears the human body and most animals require a brain (which generally requires a head) to function in an intelligent way. Interestingly enough cockroaches can live without a head for a week or more. Lizard tails wriggle for quite some time after detached but we wouldn't call this intelligence or awareness or consciousness or a mind rather just nerves and impulses. A starfish can regenerate it's entire body from a limb. My point is since humans cannot do any of these things, this places the human brain and so mind above others. For obvious reasons. That's why we're not being hunted by killer starfish or dolphins using infrared technology, for example.
Reply to Outlander I think there is an idea in the human mind in which such mind is believed to be divine/not of this realm/world, supernatural (a dangerous idea, in my opinion). Even though the human mind is certainly something really special, it is not something divine, in my opinion. It is just a trait, like echolocation or sight, for example (astonishing traits which are not considered to be divine). A product of evolution. The original question was intended to challenge the idea that the mind is not something physical while at the same time it was an attempt to determine what space it occupies (since it exists).
Also, like Pantagruel, I'd like to know what things do not fall in any of those categories?
Possibly those things that some people think exist but others don't.
Enai De A LukalJuly 21, 2020 at 03:46#4361940 likes
Reply to A Seagull so... Santa Claus? Bigfoot? Various deities? Poltergeists? What other entities are admitted to the class of objects that both exist and don't exist (or neither exist nor don't exist)? And if you don't exist, but you also don't not exist, then what exactly is it that you do, and how does that work?
My point was that assuming everything can be neatly classified as either existing or not existing does not work.
Enai De A LukalJuly 21, 2020 at 03:59#4361970 likes
Reply to A Seagull Right, and so I'm asking you to give examples and to elaborate on that point- why the coyness? If you don't exist, but you don't not exist either, then what do you do? What is the third option here? These two options (existing or not existing) would appear to be exhaustive, but you disagree, so tell us what you have in mind.
Yes I am using having a location synonymous with occupying a space. Whether or not an electrons absolute location can be established scientifically is not really relevant because that same concept can basically be applied to almost all of matter.
What I was going to say (love your name btw, not sure why but it brings me great joy whenever I see it) is to the casual onlooker it doesn't make a whole great deal of sense to say something can both exist and not exist. Something being hidden is one example but that is subjective or as some would say semantic. Essentially many would argue it has to be one or the other. Though I feel there are rationalizations that have weight beyond absolute subjectivism and semantics. Can't think of them now though. Perhaps you can?
To answer this question we should surely try to figure out what the mind IS, right? Does the mind actually have any physical properties? As a concept, we know that the mind exists. So by its conceptual existence it must take up space, in the fact that it's considered if nothing else. Possibly another question whose answer could provide insight onto this question is what is the difference between consciousness and the concept of the mind? Is there a difference? I usually consider the mind just a vehicle for consciousness to have a way to be channeled, I suppose. Consciousness is what makes it possible for us to think in the way we do.
The ideas that come from the mind, when somehow manifested physically - like spoken words, art, written word, doing something even - occupy space. These things, which are direct products of the mind and therefore a representation of the mind itself, occupy space. The mind could occupy space as a result of its ideas occupying space. The mind is where thoughts live, so when a thought is successfully translated from some immaterial realm inside one's head to some sort of existence that is tangible, and physical, isn't that the mind occupying a space?
In physics there are many mathematical ways of defining spacetime, of which the 3-dimensional space of our physical world is but a a subset. I would say mind does occupy space, but not the 3-dimensional space of the physical world we are familiar with
The Mind interacts so it is obviously physical,moves and occupies 'space'. I think a lot of miscommunication occurs when the words 'material' or 'non physical' are bandied about. The wind is not 'material' nor does it have a shape nor a fixed location but it is definately physical and interacts with matter.
This cartesian and platonist nonsense and a non physical realm is ludicrous just like the equally bizarro scientismistic
notion of mind being composed of lifeless matter.
Sometimes it pays to step back and just think of how beyond rationality and common sense both of these positions are.
And it detracts from the truth that the Mind is absolutely Amazing and has properties of Creativity and prediction which are rightly classed as Divine.
Reply to Francis So, something that does not have a definite location still can occupy a space. My question is about the mind occupying a space and not about it having a definite location.
The mind is where thoughts live, so when a thought is successfully translated from some immaterial realm inside one's head to some sort of existence that is tangible, and physical, isn't that the mind occupying a space?
So, there is in my head an immaterial, non-physical realm? Are you saying that the mind indeed does occupy a physical space when ideas "materialize", but that there is something else, where ideas live when they have not been materialized, which exists but does not occupy a space? Is there a moment in one's life when there is not a single materialized idea in one's mind?
The wind is not 'material' nor does it have a shape nor a fixed location but it is definately physical and interacts with matter.
Wind is made of gas molecules following gas laws. Wind is not earth, nor is it water, nor is it fire, nor is it anything else but wind; so, I'd say wind does have a shape. It has a location. You will not feel Earth's wind in space, nor will you feel solar wind on Earth (I think the magnetic field shield us from it, I might be mistaken, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Earth wind can only happen on Earth's surface (the atmosphere).
Now, why should the mind be consider something divine? Just because we don't understand it?
@Daniel By what we normally define as shape it's quite hard to affix shape to a moving phenomenon but I suppose we can say it is a kind of moving field. The shape we assign would be approximate and even then its constantly moving in different directions so visually it is not reproducible. You cannot see the wind totally only its effects.
Gas 'molecules' and gas 'laws' is a whole can of worms.
Science becomes completely incoherent when it talks about laws of dynamic systems and reduction of macro phenomenon to molecules. Dynamic systems must have some sort of "driver" I fail to see how molecules can drive macro systems. Too much Like a fly pushing a freight train!
We don't understand the mind? Well,everyone In history is intimately familiar with mind every second of every day. It's only scientists and philosophers who have a problem understanding their minds. And that's sometimes because of linguistic confusion and reducing everything to inorganic matter.
The Mind is your Identity,that which creates,perceives,breathes,classifies and talks. To me that's Amazing,divine in the sense of unmatched by any other phenomenon in nature.
Reply to Daniel
Your seemingly innocuous question could take over 100 pages of text to answer in detail! I am no expert but have some deep-rooted opinions and convictions. First, we are talking about “mind”, but what exactly is mind? I would consider it best described as an energy (or radiation) field, that enables interface of human will with material environment via thought and physical body which includes brain. I would imagine it has several operational modalities, e.g. body alive/brain awake, body alive/brain asleep, body alive/brain unavailable (e.g. comatose, damaged, unconscious etc), body dead/brain dead, in this last case I think the energy field that is mind would persist.
So to answer your question of what “space” mind is constrained, I would imagine it’s something of a Heisenberg uncertainty, depending on the state (modality) it could be mainly concentrated across certain regions of the brain (as waves bound by brain matter) the region being dependent on the modality mentioned above, or for the final case (body dead/brain/dead) it would be centred in (spread across) a “space” the description of which lies outside the current boundaries of classical physics (to my knowledge), but to which it is constrained by virtue of laws governing it’s interaction with other radiation energies and fields that constitute our Universe.
I wanted to be brief but have already crossed 200 words! I am seeking better understanding of these brain, thought, mind, emotion, individuality, psyche, collective mind questions, and spend free time probing quantum physics for possible correlates and solutions.
it doesn't make a whole great deal of sense to say something can both exist and not exist.
The problem is that words like 'something' and 'exist' have such a wide varity of meanings that to claim that a particular thing exists will depend on ones subjective interpretation of the words. Of course with some statements of that form one might achieve a level of consensus but that is not objectivity.
Enai De A LukalJuly 21, 2020 at 20:32#4363790 likes
Reply to A Seagull You know perfectly well what I'm asking for examples of- examples of what we've been talking about for this entire exchange, of course. And I'm trying to "achieve" an understanding of this vague claim you've made. But clearly, you're either unwilling or unable to elaborate on this claim that there are things which neither exist nor don't-exist (or give examples of such), and as this is like pulling teeth I'm happy to find other discussions with other posters who are actually interested in discussing the things they post (since this is, after all, a discussion board).
You said you wanted to define the mind by establishing its properties, but also that you are unclear what the mind is. A funny thing about definitions is, you can only know if the definition is correct if you already know the defining properties of the thing you're trying to define. So I wonder whether the approach you're taking is productive? What do you really want to know?
Reply to Duiveltje I guess I just wanna give it a shape... you know, make it something more tangible. If it exists, it must have a shape/limit/form/figure/boundaries, and thus it must occupy some kind of space.
Reply to Peter Fasan I don't think the mind works at the quantum level..... it'd be too easily influenceable(?) for it to be able to form the human character. I dunno if that makes sense. I once read this book called "What is Life?" by Erwin Schrödinger; here, he says that (and please don't trust my words cause I am probably wrong) life is design to perceive bulk aggregates of particles because if it was sensible to the effects of individual particles there would be too much chaos for there to be something like the kind of life which exists today. Probably, the same thing could happen to the mind if it worked at such small levels.
Ideas, emotions, concepts? Opinions, views of things? Potential energy ie. a rock atop a hill?
Example I can visualize some insanely grotesque I dunno creature that's part Earth say like a rock wall of a cave that's alive, moist, and throbbing with a giant eyeball in the center of it. It doesn't "exist" really but it does in my mind. If I share the idea or imagery with another person does it exist more? If some scientist goes insane and somehow creates it physically in this world it does exist. What point between simply imagining something fictional for a split second and it manifesting in the real world does something cross between non-existence and existence? There has to be a transitional period that can at least be more easily rationalized over another as having qualities of none or qualities of both.
As I'm sure would be asked, what are some examples? Emotions are something to factor in that hinder yet do not explicitly constitute what mental limits are. Or do they?
Are limits not meant to be broken or at least the reaching of them made tolerable?
You might find this interesting: https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/concepts/clark.html
Andy Clark and David Chalmers, The Extended Mind.
1. INTRODUCTION
Where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin? The question invites two standard replies. Some accept the demarcations of skin and skull, and say that what is outside the body is outside the mind. Others are impressed by arguments suggesting that the meaning of our words "just ain't in the head", and hold that this externalism about meaning carries over into an externalism about mind. We propose to pursue a third position. We advocate a very different sort of externalism: an active externalism, based on the active role of the environment in driving cognitive processes.
My point is that if one has two possible 'events' A and B, then the logical combination of them requires the 4 possibilities: A and not B, B and not A, Both A and B, neither A nor B.
If event B is defined as 'not A,' then these 4 possibilities still remain until proven otherwise.
In a simple abstract system such as mathematics then it may be possible that the events A and not-A are exhaustive. for example it can be proven that every integer is either even or not-even, in which case the possibilities of both even and not-even and neither even nor not-even are empty sets.
However in the real world and especially in the world of words ( such as statements) this is not universally provable.
It rather comes down to the question : What are you trying to achieve by claiming that either A or not-A is exhaustive?
An example of how this would be counter-productive is in particle physics where if one claims that an electron bound to a nucleus is either at position X or is not at position X is exhaustive, one will not progress in understanding quantum mechanics.
Reply to A SeagullReply to Outlander so, if the mind has a limit... what is the cause of this limit... what is it that limits the mind? what makes its boundaries? what makes it a discrete entity, a particular? what causes it to conform to such limit? what hinders its going beyond its own limit? what keeps its limit? what is (are) the thing(s) that determine(s) the mind's limit? is it something external to it? something in itself? if it has a limit... does it have a limit relative to something else (that which is outside its limit)? Does it occupy a space?
Are limits not meant to be broken or at least the reaching of them made tolerable?
Yes good point. What are the limits and how does one determine where they are? No easy answer.
Presumably by trial and error. But with caution. If one wanted to find the top speed limit of an old jalopy, certainly one can put the pedal to the metal on an open road, but driving it over a cliff to get that extra bit of speed is probably not a good idea.
Reply to Sir2u When I try to think about which space the mind would occupy, I always end up asking myself "relative to what?". As if for it to occupy a space, there needs to be something else other than itself. So, if the mind occupies a space, it has to be a shared space (i.e., whatever space it occupies, it cannot be the only thing that occupies such space).
Reply to Daniel Some scientists think that different dimensions occupy the same space at the same time.
But that does not answer the question.
For the mind to occupy a space it would need to be something and there would need to be something to occupy. We have no idea exactly what the mind is so we would need an explanation of what a space is to be able to even start a discussion about it.
Reply to Sir2u For me, the concept of ‘mind’ refers to the fifth and sixth dimensional aspects of existence in relation to my interoceptive network. In that sense, it ‘occupies’ all of the spacetime that I do - although all of this spacetime that I consist of need not occupy all of this mind.
That seems to be asking whether or not the mind is material.
Surely non-material things also occupy a dimension or "space" or sphere of influence at the very least. Does vacuum occupy space? Energy for example must occupy space as it has to travel between 2 coordinates to be perceived/measured despite being massless in it's pure form.
Data surely occupies space in the computer. This space may be no larger or less than it was previously but rather a specific pattern or configuration of "on" switches and "off" switches but no less the information occupies the space of the computer in a certain encrypted order.
If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind?
Not true, fluids occupy a space but dont have a strictly limited boundary. You could stretch them out in almost any configuration all the way down to just an atom thick or condense them into the smallest compartment possible. Yes theres an ultimate limit to the number of atoms of liquid but almost infinite possibilities for configuration.
The problem with the mind is that if you look at everything a body does, some specific things that happen in minds, like what the color red looks like, are nowhere to be found.
I'm not sure if they are "no where to be found" so much as we dont know what we are looking at when we observe an fMRI scan of the brain during activity. We are likely looking at exactly what red looks like to the person but because we have no way of reading or decoding these electrical signals into a language we can understand we might as well be looking at the ocean and trying to see the currents.
Secondly personality/individualism- or the way in which ones brain is wired, processes, stores and perceives information is unique for each individual like a neural fingerprint so why on earth would we expect the micro structure of brains to be organised the same... that the same colour red uses the same neurons to perceive it and not more or less or in a slightly different location etc. I'm left handed and just that alone means that my right motor cortex contains more neurons than the left one. That alone would have huge implications for any neurons connected to the motor cortex and so on in a cascade of differences
is? I am asking this because it seems that everything that occupies a space is limited
This seems a bit redundant because you could argue that the universe occupies space... but what space... the space of the universe, ie. it occupies itself - it's self-contained. So the limit is completely set/dictated by itself. And then what occupies outside the universe if it has a limit?
Limits or boundaries are between things that have boundaries. I dont believe space inherently has a boundary but that rather they are generated with the existence of things within space. A limit cannot exist outside something which by itself (vacuum) has nothing to discriminate a boundary -no mass, no energy, no heat etc.
What about things that do not fit into either of the categories 'exist' or 'not exist'.
— A Seagull
What things would those be?
Money for example. In some tribes the concept of a standardised currency doesnt exist. But for most of the world it does. But wait it only exists when you believe it does. When you stop believing in the value of money it doesnt exist. So "to whom" is the "existence" relevant? Who do we believe when we try to qualify the existence if money? How does money "exist" or not "exist?" It has both a material and symbolic component. Both of which can "exist." And both of which can be made redundant/ discarded and no longer "exist".
It seems some things can exist and not exist simultaneously depending on what perspective is used to measure it.
Money for example. In some tribes the concept of a standardised currency doesnt exist. But for most of the world it does. But wait it only exists when you believe it does. When you stop believing in the value of money it doesnt exist. So "to whom" is the "existence" relevant? Who do we believe when we try to qualify the existence if money? How does money "exist" or not "exist?" It has both a material and symbolic component. Both of which can "exist." And both of which can be made redundant/ discarded and no longer "exist".
It seems some things can exist and not exist simultaneously depending on what perspective is used to measure it.
This doesn't explain to me how something exists and does not exist. You are talking about whether a concept is known or unknown, not whether it exists or does not exist. The category of existence (and it's dyadic opposite) is plenary by definition. Once you abandon that framework, you are simply talking about something other than existence!
Data surely occupies space in the computer. This space may be no larger or less than it was previously but rather a specific pattern or configuration of "on" switches and "off" switches but no less the information occupies the space of the computer in a certain encrypted order.
This reminds me of the guy that wanted his laptop cleaning out completely because it was to heavy to carry.
Data in a computer does not occupy any space at all.
This is why I said that someone needs to define what exactly space is supposed to be in this context.
If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind?
If consciousness is related to a type of working memory, then you could say that the finite information in working memory occupies memory space.
If there are other minds then it seems to be necessarily so that each mind occupies its own space. My mind does not overlap your mind or else how could we say that our minds are separate?
Consider that in consciousness during human cognition when neurons interact with each other they end up having a weight to them. Then consider the computer analogy where memory is full and presumably there is no more space.
Then also consider when two computers are talking to each other like on a lan Network they presumably are occupying a 'simultaneous space'. This could be further analogized to going to a concert being in the same space and time having reactions to the same music being heard. Music itself is conveyed through space-time and the harmonics of moving air.
This little synopsis seems to suggests space is required for the mind to function and presumably exist.
So basically you think your whole body contains your mind?
No. The body cannot contain the mind, because the spatial aspect of the mind need not be confined to the body.
The spatial location of the mind is a ‘fuzzy’ concept. The highest probability of ‘measuring’ it at any one time would locate the mind in the brain, but neither the brain nor the body appears to necessarily contain it.
Reply to Sir2u do you think there is a definition which would encompass every space there is? like, is there a feature which is common to all spaces so that they all can be classified as such in terms of such feature? does my question make sense?
The spatial location of the mind is a ‘fuzzy’ concept. The highest probability of ‘measuring’ it at any one time would locate the mind in the brain, but neither the brain nor the body appears to necessarily contain it.
First of all, no one has yet provided any proof of spatial location of the mind, if it were so then this discussion would have ended already.
What is measured in the brain is electrical and chemical activity, is that what the mind is?
Also, if they are separate, what does this mean? I mean, to be separate, wouldn't they have to occupy a different point in some kind of space?
Would that not depend on it being a fact that they do actually occupy space? If they don't, then it is irrelevant.
Data on my computers hard drive does actually have a very specific location, but it does not exist as separate from the disk. The data in my mind might be the same.
So the mind of a person can be outside of the body?
That depends on what you mean by ‘being’ outside of the body. I think it’s possible for the mind to conceptualise itself relationally outside of the body for a time, particularly in situations when internal sensory information is unavailable or blocked. Given that the information the mind uses to interact with the world comes from conceptual systems and interoceptive networks rather than directly from the external world, an interoceptive network that doesn’t have access to any internal sensory information is capable of orientating mind external to the body. The eardrum still vibrates and the skin still reacts to touch, even if the information doesn’t reach the mind via regular internal channels.
What is measured in the brain is electrical and chemical activity, is that what the mind is?
What is currently measured in the brain can be interpreted as potential evidence of mind, in the same way that similar measurements are also interpreted as evidence of potential energy. Hence the scare quotes. We can predict mind based on these measurements in the brain because it’s difficult to measure electrical or chemical activity anywhere else and be in any way convinced that what we are measuring is evidence of ‘mind’ and not of something else. Modern science being convinced only by quantitative probability, this is about as close as measurement can get to locating the mind.
As for what the mind is, in my view it is five-dimensional, integrated information - the atemporal, non-local aspect of our existence. It includes both quantitative and qualitative potentiality.
Data in a computer does not occupy any space at all.
If Data does not occupy space in a computer than how can there be a limited capacity for storage of data? I'm not suggesting that data occupies a physical material space like hardware does but that it occupies a "configurative" space - that is to say... in a sense hardware is analogous to an amorphous solid - such as that different patterns can be created in its structure "bytes" and these symbolic patterns denote data. So yes the data does occupy space because without the hardware that it is configured in there would be no data.
Think of it as a container of water occupies a cube of space. Now change the container. The water still occupies the same "quantity" of space (volume) but a different "quality/type" of space just as data does in a hard drive.
I would argue that all information must occur in spatial dimension. Because if it didnt it would have to occur outside the universe.
So basically you think your whole body contains your mind?
Well how would a mind identify itself without having a physical body? Neurons reach to every point in the body and also regulate hormones and mobility. Without the Peripheral nervous system you couldn't have a central nervous system. I think its meaningless to try to remove or separate the mind from the tool it uses to sense - to feel to see to hear to taste etc.
My computer memory does not overlap with yours, but I cannot prove that they occupy a space either.
Does a computer occupy space? If so, then why wouldn't the memory inside it also occupy space? The amount of memory that you can install in a computer is limited by the amount of space inside the computer.
Does a person's body occupy space? Does a human body possess memory? Is seems to me that more information would occupy more space than less information.
Let's stay with the computer hard disk for now instead of the brain.
A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer.
If the data occupies space then it would have to be added to the total of the disk, as we know that this does not happen we are obliged to accept that data is immaterial and does not occupy space.
The only other possibility is that they both occupy the same space but one of the two would still have to be immaterial for that to happen. The data occurs through the rearrangement of the atoms, not by adding to them
When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour or that 2+2=4, does it add atoms or anything else to your body? No extra space is added to the space occupied by you body, it stays exactly the same. What happens is that neurons get rearranged, new synapse connections can appear. But the brain is not getting bigger, it is just a different arrangement.
So, either we need a proper definition of "a space" or we accept that the mind has no physical qualities except for the sensory organs that it uses as tools.
A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer.
This is because the data on the disk is just a different arrangement of magnetic patterns than a blank disk. Your disk may have more information stored on it than mine does but that doesn't mean that your drive takes up more space than mine. It means that your disk has more patterns than mine does, but we are both limited by the same amount of storage space if we both have the same sized drive.
The complexity of our neural network indicates how much information we have stored in our brain, but brains are more or less the same size.
A blank drive occupies the same amount of physical space as a drive filled to capacity. What makes them different is the complexity of the patterns within that physical space.
A blank drive occupies the same amount of physical space as a drive filled to capacity. What makes them different is the complexity of the patterns within that physical space.
So does the data take up space or not?
If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, please tell me how you define space.
Reply to Sir2u The electrons which correlate with the concepts that humans have mentally assigned to them certainly do occupy a space within computers and microchips.
The electrons which correlate with the concepts that humans have mentally assigned to them certainly do occupy a space within computers and microchips.
But they would still be there even if there was no data on the chips. So the data is none existent in the sense that it occupies no extra space.
Reply to Sir2u Yeah but that's only true for objects which have meaning projected onto them. An objects mass doesn't take up any extra space but mass still exists, but it exists as a property of an object that takes up space and not as an object itself.
Yeah but that's only true for objects which have meaning projected onto them. An objects mass doesn't take up any extra space but mass still exists, but it exists as a property of an object that takes up space and not as an object itself.
or each mind depends on, among other things* (but mainly on), both the composition-what it** is made of and the relative(?) proportions of its components-of its brain, and the point in "brain space" which each of its** components occupies with respect to every other of its component at any given time.
* the composition and relative position of its** components is affected by the environment.
** the brain('s). BOLD unnecessary(?)
But the mind is more than data, it is reaction to data, analyses of data, emotions. Do they have a location?
The mind doesnt have to be more than data because data can react to data. Analysis, computation and processing of data requires "software" ie. Data. All information reacts with information to transform it into new or derivative information.
Just as a mathematical function is information with input (data) and an output (data).
Yes. We IT experts use the term, "space" to talk about how much is taken up by data and how much is free on your computer's hard drive. You have a finite amount of space on your drive to store data.
If minds are separate then what is the medium that separates them?
Space is the medium that separate minds and the more complex some pattern is within some amount of space, the more information within that space.
Let me ask you this:
Do the things in your mind take up mental space? For instance there is only so much that you can think of at one moment, yet you know more than what you are presently thinking. You possess long-term memory and short-term (working) memory. Long-term has more space than working memory as you can hold more information in long-term than in working memory. Where is the information in your long-term memory stored? Where is the information in your working memory stored?
You don't have physical/digital documents that describe the conditions of your mortgage? When you forget the conditions of the mortgage, where do you look to find it?
No, in my viewpoint things like Qualia do not have locations but they exist as properties of things that have locations.
But if they do not have a location, their mere existence does not mean that they occupy space. as Banno pointed out his mortgage is real, but it does not occupy any space at all.
The mind doesnt have to be more than data because data can react to data. Analysis, computation and processing of data requires "software" ie. Data. All information reacts with information to transform it into new or derivative information.
Just as a mathematical function is information with input (data) and an output (data).
So if emotions are similar to mathematical operacions, math like data would also have space that it occupies? That does not make much sense.
Yes. We IT experts use the term, "space" to talk about how much is taken up by data and how much is free on your computer's hard drive. You have a finite amount of space on your drive to store data.
Well, I tried to get on with that by asking you this, but you seemed to want to ignore the question.
And this is why I said that before the question can be answered we need a definition of what "a space" actually is.
Space for IT people is not the same as it is for a NASA person, and neither use the word in the same way that a writer would.
We are using space in different ways and therefore we will never resolve anything.
If we take space to mean something that can be occupied by material objects the arguments would be different to those where space is used to mean the re-arrangement of existing material to accommodate non material OBJECTS.
Does anyone want to provide a fixed definition of space?
You don't have physical/digital documents that describe the conditions of your mortgage? When you forget the conditions of the mortgage, where do you look to find it?
The piece of paper is not the mortgage, only the physical representation of it. Think of a mortgage as a promise, is that physical?
The piece of paper is not the mortgage, only the physical representation of it. Think of a mortgage as a promise, is that physical?
If you burned all the papers, deleted all the hard drives, and killed (or lobotomized) all the people with knowledge of the mortgage, how would there still be a mortgage? Yet if the mortgage doesn't take up any physical space, then how have I destroyed it entirely just by destroying physical things?
So if emotions are similar to mathematical operacions, math like data would also have space that it occupies? That does not make much sense
Math is a human construct and can only "act" as mathematical functions through either our brains or the devices we have programmed to do it for us; calculators, computers and other artificial machines both of which are physical objects that occupy space. It in this sense is a quality or behaviour of physical things.
The concepts of "one, two, three, plus, minus, multiply etc" are all artificial and ultimately arbitrary- based on discrimination between things for example I could say 1 molecule of water, 1 ml of water, 1 ocean of water. The concept of one is repeated but the definition of the quantity of water is different because we are discriminating differently in each case. Maths is just a descriptive tool to understand the universe, and like language, symbols, ideas, data, emotions feelings etc they are symbolic of an information state or relationship between things that is always inextricably linked to our awareness/consciousness.
All information occupies space. It has to. We are getting caught up on "how" that space is occupied as in in what form - material or conceptual that this information (energy, matter, interactions) occupy the universe (space).
If math doesnt occupy a space in the mind regarding the symbolic meaning of the external world then it must occupy a space in the physical external world. If that is the case show me the external natural proof of "multiple" or "add" or "square root". You can prove any of them experimentally which means the space they occupy must be in the brain as patterns of neuronal connections and organisation. If not that then from what "non-location" in "non-space" is mathematics coming from?
Energy occupies space. Something does not have to have mass to occupy space. Just because a photon is massless doesnt mean it doesnt have a velocity, a location, a distance to travel- all of which denote location or "space".
Observations suggest that your head is more clearly spatial, and mind more clearly temporal.
spatial object-like body: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, locatable, inertial/movable (conservation)
temporal process-like mind: comes and goes, starts and ends, interruptible, occurs, un/consciousness, anesthetic, dementia, coma (obviously there aren't anyone describing what unconsciousness is like)
Objectifying mind could be a category mistake.
(None of which suggests "supernatural magic" or whatever of course.)
could you explain this a bit more? I don't know if I get what you are trying to say (and still, I'm replying to your comment; forgive me if I got it wrong)
However:
If the mind is the temporal arrangement* of brain components in space, wouldn't it be an object like any other?
Reply to Daniel, I'm going by observations, the rest are just suggestions.
Without the head (or body), no mind occurs, mind seems localized to head/body.
Yet, mind is not (identical to) the head, which you still have while unconsciousness; say, mind isn't like an object with mass and width and height.
So, perhaps mind is something body can sometimes do, if you will, and you (as a person) are the synthesis, what you do and what you do it with?
This, at least, is fairly consistent/coherent/cogent, and I wouldn't conflate spatial objects and temporal processes (mentioned category mistake).
"Some lose their mind, without losing their head." ;)
The mind depends on the molecular composition (chemical nature and relative ratios) of the brain, the relative position of the component molecules with respect to each other* (including those molecules which make cells), and the allowed/permitted** change in both the composition and relative position of such molecules.
*this describes their interactions, in a broad sense.
**there is a limit to how much the composition or the relative position of the molecules which make a brain can be changed. (AND THIS I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MINDS, THEIR LIMIT). What determines how much these features can change before the mind stops being that?
Off course, all this characteristics of the mind are influenced by the environment external to the body. In addition, they are in constant change.
If you burned all the papers, deleted all the hard drives, and killed (or lobotomized) all the people with knowledge of the mortgage, how would there still be a mortgage? Yet if the mortgage doesn't take up any physical space, then how have I destroyed it entirely just by destroying physical things?
By the same method I can delete all humans from the earth, and there will be no minds. But that does not answer the question that was posed in the OP. Does the mind occupy a space. If it does, then the kind of space needs to be defined.
Energy occupies space. Something does not have to have mass to occupy space. Just because a photon is massless doesnt mean it doesnt have a velocity, a location, a distance to travel- all of which denote location or "space".
Everything you say is true.
Golf balls are always in a place, commonly know as a physical/spacial location.
If I say I have an idea, it would only make sense to deduce that it is located in my mind. What sort of location would it be then?
If the mind is in a space, how would we define that space?
Reply to Sir2u An idea would depend on the spatial organization and composition of the molecules at the moment when such idea comes to mind.
To ask what makes the idea come to mind would be the same as to ask what makes the spatial organization and the composition of the molecules be the one which allows the existence of, or represents, such idea.
Each idea has associated to it a particular molecular spatial organization and composition, which changes in time, just like the idea.
If the mind is the brain then, yes. If not then, no. Also it mind depend on what you mean by mind. If the mind is seen as brain function then, it becomes difficult to attribute a material quality like volume to function. Think of it - the lips and tongue take up space but in what sense could we say that speaking/talking has a spatial attribute.
Let's stay with the computer hard disk for now instead of the brain.
A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer.
If the data occupies space then it would have to be added to the total of the disk, as we know that this does not happen we are obliged to accept that data is immaterial and does not occupy space.
The only other possibility is that they both occupy the same space but one of the two would still have to be immaterial for that to happen. The data occurs through the rearrangement of the atoms, not by adding to them
When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour or that 2+2=4, does it add atoms or anything else to your body? No extra space is added to the space occupied by you body, it stays exactly the same. What happens is that neurons get rearranged, new synapse connections can appear. But the brain is not getting bigger, it is just a different arrangement.
So, either we need a proper definition of "a space" or we accept that the mind has no physical qualities except for the sensory organs that it uses as tools.
I’ll start with the dictionary’s mathematical definition, because I think it covers most other definitions in some way.
Space: a mathematical concept generally regarded as a set of points having some specified structure.
The term ‘space’ has been used to refer to the one-dimensional structure of a binary system; the two-dimensional structure of distance; the three-dimensional structure of objects; the four-dimensional structure of time; the five-dimensional structure of capacity or the six-dimensional structure of freedom.
But there is a tendency to assume that by actual ‘space’ we mean the three-dimensional structure of the objects in conceptualised reality.
So the ‘space’ on a disk refers to the capacity of the disk as a five-dimensional structure of information to be ‘read’, not the three-dimensional structure of information that is the actual disk. It isn’t so much a rearrangement of atoms, but a re-structuring of particle relations. The three-dimensional structure doesn’t change because this potential for one-dimensional restructuring exists in the molecular arrangement of the disk.
When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour, however, the restructuring of particle relations that occurs is integrated into the entire system of one, two, three, four and five dimensional relations. So your five-dimensional conceptual reality which predicted fresh milk is restructured at a one-dimensional level of synapse relations without necessarily affecting neuron arrangement or brain structure at all (depending how often you’ve been caught in this situation) - but the one-dimensional changes affect the four-dimensional event of you eating breakfast, the three-dimensional expression on your face, the two-dimensional molecular contents of your stomach and possibly your one-dimensional perspective of the day so far - to name just a few.
An idea would depend on the spatial organization and composition of the molecules at the moment when such idea comes to mind.
To ask what makes the idea come to mind would be the same as to ask what makes the spatial organization and the composition of the molecules be the one which allows the existence of, or represents, such idea.
Each idea has associated to it a particular molecular spatial organization and composition, which changes in time, just like the idea.
If this is true then the mind, the YOU, is nothing more than a bunch of biological/chemical reactions.
If the mind is the brain then, yes. If not then, no. Also it mind depend on what you mean by mind. If the mind is seen as brain function then, it becomes difficult to attribute a material quality like volume to function. Think of it - the lips and tongue take up space but in what sense could we say that speaking/talking has a spatial attribute.
Exactly. From what I have read, most people think that it is just the bio-chemical functions of the body. I tend to agree with that.
I think that it would be difficult to assert that the mind occupies a space because there is no way to define a space that it could occupy.
But there is a tendency to assume that by actual ‘space’ we mean the three-dimensional structure of the objects in conceptualised reality.
Which is why I asked at the beginning for someone to set a proper definition of "a space". I could not think of any definition that would allow the mind to have its own space.
The relationship of the mind to the brain is, I think, an established fact. But exactly what that relationship is, is not so well defined.
Many still refuse in this day and age to believe that the "person" is nothing more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level.
Exactly. From what I have read, most people think that it is just the bio-chemical functions of the body. I tend to agree with that.
I think that it would be difficult to assert that the mind occupies a space because there is no way to define a space that it could occupy.
Well, it's an interesting line of inquiry because it uncouples the two essential qualities of matter - mass & volume. Is it possible for something to have mass and no volume or volume and no mass?
Well, it's an interesting line of inquiry because it uncouples the two essential qualities of matter - mass & volume. Is it possible for something to have mass and no volume or volume and no mass?
Science says that it is possible, who am I to disagree.
Personally I think that like the old song said "you can't have one without the other". Maybe something has mass and they still don't have a method of measuring the volume. Or the other way around.
the five-dimensional structure of capacity or the six-dimensional structure of freedom.
— Possibility
Just curious, where can I find more information about this?
The reference to dimensional structure is part of a metaphysical theory I’ve been working on, but the examples come directly from Google’s dictionary definitions of ‘space’:
[i]4. the portion of a text or document available or needed to write about a subject.
"there is no space to give further details"
pages in a newspaper or magazine, or time between television or radio programmes, available for advertising.
"it is the media person's job to buy the press space or the TV or radio spots"
capacity for storage of data in a computer or other digital device.
"additional disk space is required for the database operation"
5. the freedom to live, think, and develop in a way that suits one.
"a teenager needing her own space"[/i]
If this is true then the mind, the YOU, is nothing more than a bunch of biological/chemical reactions.
I would add: ...chemical reactions [which nature depends on the interacting molecules, their ratios, and their spatial distribution in the brain] Thus, the mind is limited by the kind of molecules which form it (not all molecules can form a human mind), the ratios* in which they are found (not all combinations of allowed molecules can form a human mind), and their position with respect to each other (even if you have the allowed molecules at adequate ratios, if they do not follow an allowed distribution in space, you wont have a mind). The last requirement limits the mind to a space, I think; but then the mind does not only depend on the spatial distribution of the molecules which form it; it would also depend on their ratios, absolute quantities*, and their chemical properties**.
* and absolute quantities (?)-as in, even if you have the right molecules and ratios, you need a minimum/maximum amount of each molecule.
** this would lead to the question: why this limits? why a human mind cannot be replicated with any combination of molecules in any spatial orientation other than the allowed ones?
ALSO, I'd like to remind everyone that whatever has been said in all these comments (mine and others') is merely speculative, at least in some (most) part. I say it because I think it is an important reminder.
Which is why I asked at the beginning for someone to set a proper definition of "a space". I could not think of any definition that would allow the mind to have its own space.
Normally I have avoided referring to other dimensional relations as ‘spatial’ because of this confusion. Many qualitative chemical and temporal relations that contribute to sensory information such as hue, taste and tone for example can be understood as ‘non-spatial’ in the 3D sense: we relate to them as two-dimensional information structures in time.
The relationship of the mind to the brain is, I think, an established fact. But exactly what that relationship is, is not so well defined.
Many still refuse in this day and age to believe that the "person" is nothing more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level.
I think Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book How Emotions Are Made presents an intriguing body of neurological and psychological research with regards to the nature of this relationship of the mind to the brain. FWIW, I happen to believe that the ‘person’ IS “more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level” - but that may be a much bigger discussion. It depends on how we understand the various terms in this statement.
Reply to Possibility I agree; the person is also the place its body occupies (and maybe more things), and this I think makes our existence something really wonderful. Each mind is indeed pretty unique and worth taking care of.
Reply to Sir2u Yeah I would agree with that, although I wouldn't put the mind in the same category as a concept projected onto an object such as a mortgage.
Reply to Daniel ‘Place’ meaning its various complex relations with all of existence, rather than any privileged location of a 3D ‘object’ - otherwise, I’m afraid we’re not quite in agreement.
The uniqueness of each mind does not necessitate its preservation or survival as such - it is the differences in each five-dimensional structure of potential/value that matters, and so worth relating to with our faculties of imagination and understanding in ‘free play’. Even at the expense of the current ‘uniqueness’ of our own mind.
By the same method I can delete all humans from the earth, and there will be no minds. But that does not answer the question that was posed in the OP. Does the mind occupy a space. If it does, then the kind of space needs to be defined.
Doesn't it? If, by deleting all humans physically, you delete all minds, then without special pleading, that does, on the face of it, suggest very strongly that minds are physically located. Why would it not?
Reply to Isaac Because there are things which exist as properties of objects but not as objects themselves. If I got rid of all the particles in a region of space I would get rid of all the mass, but that doesn't mean an objects mass has a location. Mass is a property of things that have locations.
there are things which exist as properties of objects but not as objects themselves. If I got rid of all the particles in a region of space I would get rid of all the mass, but that doesn't mean an objects mass has a location.
Isn't that the question being asked? What would you offer by way of justification for those assertions?
Science says that it is possible, who am I to disagree.
Personally I think that like the old song said "you can't have one without the other". Maybe something has mass and they still don't have a method of measuring the volume. Or the other way around.
Photons? How do we decide whether two objects A and B occupy space? Well, they can't be placed in the same location at the same time - one must be removed in order to put the other in the same spot.
Light, since it casts shadows which implies that light and a material object can't occupy the same space at the same time, could be massless particles that occupy space.
On the other hand, take glass. Light passes through glass which implies either that light doesn't occupy space or that glass doesn't occupy space. Since we know both of the above two possibilities are false, a paradox presents itself: Glass occupies space and light occupies space but light passes freely through glass as if both don't occupy space. :chin:
Reply to Isaac
Well at that point you have to look at the word exist. Looking at philosophical dictionaries the definition of exist is almost more a series of debates than an actual definition. The wikipedia article on the word Existence gives this definition: "Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with physical or mental reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property[1] of being.[2]" and cites two papers on metaphysics as the source. Being is defined by the oxford dictionary as "the material or immaterial existence of a thing".
If we use that definition then existence by definition implies that things can be either physical or non-physical.
The scientific definition of Mass is defined by Dictionary.com as: "the mass of a body as measured when the body is at rest relative to an observer, an inherent property of the body."
I am not a scientist but I have taken physics classes in college and I have always heard things like mass and charge as being properties of objects and never as being completely synonymous with the object itself. Sometimes an electron would be referred to as "a charge" but the more accurate definition was given as "a charged particle" with charge being something the object had.
That being said, there are a variety of different definitions for the word exist and there are a variety of different ways to look at how things like mass and charge relate to physical bodies, that being said, I provided a few examples that show there is atleast some basis for the view that things can exist as properties of physical objects.
Reply to Francis I’m not a scientist (at all), so my articulation here may not be very clear, but as far as I understand, there is a marked difference between descriptions of objects with measurable three-dimensional properties and descriptions of atomic structure. While we understand the structure of an atom to be three-dimensional, only two of those dimensions can be accurately determined in relation to spacetime. This ‘fuzziness’ is what gives the impression of atoms as billiard balls of energy in random motion.
So an atom (as a fuzzy three-dimensional object) has a ‘charge’ that is a property of that object, which refers to the two-dimensional relation (potential energy/distance and direction) between electron(s) and particles of the nucleus. While we commonly refer to these particles as if they were ‘objects’ in themselves, only one linear dimension is measurable in relation to spacetime. They exist only as a two-dimensional random structure, not three. I’m not clear on the concept of ‘charge’ attributed as a property to such a particle, but it suggests reference to a one-dimensional binary relation of quantum-entanglement with anti-matter...
Can something be referred to as an ‘object’ if its three-dimensional structure is only probabilistically determined? Does a two-dimensional structure of existence classify as an ‘object’? Is our assumption of spatial existence attributed to conceptualised ‘objects’ interfering with our understanding of space?
The last requirement limits the mind to a space, I think; but then the mind does not only depend on the spatial distribution of the molecules which form it; it would also depend on their ratios, absolute quantities*, and their chemical properties**.
While it is true that the brain is limited by the brain's properties and that the mind is affected by chemical imbalances I think that all of this means that the mind is one of the properties/functions of the brain and as such cannot occupy space.
A closed bottle containing perfume limits the smell to the bottle, but makes neither part nor property of the other. A perfumed candle is a complex mixture of carefully balanced chemicals, the smell is part of the candle in the sense that it is a property. It does not in it self occupy space because it is part of the chemical mix of the candle.
I think Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book How Emotions Are Made presents an intriguing body of neurological and psychological research with regards to the nature of this relationship of the mind to the brain. FWIW, I happen to believe that the ‘person’ IS “more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level” - but that may be a much bigger discussion. It depends on how we understand the various terms in this statement.
I read a couple of her books years ago, one was called Emotion and Consciousness. Interesting.
Obviously this topic might be sensitive to some because it touches on the body/souls theme and therefore goes strait to religious beliefs.
I have still not made up my mind on the topic but I am extremely skeptical about the presence of a soul in the body. It is less complicated to imagine the brains functions being the ME.
Doesn't it? If, by deleting all humans physically, you delete all minds, then without special pleading, that does, on the face of it, suggest very strongly that minds are physically located. Why would it not?
No, it only implies that the bio-chemical vessel of the mind has a physical location.
If we accept that the mind is nothing more than electro-chemical processes then yes, that would the space the mind occupies. If not then we are still stuck without a space.
Photons? How do we decide whether two objects A and B occupy space? Well, they can't be placed in the same location at the same time - one must be removed in order to put the other in the same spot.
Light, since it casts shadows which implies that light and a material object can't occupy the same space at the same time, could be massless particles that occupy space.
On the other hand, take glass. Light passes through glass which implies either that light doesn't occupy space or that glass doesn't occupy space. Since we know both of the above two possibilities are false, a paradox presents itself: Glass occupies space and light occupies space but light passes freely through glass as if both don't occupy space. :chin:
Is they universe wonderful.
How are we every going to know whether the mind is a part of the body or the body is a tool of the mind? I have no idea. :groan:
Defend that things can exist as properties of physical objects or defend that properties of physical objects do not occupy space?
Why do you think that everyone should be closed minded like you. If you ever plan on winning an argument, you have to be prepared to argue both sides of it.
Reply to Daniel, in analogy, driving ? the car, walking ? the legs, ...
Sure, the car and the legs are involved, but there's a category difference.
Mentioned observations (coherently) suggest similar categories where mind and body are concerned.
If we accept that the mind is nothing more than electro-chemical processes then yes, that would the space the mind occupies. If not then we are still stuck without a space.
Right. As I said, special pleading. Why in earth would we start out believing the mind is something other than that which it is alley comprised of? When you smash a teacup, its no longer a cup, do you question whether the cup really exists still, but kn some other realm? It might, but why would you even think it? All the activity we associate with our minds appears to stop when the brain is destroyed. Manipulation of the brain changes associated thoughts in the mind. What possible reason would we have for believing there's anything more to it than that?
But some people keep on insisting that the mind "person" can and does exist without the brain. To do so it would need to have a location.
I see. I guess if people are just going to make stuff up off the top if their heads then they could just make up a thing which exists but doesn't have a location.
I see. I guess if people are just going to make stuff up off the top if their heads then they could just make up a thing which exists but doesn't have a location.
Obviously this topic might be sensitive to some because it touches on the body/souls theme and therefore goes strait to religious beliefs.
I have still not made up my mind on the topic but I am extremely skeptical about the presence of a soul in the body. It is less complicated to imagine the brains functions being the ME.
I’m with you there on the skepticism. The concept of a ‘soul in the body’ need not be a case of substance dualism. We tend to conceptualise reality as ‘objects’ in space and time, even though we understand now that it’s not that simple. Objectifying structures enables us to understand localised relations between information at a conceptual level, but we need to remember that reality is more complex: ‘objects’ are ‘properties’ of ‘objects’ at another level of awareness. Our language and grammar, developed in a naive world, often struggles to give us a big picture view. Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’ explores these difficulties in conceptualising a four-dimensional physical reality.
If we can alter the arrangement of electrons in a computer disk to store complex information, can we not grasp the possibility of a systematic re-arrangement of electrons in the brain, or even across the entire integrated system of an organism, which can store and transmit information without occupying its own physical space? If we understand that the formation of molecules and molecular structures occur at the level of electron re-arrangement; that a durable chemical reaction can be viewed as a system of ongoing electron re-arrangement or nuclear restructuring; that the creation, transfer and use of energy between organic systems and structures is closely related to these processes of electron re-arrangement; that our evidence of brain activity is electrical; and that quantum mechanics enables us to deliberately locate, extract and re-arrange individual particles such as electrons and photons; then the possibility of a highly-evolved, organism-wide collaborative system of particle-level re-arrangement to receive, store, extract and transmit information at varying levels of awareness is not such a stretch...
Reply to Sir2u Just to be clear, I am not arguing in favour of the mind existing without a body. Like you, I also believe that it cannot exist without a body and that there is no such thing as a soul. So, when I say that the mind occupies a space, I mean that the process (the allowed set of molecular interactions and their allowed change through time) from which the mind arises occupies a space (such process is limited to the space delimited by the brain-or a space within the brain). The process, again, does not only depend on the spatial organization of the molecules which make it possible, but it also depends on the chemical properties of these molecules, their absolute quantities and ratios.
Reply to jorndoe This way (read above) the mind is not the molecules which make it possible, nor is it their spatial organization, their chemical properties, their absolute quantities, or their ratios. The mind would be a process limited by these factors. Once any of these factors changes to an extent which does not support the existence of the mind (the process), the mind stops existing. But what determines the allowed values for such factors?
what determines the allowed values for such factors?
Who knows; not exactly a trivial question, certainly not something that can be answered in a couple comments on an Internet forum. :)
We're not omniscient, nor do we have exhaustive self-knowledge (which are questionable notions in the first place).
Some science fiction writers tell stories about uploading a person's mind to digital devices, yet, such particular consciousness and experiences may have inherent dependencies on the (biological) body, who knows.
Reply to jorndoe True; I think a full/exhaustive characterization of the average values for such factors under biologically-relevant conditions (sleep, euphoria, fear, hot weather, cold weather, anxiety, etc) must be done before we can really start exploring the reasons that control those factors. And although it is already being done, it is still in its infancy, I think. I mean, such characterization won't be finished in my life time. However, it is an interesting topic to discuss, and I think debates like this may help some people feel more human (they humanize the self), or at least debates like this may give rise to very interesting questions.
I would argue that the mind is a function of the brain. The brain occupies space, but the mind isn't an independent, physical property outside of the brain. So, if anything, maybe one could say that it tentatively utilizes brain space at different intervals. I would be very interested in having someone demonstrate to me a mind which exists separate a brain.
Reply to TheMadFool I am only a 66 year old kid, next time someone I don't like too much asks me how to do something I am going to use it as an excuse not to answer.
I am only a 66 year old kid, next time someone I don't like too much asks me how to do something I am going to use it as an excuse not to answer.
:smile: Stay safe. I hope you aren't anywhere near a coronavirus hot zone.
Coming back to the question of mind and whether or not it occupies space, I feel it's a roundabout way of asking whether the mind is immaterial/material, whether it's the brain/something else. Here's something to think about: the mind is unique in that it deals with what are called thoughts and thoughts, no matter how you look at it, have the quality of being immaterial. It appears then that all materialistic theories of the mind are doomed to failure on that point.
would you say that they are immaterial entities which depend on material ones (molecules), and their properties (ratios, absolute quantities, spatial organization, chemical properties), to exist or that they are entirely immaterial and do not depend on any material entity to exist?
would you say that they are immaterial entities which depend on material ones (molecules), and their properties (ratios, absolute quantities, spatial organization, chemical properties), to exist or that they are entirely immaterial and do not depend on any material entity to exist?
Knowing that would end the debate wouldn't it? If you ask me, aligning myself with the OP's line of inquiry, one could ask the question: does a thought have mass and does it occupy space? Possessing mass and volume are essential attributes of matter, ergo, foundational to materialism. Even supposing a good materialsitic theory explains the phenomenon of thinking, it still has to concede that thoughts themselves are immaterial. One could, if one is so inclined, use this simple indubitable fact - the immaterial nature of thoughts/thinking - as a jumping board to make, at the very least, the claim that there is an immaterial aspect to the mind and, if one is creative enough, a lot more could follow.
:smile: Stay safe. I hope you aren't anywhere near a coronavirus hot zone.
Thanks. Where I live, they are just starting to ease the lockdown that has been in place for 4 months. The main problem here is not really the number of people infected not the deaths, it is the lack of hospital space, staff to man them and medicine to treat people.
The population is less than 10 million, the registered infections are just over 40 thousand and the deaths about 1500.
If the people going back to work do it responsibly there might not be too much trouble as the open more businesses. But we know what people are like, that is not going to happen. The vast majority of the people are poor, and after 4 months of not working will not be taking the precautions necessary.
If I was religious I would probably be saying god help us.
But I will just put my trust in Murphy and keep out of the way.
Neurological processes obviously take up space so that's not your question.
A more interesting question would be; is the thinker-thought pair / the self / the one claiming "I exist" totally dependent on the physiological electrochemical processes in the brain or not?
I would say it is and so the mind does occupy space (and also vanish when the body stops working i.e. dies).
Does anyone want to provide a fixed definition of space?
I'll give it a go! The answer is a Hologram, otherwise known in physics as the Holographic Principle. The universe is a time matrix consciousness hologram.
I'll give it a go! The answer is a Hologram, otherwise known in physics as the Holographic Principle. The universe is a time matrix consciousness hologram.
So is the mind a hologram? But even if it was, does it occupy space?
Thanks for your reply! The short answer would be yes and yes. The Hologram is a good analogy because the mind is information and energy. Light is energy in space. Space contains energy.
I read from your previous posts that you were using the computer analogy. Are Qubits like light energy to where its information is conflated with mass and energy (light has no mass but has energy)? And are Qubits essentially flat and two-dimensional like Holograms?
Also, (sorry for all the questions) if information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal?
I think the Hologram Principle has many implications don't you?
(Key concepts are: light, information, space and energy.)
The Hologram is a good analogy because the mind is information and energy.
Maybe so, but the brain is chemicals and energy, exactly where is the information? If the information is the combination and arrangement(conflation) of these two it does not occupy any space of its own, therefore would be nothing more than a property of the brain.
Also, (sorry for all the questions) if information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal?
I am going to wait for the proof that time stands still before commenting on this. But even then I think I would need you to explain exactly what you mean by information.
John OnestrandAugust 07, 2020 at 08:38#4407140 likes
The electrochemical process take up space much like the electrical grid in your home. It produces heat, light and can be transformed into mechanical energy for appliances (brain activities).
When there's no power to the grid the output stops and the question "where does it goes?" becomes pointless; we don't ask "where does the activity of our vacuum cleaner goes when we pull the plug?".
I am going to wait for the proof that time stands still before commenting on this. But even then I think I would need you to explain exactly what you mean by information.
Maybe so, but the brain is chemicals and energy, exactly where is the information? If the information is the combination and arrangement(conflation) of these two it does not occupy any space of its own, therefore would be nothing more than a property of the brain.
I agree with 'maybe so'. The information is in the form of electrical energy (QM) and/or EM field theories of consciousness. Accordingly, space itself contains that information.
Though not completely analogous, just think of audio/visual electromagnetic signals from the air waves/space. Then combine that with the phenomenon of double-slits. Space then contains information and energy. Just like light energy being within space.
The electrochemical process take up space much like the electrical grid in your home.
As has been explained earlier, electricity is an effect of the movement of electrons and the electrons are part of the conductive material. The electricity then does not take up any more space than the piece of wire.
When there's no power to the grid the output stops and the question "where does it goes?" becomes pointless;
Of course it is pointless to ask where something goes when it was never there in the first place. The wire is exactly the same as it was before, after and during the flow of electricity.
If ten people are passing a couple of balls around the room, is the more or less space occupied when the stop passing it? There is no difference in occupied space only the position of occupation in the room, just as in the material conducting electricity.
Reply to Sir2u The fact that space contains information and energy does not make it conclusive that information and energy occupy space. Reply to Sir2u
Then you would simply have to prove why/how there is something and not nothing.
Just curious, have you studied NeuroQuantology? It's kind of the latest thing in science that combines QM and neuroscience.
Then you would simply have to prove why/how there is something and not nothing.
I don't have to prove anything because I have not made any declarations that require proof. And what I said does not lead to whether there is something instead of nothing either.
Hold your hand in front of you, it takes up space right. What information is in that space that is separate from the hand that is occupying it. None. The genetic info included in the cells is part of the cells, a property of the cells, and it occupies the same space as the cells. When the body dies, what happens to the information? The basic information that many think is included in atoms and particles is still there, so where did the other stuff go to?
Does that guarantee that anything they think is true? There are many people that think that while quantum theory could explain things in biology it cannot be applied to the mind. Until someone comes up with some evidence for us to review, I will again reserve my thought on the matter.
Imagine every molecule in your brain. At any given time, every molecule in your brain occupies a particular point/position in the space determined by the extent of your brain; however, not all the volume of your brain is occupied by molecules at any given time. The shape/figure/architecture/distribution of the volume inside your brain which is void of molecules is not the same at any given time since the position of the molecules changes. The volume inside your brain which is void of molecules is constant as long as the number of molecules is kept constant; however, the shape/figure/architecture/distribution of this volume is not constant even when the number of molecules is kept constant. Is it plausible that the shape/figure/architecture/distribution of the volume inside your brain which is void of molecules and its constant change in shape are correlated to the mind?
I don't have to prove anything because I have not made any declarations that require proof. And what I said does not lead to whether there is something instead of nothing either.
Okay. Then it sounds like both space contains information and energy, and information and energy occupy space.
Hold your hand in front of you, it takes up space right. What information is in that space that is separate from the hand that is occupying it. None. The genetic info included in the cells is part of the cells, a property of the cells, and it occupies the same space as the cells. When the body dies, what happens to the information? The basic information that many think is included in atoms and particles is still there, so where did the other stuff go to?
All that describes is the distinction between matter and energy. You haven't made the case that energy somehow doesn't exist, like it does everywhere, and within space.
The mind is a type of functionality. Functionality can't be expressed with one state. It is about the change that takes place over several physical states, and the meaning between those different states.
If the mind is a collection of physical states, then yes, I'd say the mind does occupy a space. But maybe that wasn't your question. Maybe you wanted to know if the mind can be isolated from the brain in some manner.
You haven't made the case that energy somehow doesn't exist, like it does everywhere, and within space.
Everyone knows that energy exists, and no one is saying that it does not. The discussion is whether the mind occupies space.
If the mind is counted as energy, then it is part of the material of the brain.That makes it a property of the brain and it cannot exist outside of the brain so it cannot itself occupy space.
Banno's red cup has the properties of being red and keeping his coffee hot, neither can exist outside of the cup so they do not occupy any space.
But matter and energy are the same thing, just in different states.
Agreed. That's another reason why the Hologram principle works. And that's because it follows the first law of thermodynamics known as, the Law of Conservation of Energy,.
Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.
And so space contains energy and energy contains space. Add to that QM, PAP, double-slits etc. and the overwhelming evidence suggests the mind is just a microcosm of a larger metaphysical phenomena.
Reply to Daniel the mind or consciousness is a process, the brain occupies space, the electrochemical signals do, consciousness is just a result or outcome of such, it doesn't need to occupy space
the mind or consciousness is a process, the brain occupies space, the electrochemical signals do, consciousness is just a result or outcome of such, it doesn't need to occupy space
Reply to Sir2u As in responding to the passing of it. Like, does the mind changes with time? Or is it outside of time, timeless, not affected by time, at all?
Everyone knows that energy exists, and no one is saying that it does not. The discussion is whether the mind occupies space.
If the mind is counted as energy, then it is part of the material of the brain.That makes it a property of the brain and it cannot exist outside of the brain so it cannot itself occupy space.
Banno's red cup has the properties of being red and keeping his coffee hot, neither can exist outside of the cup so they do not occupy any space.
There is no reason to assume that the mind, understood as energy, is confined to the material of the brain.
We attribute properties to conceptual ‘objects’ arbitrarily - Banno’s cup is not the only thing keeping his coffee hot, and it also keeps other items hot that exist outside of the red cup. The cup casts a reflection on the shiny white table that has the property of being red, ‘occupying’ space outside of the red cup that is contingent upon the existence and redness of the cup in relation to the table and the light...
Reply to Daniel the mind changes definetly with time, as do all physical things, it gets more complex, with more processes, more memories, and more thoughts, and even on an atomic level, its atoms will get replaced by new ones eventually
and it also keeps other items hot that exist outside of the red cup. The cup casts a reflection on the shiny white table that has the property of being red, ‘occupying’ space outside of the red cup that is contingent upon the existence and redness of the cup in relation to the table and the light...
So if we take the relationship of the cup to its surroundings as a comparison to the mind and its relationship to its surroundings, the energy in the form of heat or reflected light can be projected from the cup and into or upon other objects we can do the same with the energy in the brain?
I cannot wait to hear your explanation of this, even though as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with the question of the mind taking up a space.
Reply to Augustusea Ok. I might be wrong on this. Aren't time and space connected? Can they act independently of one another; as in, can something occupy a space and not be affected by time, and vice versa? If the mind is affected by time, shouldn't it also occupy a space?
Is the mind timeless? Does it change at all with the passage of time? Or does it always posses the same exact qualities as time progresses?
The mind would change through time based more on its use than on actual time passing. There is an old saying.
"Twenty years of experience is not the same as a year of experience repeated for twenty years"
The mind would change more with the accumulation of data and learning to process it which differs in individuals. I know several 30 year olds that have the mind of 13 year olds, and at least a couple of 13 year olds that have the mind of much older people.
But if the mind is dependent upon the brain, then as the brain deteriorates so does its ability to run a fully functioning mind.
the mind changes definetly with time, as do all physical things, it gets more complex, with more processes, more memories, and more thoughts, and even on an atomic level, its atoms will get replaced by new ones eventually
You said a while ago that the mind does not occupy space then say it is a physical object. Which is it?
Ok. I might be wrong on this. Aren't time and space connected? Can they act independently of one another; as in, can something occupy a space and not be affected by time, and vice versa? If the mind is affected by time, shouldn't it also occupy a space?
Still stuck on the problem of the brain being the mind are you?
Reply to Sir2u I'd say at this point I'm struggling more with the idea of something existing and not being physical, at least in regards to the mind. If the mind changes, why not consider it a physical entity?
But the cup does not care because the environment's affect on the coffee are not in its properties set.
The cup doesn’t care about its own properties set, either. But as humans, we do care about the environment’s effect on those aspects of the environment which we also affect - in terms of distinguishing our own impact (ie. property set) from that of the environment.
So if we take the relationship of the cup to its surroundings as a comparison to the mind and its relationship to its surroundings, the energy in the form of heat or reflected light can be projected from the cup and into or upon other objects we can do the same with the energy in the brain?
I cannot wait to hear your explanation of this, even though as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with the question of the mind taking up a space.
I’ve already commented earlier, but allow me to clarify for this purpose.
Mind, like energy, is potential information that manifests as an event, appearing to ‘occupy’ matter, yet taking up no space of its own. It is a property of the local quantum particle relations, attributed to ‘objects’ with an understandable degree of uncertainty.
So the relationship in question is not that of the cup, but of its energy, as a comparison to the mind and its relationship to the brain and ‘surroundings’. The energy is not solely a property of the cup or the coffee, any more than the mind is solely a property of the brain or the nervous system. It exists as a property of continually changing particle relations in the variably integrated organic system, and manifests as energy events that appear to ‘occupy’ the brain and/or the nervous system depending on the measurement/observation.
That's a great question! If information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from Einstein's relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal (the Hologram Principle)?
Some practical examples of information outside the mind include truly novel discoveries in physics, as well as writing music and/or from our stream of consciousness during everydayness. Theoretical physicist Davies wrote in his book (The Mind of God) that although he had never had such revelatory experiences, he knew some fellow physicists who came up with truly novel formulas seemingly out of nowhere. Unfortunately it didn't happen that often.
Perhaps the analogy there, is that if the so-called platonic realm of mathematics (a timeless truth) comes to a person out of nowhere, it makes you wonder if mathematics is more than just a human invention.
Reply to 3017amen Is information produced? I understand some types of information travel at the speed of light (acoustic waves don't, for example). Are these types of information also produced at the speed of light? When I ask if the mind is timeless, I ask if it is affected by change. If the mind is purely information, is it produced? What produces it? At what rate is it produced? Does this information change?Does the source of this information change?
Now, if something occupies a space and changes in time (possesses the quality of changing/change), isn't it physical?
Edit: When I ask if information is produced at the speed of light, I am asking if there exists a time interval between a production event and the next or if there isn't.
Reply to Daniel they're relative,
The mind or consciousness is a result to a process, going on in the brain, not an inherit object with mass itself,
the brain and processes in it do have mass, are affected by space and time,
and as we know no energy truly disappears it just gets transferred into different forms, explaining why death doesn't affect mass.
You said a while ago that the mind does not occupy space then say it is a physical object. Which is it?
the mind is a result to a process, that process is physical, the mind is just a result of it, i.e. doesn't have to be physical, and that process in the brain does have mass, and is affected by time and space
Now, if something occupies a space and changes in time (possesses the quality of changing/change), isn't it physical?
Awesome questions!
Are electrons and photons physical? Both, because they are both energy and mass. Much like the brain. Both energy and mass. In short, there is a metaphysical component to all.
Your other questions are quite paradoxical in nature! It makes me think of the question, what is time. What is the nature of time and the perception/phenomenon of it. Just like light-travel and time stopping; time flies when you're having fun :blush: . But in physics, the illusion of time can extend to the nature of energy and information.
Since energy can only be changed, the information within itself is always out there. How can there exist a phenomenon such as the timeless concept of the energy created during the speed of light, when to reach such speeds it requires time in order to achieve it (?). (We are traveling within time to reach a point of timelessness.) Seems paradoxical.
Perhaps the easier answer involves the difference between what we see physically and what we can't see physically (like the wind/air). How about time, can we see time pass?
Honestly, I am having trouble coming to terms with the claim that there can be something which is not physical but which is the product of something physical. By not being physical, it would not occupy a space, and it would be changeless. I think it changes, however.
It is easier for my brain to agree with the following claim:
The mind is the process, the process is physical, and it is affected by time and space.
However, I know that agreeing is not the same as understanding, and I don't feel I understand neither claim.
what I mean in simplified terms is, 1+1 (process) = 2 (result), 2 is actually just the process 1+1, that is correct, but it is also a two.
So there is the brain which is physical, the brain has processes, which are physical, and every process is like 1+1, it has a result, and its result is consciousness or the mind, so in some terms, consciousness is coming from a physical process, but doesn't need to be regarded as physical, you could say it is the process itself, and I wouldn't disagree
So the relationship in question is not that of the cup, but of its energy, as a comparison to the mind and its relationship to the brain and ‘surroundings’. The energy is not solely a property of the cup or the coffee, any more than the mind is solely a property of the brain or the nervous system. It exists as a property of continually changing particle relations in the variably integrated organic system, and manifests as energy events that appear to ‘occupy’ the brain and/or the nervous system depending on the measurement/observation.
And that is the problem being discussed, no one disagrees with the rest of it.
the mind is a result to a process, that process is physical, the mind is just a result of it, i.e. doesn't have to be physical, and that process in the brain does have mass, and is affected by time and space
Would not this be something like saying that the horsepower of a gasoline engine or its rotation occupy space?
Reply to Sir2u it would be the opposite, as
the engine occupies space, the parts occupy space, their rotation required energy
but the rotation in itself is not something that has mass, it doesn't need so
Reply to Sir2u I'd say in one scenario you are enjoying your beer and every attitude* of yours reflects your joy. Whilst in the other scenario, every attitude of yours reflects some other mental state which is certainly not the same as the one you have while drinking the beer or while you write the comment AND drink a beer. At some point in the near future, let's say you decide to have another beer, your second one, because fuck the comment. The mental state you had when drinking the first beer I think cannot be the same mental state you have while drinking the second beer. They are similar mental states, very similar, but not the same.
I'd say it is obvious that our minds are constantly changing; however, less obvious is our inability to replicate any given thought exactly. Also, I cannot think of two ideas at once; I can think of a car in a park, but I cannot focus on the park and on the car at the same time.
I don't think we ever have the same mental state. If a mental state is physical, then you having a beer is physically different to you writing a comment, even if much doesn't seem to have changed.
*Attitude: a position of the body indicating a particular mental state.
I'd say it is obvious that our minds are constantly changing;
Again, no one disagrees. But are mental state and physical state the same thing?
To say that a mental state is physical, then it would have to be contained in the brain. But which part of the brain do you mean?
To say that the mind is in the atoms of the brain means that the atoms themselves are the mind and therefore the mind does not occupy space because it is the brain and 2 things cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
No, rotation is just the result of the motor running, a property of the engine. If rotation was physical and taking up the same space as the engine there would be a big bang.
No, rotation is just the result of the motor running, a property of the engine. If rotation was physical and taking up the same space as the engine there would be a big bang.
the disk rotating is, the actual process of rotating isn't necessarily.
It is the fuel that goes bang freely in all directions. The engine is a machine that constrains that entropic detonation so it produces rotational work that can be entrained to a purpose.
And that rather neatly gets to the heart of the mind~world relation. The "mind" is a neural model that an organism uses to regulate the physics of its environment.
Information processing is always physical. But it is physical in a very particular way. It is a modelling process that reduces its contact with the entropic reality to an interaction via symbols - logical switches that cost the same effort to flick up and down, on and off.
So nature becomes something that can be controlled by the push of a button. It can turn off a light. It can start an engine. It can blow up the world.
The model is able to regulate any kind of physical situation with the same amount of actual physical effort. Just point your finger and push on the button.
So rather than treating "rotation" as another example of epiphenomalism or abstraction - the usual slip-shod arguments for talking past mind~world problems - check out what neuroscience and biology actually say about the "mind as a process".
The mind is a neural model for regulating an organism's environment. That relationship is physical - entropic - as brains are hungry organs that must get fed.
So talking about how much time and space the mind (or even the neural model) occupies is barking up the wrong tree. The correct measure of the mind's physicality is its energy consumption. Or even better, the localised density of negentropy it represents. That would be its raw physical measure.
And then the only way the deal works is because a model has a semiotic or symbolic interface with the world. It interacts with reality through a set of switches that physically zero the effort of turning something on or off.
So the physicality of the world is something that the information processing by the brain is designed to filter out - reduce to a standard constant costs. And that then creates the platform for unlimited regulatory independence. The finger can stab a light switch, a car starter button, the big red button in the White House.
Again, it is about negentropic density. How much physical energy can the thinking mind unleash? That is the proper measure of its physicality. The ability to harness nature with machinery such as engines that can be flicked "on" or "off" at the merest whim.
The correct measure of the mind's physicality is its energy consumption.
So, the mind has Power. Power is defined as the rate with respect to time at which work is done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)). The SI unit of Power is the watt which in SI base units is equal to a (kg x m^2) / s^3. Wouldn't this indicate that the mind has mass?
Are these types of information also produced at the speed of light? When I ask if the mind is timeless, I ask if it is affected by change. If the mind is purely information, is it produced? What produces it? At what rate is it produced? Does this information change? Does the source of this information change?
It exists as a property of continually changing particle relations in the variably integrated organic system, and manifests as energy events that appear to ‘occupy’ the brainand/or the nervous system depending on the measurement/observation.
— Possibility
And that is the problem being discussed, no one disagrees with the rest of it.
Manifest energy events appear to occupy the brain AND/OR nervous system, but that is NOT mind. I think the issue may be that we are trying to define mind by its empirical evidence in time, instead of recognising mind as the quantum-level arrangement of an integrated system in superposition.
I’m leaning towards agreement with apokrisis - measuring the physicality of mind is about potentiality, not about occupying space in time. The light we see in the night sky is not the star itself - that’s only empirical evidence of its manifest energy event at some point in spacetime. The actual star may be long gone - or at least significantly changed - by the time its light reaches our awareness. But the potential physicality of that star is theoretically calculable from what empirical data we do have.
Lisa Feldman Barrett describes the neuroscience of the interoceptive network in relation to an ongoing prediction of affect: arousal (effort) and valence (attention) in the organism, mapped onto the 4D universe as a distribution of energy budget (potential). Mind may then be a process of restructuring particle arrangements to improve future predictions in relation to a limited energy budget.
That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory?
I believe it could be tested mathematically only, we cannot actually test a lot on the quantum level,
for me I wouldn't go into the quantum level for consciousness, but its still a possibility I guess.
That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory?
And as far as I am concerned that wraps it all up.
Almost anything we say here as an answer to the question could and probably should be counted as speculation. If the geniuses don't know yet, I am going to sit around and wait for then to figure it out. :wink:
AntonorganizerAugust 12, 2020 at 05:26#4422390 likes
Something that might not be limitly speculation, meaning guessing without much thought, is that the mind seems to be a concept. Possibly just the way we talk and think about it, but whatever it is seems elusive unless you use brain and mind interchangeably. In an earlier post you stated that everything that exists exists within space. Concepts/ideas exist, therefore they exist in space. I don't understand why you say everything that exists is within space, especially that this includes concepts/ideas. This is not to put down concepts/ideas, I often love thinking about them. Here's a blatant promo to tie in with what I said: I started a meetup.com page you can find at meetup.com/Initial-Curiosity that is intended to in part discuss philosophy, which at it's most abstract, especially, is concepts/ideas. I struggle with the thought of the mind, including concepts/ideas, having anything like a location in itself.
Almost anything we say here as an answer to the question could and probably should be counted as speculation. If the geniuses don't know yet, I am going to sit around and wait for then to figure it ou
Yes, that’s all this discussion can be at this stage. But isn’t that what philosophy is, for the most part?
The aim is to reframe the question so that ‘geniuses’ might get closer to a more useful answer - not to have the answer already packaged up for them. If the geniuses don’t know yet, then it stands to reason that the solution lies probably outside the geometric structures and logic that limit their thinking. It will take someone looking at it differently to initiate a paradigm shift.
Something that might not be limitly speculation, meaning guessing without much thought, is that the mind seems to be a concept. Possibly just the way we talk and think about it, but whatever it is seems elusive unless you use brain and mind interchangeably. In an earlier post you stated that everything that exists exists within space. Concepts/ideas exist, therefore they exist in space. I don't understand why you say everything that exists is within space, especially that this includes concepts/ideas. This is not to put down concepts/ideas, I often love thinking about them.
First of all, speculation is not ‘guessing without much thought’. It is theorising about possible answers to a question without sufficient information to be certain.
I agree that mind refers to a concept. The argument that everything that exists does so in space doesn’t preclude the possibility that a concept exists with no definitive location in space - only probabilistic relations. It isn’t so much that a concept doesn’t exist in space, therefore, but that its existence isn’t confined to, or defined by, particular spatial relations at any one moment.
In six-dimensional metaphysics, a body is defined by its varied shape in spacetime, but exists beyond the confines of 2D shape as a set of spatial relations that persists in time. Awareness of this temporal aspect suggests life. A living being is defined by the relative values of its varied spatial relations, but exists beyond the confines of 3D space as a set of events that persists in its value/potential. Awareness of this ‘value’ aspect suggests consciousness. A conscious subject is defined by a purpose to its varied lifespan, but exists beyond the confines of its 4D event as a set of value/conceptual structures that have meaning. Awareness of this aspect of ‘meaning’ suggests self-consciousness...
I don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility.
A book I read a couple of years ago by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner was called ‘Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness’. If you already have a grasp of quantum physics then you could probably skim most of it, but it sets up the possibility of applications of quantum theory outside the realm of physics, particularly in cognitive neuroscience.
AntonorganizerAugust 13, 2020 at 00:22#4424800 likes
Reply to Possibility Your opinion of what speculation is doesn't mean it's the same as the dictionary definition, which via dictionary.com seems to include both ideas of what we're wording as speculation. Aside from that, I was thinking to myself about how concepts/ideas can be created as objects and people in space, so what you say definitely is a better description of what this exists as. I hadn't considered that.
I understand as well as perceive my life as existence beyond my body and mind, yes it seems metaphysical. What you're about that makes sense, and though it is articulate, might be jumping to multiple conclusions about consciousness. You're using an unnecessary eloquent way of saying something that can be said in more simple language.
I understand as well as perceive my life as existence beyond my body and mind, yes it seems metaphysical. What you're about that makes sense, and though it is articulate, might be jumping to multiple conclusions about consciousness. You're using an unnecessary eloquent way of saying something that can be said in more simple language.
I’m an Arts major and marketing writer - occupational hazard. My aim here was to give a sense of the overall six-dimensional geometry, as I understand it. I’d be interested in seeing it articulated in ‘more simple’ language without losing that sense.
As for jumping to conclusions, this is simply a statement of where my speculation is at. I agree that I might very well be jumping to conclusions at this stage, but I’m open to criticism if you can point out more specifically where you think my understanding fails.
AntonorganizerAugust 13, 2020 at 04:32#4425240 likes
Reply to Possibility I appreciate especially your respectful approach in disagreement and in questioning what I say. As I re-read your paragraph about six-dimensional metaphysics, I realize that whether or not the detail you explain it in is necessary depends on what the overall point is. I think I can explain what I mean by that. If the point is that we, humans particularly but maybe other animals as well are living beings that exist beyond just our physical bodies metaphysically, including the mind, our ideas, within some form of space as persists over time, I can understand that without the reference to 4D etc and exceptional vocabulary. However, because you speak about dimensions and existence across dimensions, I definitely agree that it's difficult to communicate how we exist without referencing these different dimensions of existence.
My criticism isn't really that your understanding fails, I know that despite my own certainty of certain aspects of life it's smart for me to acknowledge that I ultimately don't know. My reaction is to the word purpose, the purpose of a living being's varied lifespan, which I admittedly assume that the word purpose has special weight. I don't know that we have a purpose. We do create meaning; socially, culturally and subjectively, but whether or not there's a broader meaning to life, I don't know. You say that awareness of value/conceptual structure that have meaning indicate self-consciousness. I think I understand awareness and consciousness, though both are abstract, but self as well as meaning in the way people typically consider it are questionable to me.
My criticism isn't really that your understanding fails, I know that despite my own certainty of certain aspects of life it's smart for me to acknowledge that I ultimately don't know. My reaction is to the word purpose, the purpose of a living being's varied lifespan, which I admittedly assume that the word purpose has special weight. I don't know that we have a purpose. We do create meaning; socially, culturally and subjectively, but whether or not there's a broader meaning to life, I don't know.
Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that we don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.
You say that awareness of value/conceptual structure that have meaning indicate self-consciousness. I think I understand awareness and consciousness, though both are abstract, but self as well as meaning in the way people typically consider it are questionable to me.
A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).
I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...
I believe we can see space, so since space is such an integral part of our consciousness maybe through meditation or self-hynosis we can find ourselves in another world, really somewhere else (another space). Certain drugs (like salvia) will make you feel like you are somewhere else but I don't think your consciousness leaves.
AntonorganizerAugust 16, 2020 at 20:55#4436070 likes
Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that
don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.
-Possibility
Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.
A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).
I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...
-Possibility
This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.
AntonorganizerAugust 16, 2020 at 21:02#4436100 likes
Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that
don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.
Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.
A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).
I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...
This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.
Marion BradleyAugust 19, 2020 at 16:40#4446560 likes
We are the god particle. Nothing is objective. Everything is subjective.
Comments (231)
There are lots of differen positions on that. Is there any specific reason you're asking?
What would it occupy if not a space?
Quoting Echarmion
I was just trying to find an argument in favour of the mind's physical nature. My reasoning was:
1. Everything that exists occupies a space.
2. The mind exists.
3. The mind occupies a space.
But what space does the mind occupy?
You made me think of another question: is everything that occupies a space of a material (physical?)* nature?
*some particles are said to be massless but still physical... they interact with mass and must occupy a space (right?). Mind could be massless but physical nonetheless.
Quoting Isaac
If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind?
I think this is, in a way, backwards. Space describes the relations between physical objects. Fundamental particles don't necessarily "occupy" space so much as creating it.
Quoting Daniel
I tend to go with the notion that everything that can be observed (has observable effects) is physical.
The problem with the mind is that if you look at everything a body does, some specific things that happen in minds, like what the color red looks like, are nowhere to be found.
Edit: Also, isn't everything that interacts with matter physical? Does the mind interact with matter?
Not sure. Extension. Stretchability. Self-movingness.
Quoting Daniel
Not sure. Maybe a mind is the space that a brain occupies.
Quoting Daniel
Nearly everything yes. But maybe fields occupy all of space, without limit.
Where do you get this idea from?
What do you mean by 'exist'? What do you mean by 'space'?
Does mathematics 'exist'? Does phase space 'exist'?
Does 'phase space' take up space?
What about an 'idea'? Does that 'exist'?
Better to claim that things that exist do not necessarily occupy space.
Interesting definition. I have come to believe that the mind is the set of changes in the composition of the extracellular space surrounding neurons (and supportive cells) which occur throughout the life of an individual. In my definition, the mind is not the cells which form the brain nor is it the space they occupy; it is rather the microenvironment that surrounds such cells and its dynamics (change in composition). As such, the mind would occupy a space (the extracellular space) different to the space which the cells occupy.
If they are inside a mind then they do....
For me to-exist is a synonym of to-be-a-particular/unity/discrete-entity. Something either exists or does not, no matter the state in which it exists. Space is the dimensions of height, width and depth within which all things exist and move (I borrowed this definition from a dictionary). An idea is a neuronal process dependent on physical elements (cells, molecules, and their interactions) which occupy a space. Every concept is an idea. Therefore, every concept exists as a neuronal process which occupies a space. Math and phase space are concepts. They exist as ideas. They must occupy a space.
What do you mean by 'something'.
If you don't have a process for determining whether something exists or not, it is meaningless to assert that 'Something either exists or does not'.
What about things that do not fit into either of the categories 'exist' or 'not exist'.
What things would those be?
Define "the mind". The brain does. We know that.
Thoughts on this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
Also, like Pantagruel, I'd like to know what things do not fall in any of those categories?
Perhaps the only answer would be "nothing".
Best keep that under wraps though. I often wonder if the majority of the thinking world ever starts thinking "nothing exists" the entirety of the universe and all existence would just vanish into nothingness.
Reminds me of an old episode of "Tales from the Darkside" called "Effect and Cause".
Not exactly my point and though I wouldn't say so it's not like I could or even would disprove it. I'd instead assert there is a unique quality about the human mind over self-awareness that is evidenced in animals. Usually lol.
It appears the human body and most animals require a brain (which generally requires a head) to function in an intelligent way. Interestingly enough cockroaches can live without a head for a week or more. Lizard tails wriggle for quite some time after detached but we wouldn't call this intelligence or awareness or consciousness or a mind rather just nerves and impulses. A starfish can regenerate it's entire body from a limb. My point is since humans cannot do any of these things, this places the human brain and so mind above others. For obvious reasons. That's why we're not being hunted by killer starfish or dolphins using infrared technology, for example.
Possibly those things that some people think exist but others don't.
How does what work?
My point was that assuming everything can be neatly classified as either existing or not existing does not work.
Yes I am using having a location synonymous with occupying a space. Whether or not an electrons absolute location can be established scientifically is not really relevant because that same concept can basically be applied to almost all of matter.
What I was going to say (love your name btw, not sure why but it brings me great joy whenever I see it) is to the casual onlooker it doesn't make a whole great deal of sense to say something can both exist and not exist. Something being hidden is one example but that is subjective or as some would say semantic. Essentially many would argue it has to be one or the other. Though I feel there are rationalizations that have weight beyond absolute subjectivism and semantics. Can't think of them now though. Perhaps you can?
The ideas that come from the mind, when somehow manifested physically - like spoken words, art, written word, doing something even - occupy space. These things, which are direct products of the mind and therefore a representation of the mind itself, occupy space. The mind could occupy space as a result of its ideas occupying space. The mind is where thoughts live, so when a thought is successfully translated from some immaterial realm inside one's head to some sort of existence that is tangible, and physical, isn't that the mind occupying a space?
This cartesian and platonist nonsense and a non physical realm is ludicrous just like the equally bizarro scientismistic
notion of mind being composed of lifeless matter.
Sometimes it pays to step back and just think of how beyond rationality and common sense both of these positions are.
And it detracts from the truth that the Mind is absolutely Amazing and has properties of Creativity and prediction which are rightly classed as Divine.
Quoting oni
So, there is in my head an immaterial, non-physical realm? Are you saying that the mind indeed does occupy a physical space when ideas "materialize", but that there is something else, where ideas live when they have not been materialized, which exists but does not occupy a space? Is there a moment in one's life when there is not a single materialized idea in one's mind?
Quoting Asif
Wind is made of gas molecules following gas laws. Wind is not earth, nor is it water, nor is it fire, nor is it anything else but wind; so, I'd say wind does have a shape. It has a location. You will not feel Earth's wind in space, nor will you feel solar wind on Earth (I think the magnetic field shield us from it, I might be mistaken, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Earth wind can only happen on Earth's surface (the atmosphere).
Now, why should the mind be consider something divine? Just because we don't understand it?
Gas 'molecules' and gas 'laws' is a whole can of worms.
Science becomes completely incoherent when it talks about laws of dynamic systems and reduction of macro phenomenon to molecules. Dynamic systems must have some sort of "driver" I fail to see how molecules can drive macro systems. Too much Like a fly pushing a freight train!
We don't understand the mind? Well,everyone In history is intimately familiar with mind every second of every day. It's only scientists and philosophers who have a problem understanding their minds. And that's sometimes because of linguistic confusion and reducing everything to inorganic matter.
The Mind is your Identity,that which creates,perceives,breathes,classifies and talks. To me that's Amazing,divine in the sense of unmatched by any other phenomenon in nature.
Your seemingly innocuous question could take over 100 pages of text to answer in detail! I am no expert but have some deep-rooted opinions and convictions. First, we are talking about “mind”, but what exactly is mind? I would consider it best described as an energy (or radiation) field, that enables interface of human will with material environment via thought and physical body which includes brain. I would imagine it has several operational modalities, e.g. body alive/brain awake, body alive/brain asleep, body alive/brain unavailable (e.g. comatose, damaged, unconscious etc), body dead/brain dead, in this last case I think the energy field that is mind would persist.
So to answer your question of what “space” mind is constrained, I would imagine it’s something of a Heisenberg uncertainty, depending on the state (modality) it could be mainly concentrated across certain regions of the brain (as waves bound by brain matter) the region being dependent on the modality mentioned above, or for the final case (body dead/brain/dead) it would be centred in (spread across) a “space” the description of which lies outside the current boundaries of classical physics (to my knowledge), but to which it is constrained by virtue of laws governing it’s interaction with other radiation energies and fields that constitute our Universe.
I wanted to be brief but have already crossed 200 words! I am seeking better understanding of these brain, thought, mind, emotion, individuality, psyche, collective mind questions, and spend free time probing quantum physics for possible correlates and solutions.
Examples of what?
What are you trying to achieve?
lol
Quoting Outlander
Isn't just about everything in philosophy subjective? (including the concept of objective)
Quoting Outlander
The problem is that words like 'something' and 'exist' have such a wide varity of meanings that to claim that a particular thing exists will depend on ones subjective interpretation of the words. Of course with some statements of that form one might achieve a level of consensus but that is not objectivity.
Hi Daniel,
You said you wanted to define the mind by establishing its properties, but also that you are unclear what the mind is. A funny thing about definitions is, you can only know if the definition is correct if you already know the defining properties of the thing you're trying to define. So I wonder whether the approach you're taking is productive? What do you really want to know?
So, is there a limit for the human mind?
Ideas, emotions, concepts? Opinions, views of things? Potential energy ie. a rock atop a hill?
Example I can visualize some insanely grotesque I dunno creature that's part Earth say like a rock wall of a cave that's alive, moist, and throbbing with a giant eyeball in the center of it. It doesn't "exist" really but it does in my mind. If I share the idea or imagery with another person does it exist more? If some scientist goes insane and somehow creates it physically in this world it does exist. What point between simply imagining something fictional for a split second and it manifesting in the real world does something cross between non-existence and existence? There has to be a transitional period that can at least be more easily rationalized over another as having qualities of none or qualities of both.
Come on @A Seagull, help me out lol.
of course!
Anything else is a delusion.
As I'm sure would be asked, what are some examples? Emotions are something to factor in that hinder yet do not explicitly constitute what mental limits are. Or do they?
Are limits not meant to be broken or at least the reaching of them made tolerable?
You might find this interesting: https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/concepts/clark.html
Andy Clark and David Chalmers, The Extended Mind.
1. INTRODUCTION
Where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin? The question invites two standard replies. Some accept the demarcations of skin and skull, and say that what is outside the body is outside the mind. Others are impressed by arguments suggesting that the meaning of our words "just ain't in the head", and hold that this externalism about meaning carries over into an externalism about mind. We propose to pursue a third position. We advocate a very different sort of externalism: an active externalism, based on the active role of the environment in driving cognitive processes.
My point is that if one has two possible 'events' A and B, then the logical combination of them requires the 4 possibilities: A and not B, B and not A, Both A and B, neither A nor B.
If event B is defined as 'not A,' then these 4 possibilities still remain until proven otherwise.
In a simple abstract system such as mathematics then it may be possible that the events A and not-A are exhaustive. for example it can be proven that every integer is either even or not-even, in which case the possibilities of both even and not-even and neither even nor not-even are empty sets.
However in the real world and especially in the world of words ( such as statements) this is not universally provable.
It rather comes down to the question : What are you trying to achieve by claiming that either A or not-A is exhaustive?
An example of how this would be counter-productive is in particle physics where if one claims that an electron bound to a nucleus is either at position X or is not at position X is exhaustive, one will not progress in understanding quantum mechanics.
Yes good point. What are the limits and how does one determine where they are? No easy answer.
Presumably by trial and error. But with caution. If one wanted to find the top speed limit of an old jalopy, certainly one can put the pedal to the metal on an open road, but driving it over a cliff to get that extra bit of speed is probably not a good idea.
I think it would be a good idea to actually define "a space" first. Exactly what would need to be occupied if the mind was to do so?
But that does not answer the question.
For the mind to occupy a space it would need to be something and there would need to be something to occupy. We have no idea exactly what the mind is so we would need an explanation of what a space is to be able to even start a discussion about it.
Surely non-material things also occupy a dimension or "space" or sphere of influence at the very least. Does vacuum occupy space? Energy for example must occupy space as it has to travel between 2 coordinates to be perceived/measured despite being massless in it's pure form.
Data surely occupies space in the computer. This space may be no larger or less than it was previously but rather a specific pattern or configuration of "on" switches and "off" switches but no less the information occupies the space of the computer in a certain encrypted order.
Not true, fluids occupy a space but dont have a strictly limited boundary. You could stretch them out in almost any configuration all the way down to just an atom thick or condense them into the smallest compartment possible. Yes theres an ultimate limit to the number of atoms of liquid but almost infinite possibilities for configuration.
I'm not sure if they are "no where to be found" so much as we dont know what we are looking at when we observe an fMRI scan of the brain during activity. We are likely looking at exactly what red looks like to the person but because we have no way of reading or decoding these electrical signals into a language we can understand we might as well be looking at the ocean and trying to see the currents.
Secondly personality/individualism- or the way in which ones brain is wired, processes, stores and perceives information is unique for each individual like a neural fingerprint so why on earth would we expect the micro structure of brains to be organised the same... that the same colour red uses the same neurons to perceive it and not more or less or in a slightly different location etc. I'm left handed and just that alone means that my right motor cortex contains more neurons than the left one. That alone would have huge implications for any neurons connected to the motor cortex and so on in a cascade of differences
This seems a bit redundant because you could argue that the universe occupies space... but what space... the space of the universe, ie. it occupies itself - it's self-contained. So the limit is completely set/dictated by itself. And then what occupies outside the universe if it has a limit?
Limits or boundaries are between things that have boundaries. I dont believe space inherently has a boundary but that rather they are generated with the existence of things within space. A limit cannot exist outside something which by itself (vacuum) has nothing to discriminate a boundary -no mass, no energy, no heat etc.
Money for example. In some tribes the concept of a standardised currency doesnt exist. But for most of the world it does. But wait it only exists when you believe it does. When you stop believing in the value of money it doesnt exist. So "to whom" is the "existence" relevant? Who do we believe when we try to qualify the existence if money? How does money "exist" or not "exist?" It has both a material and symbolic component. Both of which can "exist." And both of which can be made redundant/ discarded and no longer "exist".
It seems some things can exist and not exist simultaneously depending on what perspective is used to measure it.
This doesn't explain to me how something exists and does not exist. You are talking about whether a concept is known or unknown, not whether it exists or does not exist. The category of existence (and it's dyadic opposite) is plenary by definition. Once you abandon that framework, you are simply talking about something other than existence!
So basically you think your whole body contains your mind?
This reminds me of the guy that wanted his laptop cleaning out completely because it was to heavy to carry.
Data in a computer does not occupy any space at all.
This is why I said that someone needs to define what exactly space is supposed to be in this context.
Quoting Daniel
If consciousness is related to a type of working memory, then you could say that the finite information in working memory occupies memory space.
If there are other minds then it seems to be necessarily so that each mind occupies its own space. My mind does not overlap your mind or else how could we say that our minds are separate?
If there are other minds only implies that they are separate, you cannot conclude that they occupy a space from that.
Quoting Harry Hindu
My computer memory does not overlap with yours, but I cannot prove that they occupy a space either.
Great question.
Consider that in consciousness during human cognition when neurons interact with each other they end up having a weight to them. Then consider the computer analogy where memory is full and presumably there is no more space.
Then also consider when two computers are talking to each other like on a lan Network they presumably are occupying a 'simultaneous space'. This could be further analogized to going to a concert being in the same space and time having reactions to the same music being heard. Music itself is conveyed through space-time and the harmonics of moving air.
This little synopsis seems to suggests space is required for the mind to function and presumably exist.
No. The body cannot contain the mind, because the spatial aspect of the mind need not be confined to the body.
The spatial location of the mind is a ‘fuzzy’ concept. The highest probability of ‘measuring’ it at any one time would locate the mind in the brain, but neither the brain nor the body appears to necessarily contain it.
Quoting Sir2u
Also, if they are separate, what does this mean? I mean, to be separate, wouldn't they have to occupy a different point in some kind of space?
So the mind of a person can be outside of the body?
Quoting Possibility
First of all, no one has yet provided any proof of spatial location of the mind, if it were so then this discussion would have ended already.
What is measured in the brain is electrical and chemical activity, is that what the mind is?
I have no idea, but for the sake of this discussion it would seem necessary to have a clear idea of exactly what is meant by "a space".
Quoting Daniel
Is there a difference between spaces? Could it be possible that the different spaces have nothing in common?
Quoting Daniel
Do my answers make sense?
Quoting Daniel
Would that not depend on it being a fact that they do actually occupy space? If they don't, then it is irrelevant.
Data on my computers hard drive does actually have a very specific location, but it does not exist as separate from the disk. The data in my mind might be the same.
That depends on what you mean by ‘being’ outside of the body. I think it’s possible for the mind to conceptualise itself relationally outside of the body for a time, particularly in situations when internal sensory information is unavailable or blocked. Given that the information the mind uses to interact with the world comes from conceptual systems and interoceptive networks rather than directly from the external world, an interoceptive network that doesn’t have access to any internal sensory information is capable of orientating mind external to the body. The eardrum still vibrates and the skin still reacts to touch, even if the information doesn’t reach the mind via regular internal channels.
Quoting Sir2u
What is currently measured in the brain can be interpreted as potential evidence of mind, in the same way that similar measurements are also interpreted as evidence of potential energy. Hence the scare quotes. We can predict mind based on these measurements in the brain because it’s difficult to measure electrical or chemical activity anywhere else and be in any way convinced that what we are measuring is evidence of ‘mind’ and not of something else. Modern science being convinced only by quantitative probability, this is about as close as measurement can get to locating the mind.
As for what the mind is, in my view it is five-dimensional, integrated information - the atemporal, non-local aspect of our existence. It includes both quantitative and qualitative potentiality.
If Data does not occupy space in a computer than how can there be a limited capacity for storage of data? I'm not suggesting that data occupies a physical material space like hardware does but that it occupies a "configurative" space - that is to say... in a sense hardware is analogous to an amorphous solid - such as that different patterns can be created in its structure "bytes" and these symbolic patterns denote data. So yes the data does occupy space because without the hardware that it is configured in there would be no data.
Think of it as a container of water occupies a cube of space. Now change the container. The water still occupies the same "quantity" of space (volume) but a different "quality/type" of space just as data does in a hard drive.
I would argue that all information must occur in spatial dimension. Because if it didnt it would have to occur outside the universe.
If minds are separate then what is the medium that separates them?
Well how would a mind identify itself without having a physical body? Neurons reach to every point in the body and also regulate hormones and mobility. Without the Peripheral nervous system you couldn't have a central nervous system. I think its meaningless to try to remove or separate the mind from the tool it uses to sense - to feel to see to hear to taste etc.
Does a computer occupy space? If so, then why wouldn't the memory inside it also occupy space? The amount of memory that you can install in a computer is limited by the amount of space inside the computer.
Does a person's body occupy space? Does a human body possess memory? Is seems to me that more information would occupy more space than less information.
So now we have a problem.
Let's stay with the computer hard disk for now instead of the brain.
A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer.
If the data occupies space then it would have to be added to the total of the disk, as we know that this does not happen we are obliged to accept that data is immaterial and does not occupy space.
The only other possibility is that they both occupy the same space but one of the two would still have to be immaterial for that to happen. The data occurs through the rearrangement of the atoms, not by adding to them
When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour or that 2+2=4, does it add atoms or anything else to your body? No extra space is added to the space occupied by you body, it stays exactly the same. What happens is that neurons get rearranged, new synapse connections can appear. But the brain is not getting bigger, it is just a different arrangement.
So, either we need a proper definition of "a space" or we accept that the mind has no physical qualities except for the sensory organs that it uses as tools.
This is because the data on the disk is just a different arrangement of magnetic patterns than a blank disk. Your disk may have more information stored on it than mine does but that doesn't mean that your drive takes up more space than mine. It means that your disk has more patterns than mine does, but we are both limited by the same amount of storage space if we both have the same sized drive.
The complexity of our neural network indicates how much information we have stored in our brain, but brains are more or less the same size.
A blank drive occupies the same amount of physical space as a drive filled to capacity. What makes them different is the complexity of the patterns within that physical space.
So does the mind take up space or not?
Quoting Harry Hindu
So does the data take up space or not?
If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, please tell me how you define space.
But they would still be there even if there was no data on the chips. So the data is none existent in the sense that it occupies no extra space.
What space does my mortgage occupy?
And if none, does it follow that it does not exist, and I can cease to pay it?
Or does it follow that there are things that exist and yet do not occupy space?
OK, so the answer to the OP
Quoting Daniel
Is yes.
The mind then is a property of the brain.
Do all properties of an object take up mass of the object?
or each mind depends on, among other things* (but mainly on), both the composition-what it** is made of and the relative(?) proportions of its components-of its brain, and the point in "brain space" which each of its** components occupies with respect to every other of its component at any given time.
* the composition and relative position of its** components is affected by the environment.
** the brain('s).
BOLD unnecessary(?)
But the mind is more than data, it is reaction to data, analyses of data, emotions. Do they have a location?
The mind doesnt have to be more than data because data can react to data. Analysis, computation and processing of data requires "software" ie. Data. All information reacts with information to transform it into new or derivative information.
Just as a mathematical function is information with input (data) and an output (data).
Yes.
Quoting Sir2u
Yes. We IT experts use the term, "space" to talk about how much is taken up by data and how much is free on your computer's hard drive. You have a finite amount of space on your drive to store data.
Quoting Sir2u
Well, I tried to get on with that by asking you this, but you seemed to want to ignore the question.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Space is the medium that separate minds and the more complex some pattern is within some amount of space, the more information within that space.
Let me ask you this:
Do the things in your mind take up mental space? For instance there is only so much that you can think of at one moment, yet you know more than what you are presently thinking. You possess long-term memory and short-term (working) memory. Long-term has more space than working memory as you can hold more information in long-term than in working memory. Where is the information in your long-term memory stored? Where is the information in your working memory stored?
You don't have physical/digital documents that describe the conditions of your mortgage? When you forget the conditions of the mortgage, where do you look to find it?
But if they do not have a location, their mere existence does not mean that they occupy space. as Banno pointed out his mortgage is real, but it does not occupy any space at all.
So if emotions are similar to mathematical operacions, math like data would also have space that it occupies? That does not make much sense.
And this is why I said that before the question can be answered we need a definition of what "a space" actually is.
Space for IT people is not the same as it is for a NASA person, and neither use the word in the same way that a writer would.
We are using space in different ways and therefore we will never resolve anything.
If we take space to mean something that can be occupied by material objects the arguments would be different to those where space is used to mean the re-arrangement of existing material to accommodate non material OBJECTS.
Does anyone want to provide a fixed definition of space?
Paper might fit the definition here.
The piece of paper is not the mortgage, only the physical representation of it. Think of a mortgage as a promise, is that physical?
If you burned all the papers, deleted all the hard drives, and killed (or lobotomized) all the people with knowledge of the mortgage, how would there still be a mortgage? Yet if the mortgage doesn't take up any physical space, then how have I destroyed it entirely just by destroying physical things?
Math is a human construct and can only "act" as mathematical functions through either our brains or the devices we have programmed to do it for us; calculators, computers and other artificial machines both of which are physical objects that occupy space. It in this sense is a quality or behaviour of physical things.
The concepts of "one, two, three, plus, minus, multiply etc" are all artificial and ultimately arbitrary- based on discrimination between things for example I could say 1 molecule of water, 1 ml of water, 1 ocean of water. The concept of one is repeated but the definition of the quantity of water is different because we are discriminating differently in each case. Maths is just a descriptive tool to understand the universe, and like language, symbols, ideas, data, emotions feelings etc they are symbolic of an information state or relationship between things that is always inextricably linked to our awareness/consciousness.
All information occupies space. It has to. We are getting caught up on "how" that space is occupied as in in what form - material or conceptual that this information (energy, matter, interactions) occupy the universe (space).
If math doesnt occupy a space in the mind regarding the symbolic meaning of the external world then it must occupy a space in the physical external world. If that is the case show me the external natural proof of "multiple" or "add" or "square root". You can prove any of them experimentally which means the space they occupy must be in the brain as patterns of neuronal connections and organisation. If not that then from what "non-location" in "non-space" is mathematics coming from?
Energy occupies space. Something does not have to have mass to occupy space. Just because a photon is massless doesnt mean it doesnt have a velocity, a location, a distance to travel- all of which denote location or "space".
Observations suggest that your head is more clearly spatial, and mind more clearly temporal.
Objectifying mind could be a category mistake.
(None of which suggests "supernatural magic" or whatever of course.)
Quoting jorndoe
could you explain this a bit more? I don't know if I get what you are trying to say (and still, I'm replying to your comment; forgive me if I got it wrong)
However:
If the mind is the temporal arrangement* of brain components in space, wouldn't it be an object like any other?
Without the head (or body), no mind occurs, mind seems localized to head/body.
Yet, mind is not (identical to) the head, which you still have while unconsciousness; say, mind isn't like an object with mass and width and height.
So, perhaps mind is something body can sometimes do, if you will, and you (as a person) are the synthesis, what you do and what you do it with?
This, at least, is fairly consistent/coherent/cogent, and I wouldn't conflate spatial objects and temporal processes (mentioned category mistake).
"Some lose their mind, without losing their head." ;)
The mind depends on the molecular composition (chemical nature and relative ratios) of the brain, the relative position of the component molecules with respect to each other* (including those molecules which make cells), and the allowed/permitted** change in both the composition and relative position of such molecules.
*this describes their interactions, in a broad sense.
**there is a limit to how much the composition or the relative position of the molecules which make a brain can be changed. (AND THIS I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MINDS, THEIR LIMIT). What determines how much these features can change before the mind stops being that?
Off course, all this characteristics of the mind are influenced by the environment external to the body. In addition, they are in constant change.
By the same method I can delete all humans from the earth, and there will be no minds. But that does not answer the question that was posed in the OP. Does the mind occupy a space. If it does, then the kind of space needs to be defined.
Everything you say is true.
Golf balls are always in a place, commonly know as a physical/spacial location.
If I say I have an idea, it would only make sense to deduce that it is located in my mind. What sort of location would it be then?
If the mind is in a space, how would we define that space?
To ask what makes the idea come to mind would be the same as to ask what makes the spatial organization and the composition of the molecules be the one which allows the existence of, or represents, such idea.
Each idea has associated to it a particular molecular spatial organization and composition, which changes in time, just like the idea.
If the mind is the brain then, yes. If not then, no. Also it mind depend on what you mean by mind. If the mind is seen as brain function then, it becomes difficult to attribute a material quality like volume to function. Think of it - the lips and tongue take up space but in what sense could we say that speaking/talking has a spatial attribute.
I’ll start with the dictionary’s mathematical definition, because I think it covers most other definitions in some way.
Space: a mathematical concept generally regarded as a set of points having some specified structure.
The term ‘space’ has been used to refer to the one-dimensional structure of a binary system; the two-dimensional structure of distance; the three-dimensional structure of objects; the four-dimensional structure of time; the five-dimensional structure of capacity or the six-dimensional structure of freedom.
But there is a tendency to assume that by actual ‘space’ we mean the three-dimensional structure of the objects in conceptualised reality.
So the ‘space’ on a disk refers to the capacity of the disk as a five-dimensional structure of information to be ‘read’, not the three-dimensional structure of information that is the actual disk. It isn’t so much a rearrangement of atoms, but a re-structuring of particle relations. The three-dimensional structure doesn’t change because this potential for one-dimensional restructuring exists in the molecular arrangement of the disk.
When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour, however, the restructuring of particle relations that occurs is integrated into the entire system of one, two, three, four and five dimensional relations. So your five-dimensional conceptual reality which predicted fresh milk is restructured at a one-dimensional level of synapse relations without necessarily affecting neuron arrangement or brain structure at all (depending how often you’ve been caught in this situation) - but the one-dimensional changes affect the four-dimensional event of you eating breakfast, the three-dimensional expression on your face, the two-dimensional molecular contents of your stomach and possibly your one-dimensional perspective of the day so far - to name just a few.
If this is true then the mind, the YOU, is nothing more than a bunch of biological/chemical reactions.
How do we control the chemical reactions?
Exactly. From what I have read, most people think that it is just the bio-chemical functions of the body. I tend to agree with that.
I think that it would be difficult to assert that the mind occupies a space because there is no way to define a space that it could occupy.
Just curious, where can I find more information about this?
Quoting Possibility
Which is why I asked at the beginning for someone to set a proper definition of "a space". I could not think of any definition that would allow the mind to have its own space.
The relationship of the mind to the brain is, I think, an established fact. But exactly what that relationship is, is not so well defined.
Many still refuse in this day and age to believe that the "person" is nothing more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level.
Well, it's an interesting line of inquiry because it uncouples the two essential qualities of matter - mass & volume. Is it possible for something to have mass and no volume or volume and no mass?
Science says that it is possible, who am I to disagree.
Personally I think that like the old song said "you can't have one without the other". Maybe something has mass and they still don't have a method of measuring the volume. Or the other way around.
The reference to dimensional structure is part of a metaphysical theory I’ve been working on, but the examples come directly from Google’s dictionary definitions of ‘space’:
[i]4. the portion of a text or document available or needed to write about a subject.
"there is no space to give further details"
pages in a newspaper or magazine, or time between television or radio programmes, available for advertising.
"it is the media person's job to buy the press space or the TV or radio spots"
capacity for storage of data in a computer or other digital device.
"additional disk space is required for the database operation"
5. the freedom to live, think, and develop in a way that suits one.
"a teenager needing her own space"[/i]
Quoting Sir2u
I would add: ...chemical reactions [which nature depends on the interacting molecules, their ratios, and their spatial distribution in the brain] Thus, the mind is limited by the kind of molecules which form it (not all molecules can form a human mind), the ratios* in which they are found (not all combinations of allowed molecules can form a human mind), and their position with respect to each other (even if you have the allowed molecules at adequate ratios, if they do not follow an allowed distribution in space, you wont have a mind). The last requirement limits the mind to a space, I think; but then the mind does not only depend on the spatial distribution of the molecules which form it; it would also depend on their ratios, absolute quantities*, and their chemical properties**.
* and absolute quantities (?)-as in, even if you have the right molecules and ratios, you need a minimum/maximum amount of each molecule.
** this would lead to the question: why this limits? why a human mind cannot be replicated with any combination of molecules in any spatial orientation other than the allowed ones?
Quoting Sir2u
Honestly, I do not know if we do.
ALSO, I'd like to remind everyone that whatever has been said in all these comments (mine and others') is merely speculative, at least in some (most) part. I say it because I think it is an important reminder.
Normally I have avoided referring to other dimensional relations as ‘spatial’ because of this confusion. Many qualitative chemical and temporal relations that contribute to sensory information such as hue, taste and tone for example can be understood as ‘non-spatial’ in the 3D sense: we relate to them as two-dimensional information structures in time.
Quoting Sir2u
I think Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book How Emotions Are Made presents an intriguing body of neurological and psychological research with regards to the nature of this relationship of the mind to the brain. FWIW, I happen to believe that the ‘person’ IS “more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level” - but that may be a much bigger discussion. It depends on how we understand the various terms in this statement.
The uniqueness of each mind does not necessitate its preservation or survival as such - it is the differences in each five-dimensional structure of potential/value that matters, and so worth relating to with our faculties of imagination and understanding in ‘free play’. Even at the expense of the current ‘uniqueness’ of our own mind.
Doesn't it? If, by deleting all humans physically, you delete all minds, then without special pleading, that does, on the face of it, suggest very strongly that minds are physically located. Why would it not?
Isn't that the question being asked? What would you offer by way of justification for those assertions?
Photons? How do we decide whether two objects A and B occupy space? Well, they can't be placed in the same location at the same time - one must be removed in order to put the other in the same spot.
Light, since it casts shadows which implies that light and a material object can't occupy the same space at the same time, could be massless particles that occupy space.
On the other hand, take glass. Light passes through glass which implies either that light doesn't occupy space or that glass doesn't occupy space. Since we know both of the above two possibilities are false, a paradox presents itself: Glass occupies space and light occupies space but light passes freely through glass as if both don't occupy space. :chin:
I was asking about both.
Well at that point you have to look at the word exist. Looking at philosophical dictionaries the definition of exist is almost more a series of debates than an actual definition. The wikipedia article on the word Existence gives this definition: "Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with physical or mental reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property[1] of being.[2]" and cites two papers on metaphysics as the source. Being is defined by the oxford dictionary as "the material or immaterial existence of a thing".
If we use that definition then existence by definition implies that things can be either physical or non-physical.
The scientific definition of Mass is defined by Dictionary.com as: "the mass of a body as measured when the body is at rest relative to an observer, an inherent property of the body."
I am not a scientist but I have taken physics classes in college and I have always heard things like mass and charge as being properties of objects and never as being completely synonymous with the object itself. Sometimes an electron would be referred to as "a charge" but the more accurate definition was given as "a charged particle" with charge being something the object had.
That being said, there are a variety of different definitions for the word exist and there are a variety of different ways to look at how things like mass and charge relate to physical bodies, that being said, I provided a few examples that show there is atleast some basis for the view that things can exist as properties of physical objects.
So an atom (as a fuzzy three-dimensional object) has a ‘charge’ that is a property of that object, which refers to the two-dimensional relation (potential energy/distance and direction) between electron(s) and particles of the nucleus. While we commonly refer to these particles as if they were ‘objects’ in themselves, only one linear dimension is measurable in relation to spacetime. They exist only as a two-dimensional random structure, not three. I’m not clear on the concept of ‘charge’ attributed as a property to such a particle, but it suggests reference to a one-dimensional binary relation of quantum-entanglement with anti-matter...
Can something be referred to as an ‘object’ if its three-dimensional structure is only probabilistically determined? Does a two-dimensional structure of existence classify as an ‘object’? Is our assumption of spatial existence attributed to conceptualised ‘objects’ interfering with our understanding of space?
Quoting Daniel
While it is true that the brain is limited by the brain's properties and that the mind is affected by chemical imbalances I think that all of this means that the mind is one of the properties/functions of the brain and as such cannot occupy space.
A closed bottle containing perfume limits the smell to the bottle, but makes neither part nor property of the other. A perfumed candle is a complex mixture of carefully balanced chemicals, the smell is part of the candle in the sense that it is a property. It does not in it self occupy space because it is part of the chemical mix of the candle.
Quoting Possibility
I read a couple of her books years ago, one was called Emotion and Consciousness. Interesting.
Obviously this topic might be sensitive to some because it touches on the body/souls theme and therefore goes strait to religious beliefs.
I have still not made up my mind on the topic but I am extremely skeptical about the presence of a soul in the body. It is less complicated to imagine the brains functions being the ME.
Quoting Isaac
No, it only implies that the bio-chemical vessel of the mind has a physical location.
If we accept that the mind is nothing more than electro-chemical processes then yes, that would the space the mind occupies. If not then we are still stuck without a space.
Is they universe wonderful.
How are we every going to know whether the mind is a part of the body or the body is a tool of the mind? I have no idea. :groan:
Why do you think that everyone should be closed minded like you. If you ever plan on winning an argument, you have to be prepared to argue both sides of it.
Sure, the car and the legs are involved, but there's a category difference.
Mentioned observations (coherently) suggest similar categories where mind and body are concerned.
Right. As I said, special pleading. Why in earth would we start out believing the mind is something other than that which it is alley comprised of? When you smash a teacup, its no longer a cup, do you question whether the cup really exists still, but kn some other realm? It might, but why would you even think it? All the activity we associate with our minds appears to stop when the brain is destroyed. Manipulation of the brain changes associated thoughts in the mind. What possible reason would we have for believing there's anything more to it than that?
None at all.
But some people keep on insisting that the mind "person" can and does exist without the brain. To do so it would need to have a location.
That is what I want someone to explain. What is this space it is in?
As no one seems to be able to do so, then it is obvious that the mind does not occupy a space, but is nothing more than a function of the body.
I see. I guess if people are just going to make stuff up off the top if their heads then they could just make up a thing which exists but doesn't have a location.
Yep, there is no such thing as a soul.
I’m with you there on the skepticism. The concept of a ‘soul in the body’ need not be a case of substance dualism. We tend to conceptualise reality as ‘objects’ in space and time, even though we understand now that it’s not that simple. Objectifying structures enables us to understand localised relations between information at a conceptual level, but we need to remember that reality is more complex: ‘objects’ are ‘properties’ of ‘objects’ at another level of awareness. Our language and grammar, developed in a naive world, often struggles to give us a big picture view. Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’ explores these difficulties in conceptualising a four-dimensional physical reality.
If we can alter the arrangement of electrons in a computer disk to store complex information, can we not grasp the possibility of a systematic re-arrangement of electrons in the brain, or even across the entire integrated system of an organism, which can store and transmit information without occupying its own physical space? If we understand that the formation of molecules and molecular structures occur at the level of electron re-arrangement; that a durable chemical reaction can be viewed as a system of ongoing electron re-arrangement or nuclear restructuring; that the creation, transfer and use of energy between organic systems and structures is closely related to these processes of electron re-arrangement; that our evidence of brain activity is electrical; and that quantum mechanics enables us to deliberately locate, extract and re-arrange individual particles such as electrons and photons; then the possibility of a highly-evolved, organism-wide collaborative system of particle-level re-arrangement to receive, store, extract and transmit information at varying levels of awareness is not such a stretch...
This way (read above) the mind is not the molecules which make it possible, nor is it their spatial organization, their chemical properties, their absolute quantities, or their ratios. The mind would be a process limited by these factors. Once any of these factors changes to an extent which does not support the existence of the mind (the process), the mind stops existing. But what determines the allowed values for such factors?
Well, you guys are the adults here. You should be knowing.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Best excuse I have heard in quite a while.
:chin:
Who knows; not exactly a trivial question, certainly not something that can be answered in a couple comments on an Internet forum. :)
We're not omniscient, nor do we have exhaustive self-knowledge (which are questionable notions in the first place).
Some science fiction writers tell stories about uploading a person's mind to digital devices, yet, such particular consciousness and experiences may have inherent dependencies on the (biological) body, who knows.
:smile: Stay safe. I hope you aren't anywhere near a coronavirus hot zone.
Coming back to the question of mind and whether or not it occupies space, I feel it's a roundabout way of asking whether the mind is immaterial/material, whether it's the brain/something else. Here's something to think about: the mind is unique in that it deals with what are called thoughts and thoughts, no matter how you look at it, have the quality of being immaterial. It appears then that all materialistic theories of the mind are doomed to failure on that point.
If thoughts are immaterial,
would you say that they are immaterial entities which depend on material ones (molecules), and their properties (ratios, absolute quantities, spatial organization, chemical properties), to exist or that they are entirely immaterial and do not depend on any material entity to exist?
Knowing that would end the debate wouldn't it? If you ask me, aligning myself with the OP's line of inquiry, one could ask the question: does a thought have mass and does it occupy space? Possessing mass and volume are essential attributes of matter, ergo, foundational to materialism. Even supposing a good materialsitic theory explains the phenomenon of thinking, it still has to concede that thoughts themselves are immaterial. One could, if one is so inclined, use this simple indubitable fact - the immaterial nature of thoughts/thinking - as a jumping board to make, at the very least, the claim that there is an immaterial aspect to the mind and, if one is creative enough, a lot more could follow.
Yep. :wink:
Quoting TheMadFool
Thanks. Where I live, they are just starting to ease the lockdown that has been in place for 4 months. The main problem here is not really the number of people infected not the deaths, it is the lack of hospital space, staff to man them and medicine to treat people.
The population is less than 10 million, the registered infections are just over 40 thousand and the deaths about 1500.
If the people going back to work do it responsibly there might not be too much trouble as the open more businesses. But we know what people are like, that is not going to happen. The vast majority of the people are poor, and after 4 months of not working will not be taking the precautions necessary.
If I was religious I would probably be saying god help us.
But I will just put my trust in Murphy and keep out of the way.
Neurological processes obviously take up space so that's not your question.
A more interesting question would be; is the thinker-thought pair / the self / the one claiming "I exist" totally dependent on the physiological electrochemical processes in the brain or not?
I would say it is and so the mind does occupy space (and also vanish when the body stops working i.e. dies).
I'll give it a go! The answer is a Hologram, otherwise known in physics as the Holographic Principle. The universe is a time matrix consciousness hologram.
Quoting John Onestrand
So if it takes up space and then disappears, where does it goes when it leaves the body?
So is the mind a hologram? But even if it was, does it occupy space?
Sir2U!
Thanks for your reply! The short answer would be yes and yes. The Hologram is a good analogy because the mind is information and energy. Light is energy in space. Space contains energy.
I read from your previous posts that you were using the computer analogy. Are Qubits like light energy to where its information is conflated with mass and energy (light has no mass but has energy)? And are Qubits essentially flat and two-dimensional like Holograms?
Also, (sorry for all the questions) if information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal?
I think the Hologram Principle has many implications don't you?
(Key concepts are: light, information, space and energy.)
Maybe so, but the brain is chemicals and energy, exactly where is the information? If the information is the combination and arrangement(conflation) of these two it does not occupy any space of its own, therefore would be nothing more than a property of the brain.
Quoting 3017amen
Are holograms supposed to be 3D?
Quoting 3017amen
I am going to wait for the proof that time stands still before commenting on this. But even then I think I would need you to explain exactly what you mean by information.
The electrochemical process take up space much like the electrical grid in your home. It produces heat, light and can be transformed into mechanical energy for appliances (brain activities).
When there's no power to the grid the output stops and the question "where does it goes?" becomes pointless; we don't ask "where does the activity of our vacuum cleaner goes when we pull the plug?".
John Wheeler's PAP and double-slit experiments.
Quoting Sir2u
I think they are 2D.
Quoting Sir2u
I agree with 'maybe so'. The information is in the form of electrical energy (QM) and/or EM field theories of consciousness. Accordingly, space itself contains that information.
Though not completely analogous, just think of audio/visual electromagnetic signals from the air waves/space. Then combine that with the phenomenon of double-slits. Space then contains information and energy. Just like light energy being within space.
As has been explained earlier, electricity is an effect of the movement of electrons and the electrons are part of the conductive material. The electricity then does not take up any more space than the piece of wire.
Quoting John Onestrand
Of course it is pointless to ask where something goes when it was never there in the first place. The wire is exactly the same as it was before, after and during the flow of electricity.
If ten people are passing a couple of balls around the room, is the more or less space occupied when the stop passing it? There is no difference in occupied space only the position of occupation in the room, just as in the material conducting electricity.
The fact that space contains information and energy does not make it conclusive that information and energy occupy space.
Then you would simply have to prove why/how there is something and not nothing.
Just curious, have you studied NeuroQuantology? It's kind of the latest thing in science that combines QM and neuroscience.
I don't have to prove anything because I have not made any declarations that require proof. And what I said does not lead to whether there is something instead of nothing either.
Hold your hand in front of you, it takes up space right. What information is in that space that is separate from the hand that is occupying it. None. The genetic info included in the cells is part of the cells, a property of the cells, and it occupies the same space as the cells. When the body dies, what happens to the information? The basic information that many think is included in atoms and particles is still there, so where did the other stuff go to?
Quoting 3017amen
Does that guarantee that anything they think is true? There are many people that think that while quantum theory could explain things in biology it cannot be applied to the mind. Until someone comes up with some evidence for us to review, I will again reserve my thought on the matter.
Is the mind simply a product of the mind?
An abstraction.
The product of things that are in physical existence. Where does the mind stand if you were to categorize things in existence?
Photons exist but do not occupy space.
Imagine every molecule in your brain. At any given time, every molecule in your brain occupies a particular point/position in the space determined by the extent of your brain; however, not all the volume of your brain is occupied by molecules at any given time. The shape/figure/architecture/distribution of the volume inside your brain which is void of molecules is not the same at any given time since the position of the molecules changes. The volume inside your brain which is void of molecules is constant as long as the number of molecules is kept constant; however, the shape/figure/architecture/distribution of this volume is not constant even when the number of molecules is kept constant. Is it plausible that the shape/figure/architecture/distribution of the volume inside your brain which is void of molecules and its constant change in shape are correlated to the mind?
Okay. Then it sounds like both space contains information and energy, and information and energy occupy space.
Quoting Sir2u
All that describes is the distinction between matter and energy. You haven't made the case that energy somehow doesn't exist, like it does everywhere, and within space.
The Hologram Principle is pretty straightforward.
If the mind is a collection of physical states, then yes, I'd say the mind does occupy a space. But maybe that wasn't your question. Maybe you wanted to know if the mind can be isolated from the brain in some manner.
But matter and energy are the same thing, just in different states.
Quoting 3017amen
Everyone knows that energy exists, and no one is saying that it does not. The discussion is whether the mind occupies space.
If the mind is counted as energy, then it is part of the material of the brain.That makes it a property of the brain and it cannot exist outside of the brain so it cannot itself occupy space.
Banno's red cup has the properties of being red and keeping his coffee hot, neither can exist outside of the cup so they do not occupy any space.
Agreed. That's another reason why the Hologram principle works. And that's because it follows the first law of thermodynamics known as, the Law of Conservation of Energy,.
Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.
And so space contains energy and energy contains space. Add to that QM, PAP, double-slits etc. and the overwhelming evidence suggests the mind is just a microcosm of a larger metaphysical phenomena.
Agreed.
Is the mind affected by time?
Affected as in not working properly due to age or as in responding to the passing of it?
There is no reason to assume that the mind, understood as energy, is confined to the material of the brain.
We attribute properties to conceptual ‘objects’ arbitrarily - Banno’s cup is not the only thing keeping his coffee hot, and it also keeps other items hot that exist outside of the red cup. The cup casts a reflection on the shiny white table that has the property of being red, ‘occupying’ space outside of the red cup that is contingent upon the existence and redness of the cup in relation to the table and the light...
Is the mind timeless? Does it change at all with the passage of time? Or does it always posses the same exact qualities as time progresses?
I would love to hear all about this, please explain why you consider this to be true.
Quoting Possibility
But the cup does not care because the environment's affect on the coffee are not in its properties set.
Quoting Possibility
So if we take the relationship of the cup to its surroundings as a comparison to the mind and its relationship to its surroundings, the energy in the form of heat or reflected light can be projected from the cup and into or upon other objects we can do the same with the energy in the brain?
I cannot wait to hear your explanation of this, even though as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with the question of the mind taking up a space.
The mind would change through time based more on its use than on actual time passing. There is an old saying.
"Twenty years of experience is not the same as a year of experience repeated for twenty years"
The mind would change more with the accumulation of data and learning to process it which differs in individuals. I know several 30 year olds that have the mind of 13 year olds, and at least a couple of 13 year olds that have the mind of much older people.
But if the mind is dependent upon the brain, then as the brain deteriorates so does its ability to run a fully functioning mind.
Quoting Augustusea
You said a while ago that the mind does not occupy space then say it is a physical object. Which is it?
Still stuck on the problem of the brain being the mind are you?
The cup doesn’t care about its own properties set, either. But as humans, we do care about the environment’s effect on those aspects of the environment which we also affect - in terms of distinguishing our own impact (ie. property set) from that of the environment.
Quoting Sir2u
I’ve already commented earlier, but allow me to clarify for this purpose.
Mind, like energy, is potential information that manifests as an event, appearing to ‘occupy’ matter, yet taking up no space of its own. It is a property of the local quantum particle relations, attributed to ‘objects’ with an understandable degree of uncertainty.
So the relationship in question is not that of the cup, but of its energy, as a comparison to the mind and its relationship to the brain and ‘surroundings’. The energy is not solely a property of the cup or the coffee, any more than the mind is solely a property of the brain or the nervous system. It exists as a property of continually changing particle relations in the variably integrated organic system, and manifests as energy events that appear to ‘occupy’ the brain and/or the nervous system depending on the measurement/observation.
That's a great question! If information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from Einstein's relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal (the Hologram Principle)?
Some practical examples of information outside the mind include truly novel discoveries in physics, as well as writing music and/or from our stream of consciousness during everydayness. Theoretical physicist Davies wrote in his book (The Mind of God) that although he had never had such revelatory experiences, he knew some fellow physicists who came up with truly novel formulas seemingly out of nowhere. Unfortunately it didn't happen that often.
Perhaps the analogy there, is that if the so-called platonic realm of mathematics (a timeless truth) comes to a person out of nowhere, it makes you wonder if mathematics is more than just a human invention.
It does occupy a space. It's part of space itself.
Now, if something occupies a space and changes in time (possesses the quality of changing/change), isn't it physical?
Edit: When I ask if information is produced at the speed of light, I am asking if there exists a time interval between a production event and the next or if there isn't.
The mind or consciousness is a result to a process, going on in the brain, not an inherit object with mass itself,
the brain and processes in it do have mass, are affected by space and time,
and as we know no energy truly disappears it just gets transferred into different forms, explaining why death doesn't affect mass.
the mind is a result to a process, that process is physical, the mind is just a result of it, i.e. doesn't have to be physical, and that process in the brain does have mass, and is affected by time and space
Awesome questions!
Are electrons and photons physical? Both, because they are both energy and mass. Much like the brain. Both energy and mass. In short, there is a metaphysical component to all.
Your other questions are quite paradoxical in nature! It makes me think of the question, what is time. What is the nature of time and the perception/phenomenon of it. Just like light-travel and time stopping; time flies when you're having fun :blush: . But in physics, the illusion of time can extend to the nature of energy and information.
Since energy can only be changed, the information within itself is always out there. How can there exist a phenomenon such as the timeless concept of the energy created during the speed of light, when to reach such speeds it requires time in order to achieve it (?). (We are traveling within time to reach a point of timelessness.) Seems paradoxical.
Perhaps the easier answer involves the difference between what we see physically and what we can't see physically (like the wind/air). How about time, can we see time pass?
Honestly, I am having trouble coming to terms with the claim that there can be something which is not physical but which is the product of something physical. By not being physical, it would not occupy a space, and it would be changeless. I think it changes, however.
It is easier for my brain to agree with the following claim:
The mind is the process, the process is physical, and it is affected by time and space.
However, I know that agreeing is not the same as understanding, and I don't feel I understand neither claim.
what I mean in simplified terms is, 1+1 (process) = 2 (result), 2 is actually just the process 1+1, that is correct, but it is also a two.
So there is the brain which is physical, the brain has processes, which are physical, and every process is like 1+1, it has a result, and its result is consciousness or the mind, so in some terms, consciousness is coming from a physical process, but doesn't need to be regarded as physical, you could say it is the process itself, and I wouldn't disagree
So if I decide to give you an answer or leave it and have a beer, there should be something physically different about me? I doubt it.
And that is the problem being discussed, no one disagrees with the rest of it.
Would not this be something like saying that the horsepower of a gasoline engine or its rotation occupy space?
the engine occupies space, the parts occupy space, their rotation required energy
but the rotation in itself is not something that has mass, it doesn't need so
Exactly, the rotation is the result of the energy being used in the motor, just as the mind is the result of energy being used in the brain
I'd say it is obvious that our minds are constantly changing; however, less obvious is our inability to replicate any given thought exactly. Also, I cannot think of two ideas at once; I can think of a car in a park, but I cannot focus on the park and on the car at the same time.
I don't think we ever have the same mental state. If a mental state is physical, then you having a beer is physically different to you writing a comment, even if much doesn't seem to have changed.
*Attitude: a position of the body indicating a particular mental state.
Again, no one disagrees. But are mental state and physical state the same thing?
To say that a mental state is physical, then it would have to be contained in the brain. But which part of the brain do you mean?
To say that the mind is in the atoms of the brain means that the atoms themselves are the mind and therefore the mind does not occupy space because it is the brain and 2 things cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
Quoting Daniel
No, rotation is just the result of the motor running, a property of the engine. If rotation was physical and taking up the same space as the engine there would be a big bang.
Quoting Augustusea
It is the fuel that goes bang freely in all directions. The engine is a machine that constrains that entropic detonation so it produces rotational work that can be entrained to a purpose.
And that rather neatly gets to the heart of the mind~world relation. The "mind" is a neural model that an organism uses to regulate the physics of its environment.
Information processing is always physical. But it is physical in a very particular way. It is a modelling process that reduces its contact with the entropic reality to an interaction via symbols - logical switches that cost the same effort to flick up and down, on and off.
So nature becomes something that can be controlled by the push of a button. It can turn off a light. It can start an engine. It can blow up the world.
The model is able to regulate any kind of physical situation with the same amount of actual physical effort. Just point your finger and push on the button.
So rather than treating "rotation" as another example of epiphenomalism or abstraction - the usual slip-shod arguments for talking past mind~world problems - check out what neuroscience and biology actually say about the "mind as a process".
The mind is a neural model for regulating an organism's environment. That relationship is physical - entropic - as brains are hungry organs that must get fed.
So talking about how much time and space the mind (or even the neural model) occupies is barking up the wrong tree. The correct measure of the mind's physicality is its energy consumption. Or even better, the localised density of negentropy it represents. That would be its raw physical measure.
And then the only way the deal works is because a model has a semiotic or symbolic interface with the world. It interacts with reality through a set of switches that physically zero the effort of turning something on or off.
So the physicality of the world is something that the information processing by the brain is designed to filter out - reduce to a standard constant costs. And that then creates the platform for unlimited regulatory independence. The finger can stab a light switch, a car starter button, the big red button in the White House.
Again, it is about negentropic density. How much physical energy can the thinking mind unleash? That is the proper measure of its physicality. The ability to harness nature with machinery such as engines that can be flicked "on" or "off" at the merest whim.
Quoting apokrisis
So, the mind has Power. Power is defined as the rate with respect to time at which work is done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)). The SI unit of Power is the watt which in SI base units is equal to a (kg x m^2) / s^3. Wouldn't this indicate that the mind has mass?
Minds certainly seem to have considerable inertia. They are very resistance to changes in their line of travel.
Have you studied Dark energy/matter?
Manifest energy events appear to occupy the brain AND/OR nervous system, but that is NOT mind. I think the issue may be that we are trying to define mind by its empirical evidence in time, instead of recognising mind as the quantum-level arrangement of an integrated system in superposition.
I’m leaning towards agreement with apokrisis - measuring the physicality of mind is about potentiality, not about occupying space in time. The light we see in the night sky is not the star itself - that’s only empirical evidence of its manifest energy event at some point in spacetime. The actual star may be long gone - or at least significantly changed - by the time its light reaches our awareness. But the potential physicality of that star is theoretically calculable from what empirical data we do have.
Lisa Feldman Barrett describes the neuroscience of the interoceptive network in relation to an ongoing prediction of affect: arousal (effort) and valence (attention) in the organism, mapped onto the 4D universe as a distribution of energy budget (potential). Mind may then be a process of restructuring particle arrangements to improve future predictions in relation to a limited energy budget.
I would love to see any study/article about so,
in my research I've never noticed a connection to superposition.
That’s because it’s pure speculation. How would one even begin to test such a theory?
Quoting Possibility
I believe it could be tested mathematically only, we cannot actually test a lot on the quantum level,
for me I wouldn't go into the quantum level for consciousness, but its still a possibility I guess.
Quoting Possibility
And as far as I am concerned that wraps it all up.
Almost anything we say here as an answer to the question could and probably should be counted as speculation. If the geniuses don't know yet, I am going to sit around and wait for then to figure it out. :wink:
Yes, that’s all this discussion can be at this stage. But isn’t that what philosophy is, for the most part?
The aim is to reframe the question so that ‘geniuses’ might get closer to a more useful answer - not to have the answer already packaged up for them. If the geniuses don’t know yet, then it stands to reason that the solution lies probably outside the geometric structures and logic that limit their thinking. It will take someone looking at it differently to initiate a paradigm shift.
Is there a specific reason why you wouldn’t?
I don't see the reasoning behind it being in the quantum level, but again it's still a possibility.
You might find Wheeler's PAP interesting then...
got any good reads related to that?
First of all, speculation is not ‘guessing without much thought’. It is theorising about possible answers to a question without sufficient information to be certain.
I agree that mind refers to a concept. The argument that everything that exists does so in space doesn’t preclude the possibility that a concept exists with no definitive location in space - only probabilistic relations. It isn’t so much that a concept doesn’t exist in space, therefore, but that its existence isn’t confined to, or defined by, particular spatial relations at any one moment.
In six-dimensional metaphysics, a body is defined by its varied shape in spacetime, but exists beyond the confines of 2D shape as a set of spatial relations that persists in time. Awareness of this temporal aspect suggests life. A living being is defined by the relative values of its varied spatial relations, but exists beyond the confines of 3D space as a set of events that persists in its value/potential. Awareness of this ‘value’ aspect suggests consciousness. A conscious subject is defined by a purpose to its varied lifespan, but exists beyond the confines of its 4D event as a set of value/conceptual structures that have meaning. Awareness of this aspect of ‘meaning’ suggests self-consciousness...
A book I read a couple of years ago by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner was called ‘Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness’. If you already have a grasp of quantum physics then you could probably skim most of it, but it sets up the possibility of applications of quantum theory outside the realm of physics, particularly in cognitive neuroscience.
I understand as well as perceive my life as existence beyond my body and mind, yes it seems metaphysical. What you're about that makes sense, and though it is articulate, might be jumping to multiple conclusions about consciousness. You're using an unnecessary eloquent way of saying something that can be said in more simple language.
I’m an Arts major and marketing writer - occupational hazard. My aim here was to give a sense of the overall six-dimensional geometry, as I understand it. I’d be interested in seeing it articulated in ‘more simple’ language without losing that sense.
As for jumping to conclusions, this is simply a statement of where my speculation is at. I agree that I might very well be jumping to conclusions at this stage, but I’m open to criticism if you can point out more specifically where you think my understanding fails.
My criticism isn't really that your understanding fails, I know that despite my own certainty of certain aspects of life it's smart for me to acknowledge that I ultimately don't know. My reaction is to the word purpose, the purpose of a living being's varied lifespan, which I admittedly assume that the word purpose has special weight. I don't know that we have a purpose. We do create meaning; socially, culturally and subjectively, but whether or not there's a broader meaning to life, I don't know. You say that awareness of value/conceptual structure that have meaning indicate self-consciousness. I think I understand awareness and consciousness, though both are abstract, but self as well as meaning in the way people typically consider it are questionable to me.
Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that we don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.
Quoting Antonorganizer
A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).
I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...
-Possibility
Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.
-Possibility
This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.
Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.
This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.