If the mind changes, why not consider it a physical entity? — Daniel

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.

...answers on the back of an envelope in ten words or less. — Banno

Sealed with a $10 bill inside. And forget the return address.

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? — Daniel

Still stuck on the problem of the brain being the mind are you?

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? — Daniel

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 — Augustusea

You said a while ago that the mind does not occupy space then say it is a physical object. Which is it?

There is no reason to assume that the mind, understood as energy, is confined to the material of the brain. — Possibility

I would love to hear all about this, please explain why you consider this to be true.

We attribute properties to conceptual ‘objects’ arbitrarily - Banno’s cup is not the only thing keeping his coffee hot, . — Possibility

But the cup does not care because the environment's affect on the coffee are not in its properties set.

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... — 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.

Is the mind affected by time? — Daniel

Affected as in not working properly due to age or as in responding to the passing of it?

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 — Augustusea

Agreed.

All that describes is the distinction between matter and energy. — 3017amen

But matter and energy are the same thing, just in different states.

You haven't made the case that energy somehow doesn't exist, like it does everywhere, and within space. — 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.

Then you would simply have to prove why/how there is something and not nothing. — 3017amen

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?

It's kind of the latest thing in science — 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.

Space then contains information and energy. Just like light energy being within space. — 3017amen

The fact that space contains information and energy does not make it conclusive that information and energy occupy space.

The electrochemical process take up space much like the electrical grid in your home. — John Onestrand

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; — 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.

We could add a new verse about crooked necked, hunch shoulder, half blind people as well to bring it up to date.



Read the comments under the video.

https://www.final-materials.com/gb/379-crucibles

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

Check the temperatures of the metals against the capabilities of the different types of crucibles.

The Hologram is a good analogy because the mind is information and energy. — 3017amen

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.

flat and two-dimensional like Holograms — 3017amen

Are holograms supposed to be 3D?

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? — 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.

There’s no accounting for esurient hearts. — praxis

Give them all a heart shaped cookie/biscuit.

Pareidolia — praxis

Would seeing an image of Trump or Boris and thinking leader count?

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. — 3017amen

So is the mind a hologram? But even if it was, does it occupy space?

Neurological processes obviously take up space so that's not your question. — John Onestrand

I would say it is and so the mind does occupy space (and also vanish when the body stops working i.e. dies). — John Onestrand

So if it takes up space and then disappears, where does it goes when it leaves the body?

the Central Intelligence Agency, whom I suspect to be monitoring me. — thewonder

This is interesting, very interesting. May one inquire why you think this?

I already knew the answer guys, but because it is the WORD of the DAY common sense would dictate the word be defined or at least used in an example sentence.

I've ejaculated a poetic idiom with double entendre. — Nils Loc

Get your hands out of your pockets. :wink:

:smirk: :wink:

Anyway, the word is turbidity. — Noble Dust

What does it mean? Or do I have to google it. :gasp:

Google now accepted as a verb. Seems a bit bloody stupid though.

Wrong. There would be a corresponding change in the mass between a living brain, which itself includes electrical current, and a dead brain, which does not. — Banno

Electrical current and electrons are not quite the same, electrical current is the movement of electrons.

The electrons would still be in the body but static instead of flowing.

Hence the only difference between a dead mind and a live one would be the bio-chemical-electrical actions and reactions of the life body. The dead mind would have none of them.
Movement of electrons does not cause change to weight, to which the OP refers.
It does possibly cause change to volume through the chemical reactions, but weight and volume are not the same.

When Facebook figures out how to do smell, everyone will be as disappointing as they really are. — Philomena Cunk

Ain't dat de trut mon. :lol: :rofl:

It appears then that all materialistic theories of the mind are doomed to failure on that point. — TheMadFool

Yep. :wink:

:smile: Stay safe. I hope you aren't anywhere near a coronavirus hot zone. — 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.

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.

Who or what stop someone from trying to get ahead or perhaps even steal. Who controls them? — Outlander

So I suppose you are finding it easy to get ahead in the world, soon to be a millionaire I presume.:smirk:

You can create a system like that, but you won't be able to control it for very long. — Outlander

A system where all are truly equal though education would need no control. Ignorance is what allows people to be controlled.

Well, you guys are the adults here. You be knowing. — TheMadFool

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Best excuse I have heard in quite a while.

Is there anyone alive that does not?

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. — Isaac

Yep, there is no such thing as a soul.

What possible reason would we have for believing there's anything more to it than that? — Isaac

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.

There's no one way. If you're interested in that, you've certainly found a way to help. — David Mo

I am a teacher, I try to do my part.

What are the terrorists doing here? To end the terrorism of the multinationals? Terrorism against terrorism, I don't think it's a good idea. — David Mo

I just mentioned them as a side thought.
If I was terrorist and I wanted to bring down a multi-national empire I would not even have to kill people to do it.
If I put bombs in 20 Pizza Hut places around the world and blow them up when they are empty, only property damage would occur. Then I make an announcement that the next 20 bombs will blow up while the place are full and that they might be any where around the world.

Would you go buy pizza?

Blow up a few more over the next few months and no one wants a Pizza Hut concession any more. Down they go.

Am I wrong? — Outlander

I think so.

Ironic how backwards and detrimental doing so would be toward preventing corruption, The utopia you imagine is actually a dystopia of the worst kind. I have a feeling people confuse eliminating corruption with eliminating people talking or knowing about it. — Outlander

First of all, I do not imagine utopia. Humans today are completely incapable of creating it.

How could eliminating ignorance of any kind cause problems. Education of all kinds is necessary for the advancement of people. If the people advance intellectually it will eventually lead to the end of corruption.

Eliminating superstition can do no harm at all. Don't you think that it would be wonderful if everyone got the vaccine shots they needed to stop things like measles spreading. Myths like the vaccine causes autism are stopping lots of kids from getting their shots.
Would it not also be wonderful if certain peoples' belief in myths allowed them to continue mutilating the genital of their young. Oh, sorry. No it would not be so bloody wonderful would it. That would be barbaric.
And also the myths about certain races being better than others would have to go, but unfortunately that would mean that the idea that certain religions are better than others would also have to be eliminated.

Defend that things can exist as properties of physical objects or defend that properties of physical objects do not occupy space? — Francis

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.

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: — TheMadFool

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:

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**. — 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.

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. — 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.

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? — 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.

How is knowledge of success constructed by schools, — iloveparis

School try to give students the tool they will need to be successful. The key word there is try. Not all schools try the same way or as hard to do their job.

Put an end to ignorance and superstition (especially religious). — David Mo

I saved this one for last. Find a way and sign me up to help.