so... examples? Elaboration? No? Maybe you're not even sure what you meant by that claim yourself?

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.

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? — 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?

what kind of space would it be?

The wind is not 'material' nor does it have a shape nor a fixed location but it is definately physical and interacts with matter. — 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?

@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.

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.

so... examples? — Enai De A Lukal

Examples of what?

What are you trying to achieve?

(love your name btw, not sure why but it brings me great joy whenever I see it) — Outlander

lol

but that is subjective — Outlander

Isn't just about everything in philosophy subjective? (including the concept of objective)

it doesn't make a whole great deal of sense to say something can both exist and not exist. — 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.

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).

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?

Isn't just about everything in philosophy subjective? (including the concept of objective) — A Seagull

So, is there a limit for the human mind?

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.

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.

Come on @A Seagull, help me out lol.

So, is there a limit for the human mind? — Daniel

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.

Come on A Seagull, help me out lol. — Outlander

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.

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? — Outlander

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.

To answer this question we should surely try to figure out what the mind IS, right? — oni

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?

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).

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.

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. — Echarmion

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.