‘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. — Sir2u

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?

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. — Francis

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. — Sir2u

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:

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

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

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.

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**. — 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.

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:

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.

, 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. — Sir2u

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?

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.

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. — Sir2u

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. — Isaac

Yep, there is no such thing as a soul.

Relax bud I was just curious what he was asking for, I have a finite amount of time.

Is there anyone alive that does not?

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. — Sir2u

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...

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.

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?

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: — Sir2u

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

more or less yes because you occupy space

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

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Best excuse I have heard in quite a while.

Best excuse I have heard in quite a while. — Sir2u

:chin:

what determines the allowed values for such factors? — Daniel

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.

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.

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. — Sir2u

: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.