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

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.

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? — 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?

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?

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. — Sir2u

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. — 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.

Is the mind affected by time? — Daniel

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.

If the mind is affected by time, shouldn't it also occupy a space? — Daniel

It does occupy a space. It's part of space itself.

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.

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? — Sir2u

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? — Daniel

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.

Such is an argument from incredulity,

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

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.

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. — Possibility

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 — Augustusea

Would not this be something like saying that the horsepower of a gasoline engine or its rotation occupy space?

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

but the rotation in itself is not something that has mass, it doesn't need so — Augustusea

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

Yes I would agree, that is exactly my position

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.

but isn't the rotation confined to a space?

the disk rotating is, the actual process of rotating isn't necessarily.

I'd say it is obvious that our minds are constantly changing; — Daniel

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.

but isn't the rotation confined to a space? — 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.

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. — Sir2u

the disk rotating is, the actual process of rotating isn't necessarily. — 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.

The correct measure of the mind's physicality is its energy consumption. — 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?

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? — Daniel

Minds certainly seem to have considerable inertia. They are very resistance to changes in their line of travel.

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? — Daniel

Have you studied Dark energy/matter?

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.
— Possibility

And that is the problem being discussed, no one disagrees with the rest of it. — Sir2u

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.