The fact that in REM sleep we're not conscious of ourselves, like we are when awake, means that the defining characteristic of mind, self-awareness, is missing in it. Ergo, this ability to recognize our own existence can't be a brain-activity phenomenon. — TheMadFool
When I'm flying in a dream, for instance, I know that it's me flying. — praxis
Also, I don't believe that self-awareness is the defining characteristic of a mind. — praxis
I'm mainly concerned about the brain activity being the same between awake and REM sleep states. If the mind is the brain, we should be conscious on both occasions but we're not. — TheMadFool
Let's suppose the mind = brain and that physicalism is true. — TheMadFool
What are the physical properties of thoughts? — TheMadFool
At the very least, something - thoughts - aren't physical at all. — TheMadFool
But that is not what I said. — apokrisis
They would be the physical results of those thoughts (plus the general but small constant cost of keeping the brain running as the pattern generator). — apokrisis
The only reason you see no physics here is because you refuse to look. Where is the evidence that thoughts aren't physical "at all" when they are "all about" information patterns that need to be able to manage the physics of the world in real-time? — apokrisis
I'm not sure what else to tell you sir. I've pointed to two articles which have shown physical properties we can track to measure thoughts. — Philosophim
I've answered your questions. If you want me to add further answers, you're going to have to do more then just repeat the same question. — Philosophim
Those are physical correlates of thinking and not thoughts themselves. — TheMadFool
I ask tne two of you again the simple question: what are the physical properties of thoughts? — TheMadFool
You simply ask an incoherent question if your notion of physics is as limited as your notion of mind — apokrisis
Then what do you mean by "consciousness"?I'm mainly concerned about the brain activity being the same between awake and REM sleep states. If the mind is the brain, we should be conscious on both occasions but we're not. — TheMadFool
Hah. It would look like a pattern - a pattern of entropy dissipation - of course. Everything physical looks more like a process, a "mindful" flow, if viewed on the right scale to reveal its causal structure. — apokrisis
1. Mind
2. The trajectory a water molecule makes in a drop of water. And the set of all possible trajectories.
3. The trajectory a planet follows around its star. And the set of all celestial trajectories.
4. The trajectory this comment follows to go from my screen to your screen. And all trajectories that information follows in the www*.
*edit: internet — Daniel
why don't you argue how thoughts are not physical, and give your evidence? — Philosophim
Then what do you mean by "consciousness"? — Harry Hindu
Can we do something similar with thoughts? — TheMadFool
Well, if you were able to measure the trajectories that brain molecules follow inside the brain throughout a given thought, then I think these trajectories would not be the same for every thought and similar thoughts would be represented by similar trajectories (given that molecular composition is held constant). Thus, every thought would be represented by a set of molecular trajectories particular to such thought.
Keep in mind that I am oversimplifying the matter since the composition of the molecules and environmental factors would also determine the nature of thoughts. The set of possible molecular trajectories would change with molecular composition, and, for example, with internal temperature (which in turn changes throughout the day-night cycle). — Daniel
thoughts are supervenient — Philosophim
If you want to have a serious discussion, or figure out new questions and answers about the mind, I would start there. — Philosophim
What do you mean by "self"? The mind, the body, the brain? Is a fly aware of its body, but not its mind or brain? Then you're taking about awareness. How can an immaterial thing be aware of material things? — Harry Hindu
Ok. That's how it looks and I won't disagree but if given to categorize a list of items, say, "thoughts", "water", "iron", "number", you surely wouldn't put "thoughts" in the same class as "water" and "iron". The question is, why not? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.