yes, that's the point of my comment. You must first decide if something is able to be quantified before quantifying it, which you did not do — ep3265

But I can safely infer that if something isn't mass quantifiable, it can't be material.

@TheMadFool Could something be non mass quantifiable but physical? Light is physical,the mass is?

You're making an appeal to a false system then. My point is that you're using mathematics to prove a non-mathematical element is true. You're using the rules of the universe to prove something outside of the universe is real.

Could something be non mass quantifiable but physical? Light is physical,the mass is? — Asif

Interesting but don't forget that light has other measurable physical properties like wavelength, frequency, intensity, pressure, etc. but thoughts don't.

My point is that you're using mathematics to prove a non-mathematical element is true. — ep3265

The fact that the mind lacks quantifiable (mathematical) properties is the proof of its immaterial nature. In other words the non-mathematical nature is the proof.

@TheMadFool Thoughts and feelings do have intensity and duration. Sound and pressure if you include speaking.

Thoughts and feelings do have intensity and duration. Sound and pressure if you include speaking. — Asif

I think you're confusing thoughts with feelings.

@TheMadFool No. I'm categorizing them as similiar.
Thoughts do have duration and intensity.
The separation of thoughts and feelings is similiar to the difference between slow running and fast running. Legit,but both still a type of movement running.

No. I'm categorizing them as similiar.
Thoughts do have duration and intensity.
The separation of thoughts and feelings is similiar to the difference between slow running and fast running. Legit,but both still a type of movement running. — Asif

Duration/time is not a legitimate physical property. Physical Properties

@TheMadFool I regard duration/time as movement/change. Movement and change are physical properties.

I regard duration/time as movement/change. Movement and change are physical properties. — Asif

Yes, but duration alone isn't a physical property.

@TheMadFool Duration alone? What is duration alone?
All things have duration. And living beings perceive duration.

uration alone? What is duration alone?
All things have duration. And living beings perceive duration. — Asif

Thoughts do have duration and intensity. — Asif

:chin:

What is a mind? Your post certainly has no mass. Perhaps you could include some reasoning as to what a mind is and why it should have mass?

@TheMadFool

The fact that it can't be measured shows that it doesn't exist, not that it does.

At this point, you've said there's no evidence for it existing outside of reality, so therefore it's an argument from assertion, and also an unfalsifiable claim.

What's your definition of mind? It can't be the same as mine.

You've said there's no physical representation of thought? Then what's neuroscience about? Why does the prefrontal cortex light up when people are figuring out what others think or feel?

@ep3265 Do i understand you are saying if it cant be measured it cant exist?
What measuring tape are you using?

What is a mind? Your post certainly has no mass. Perhaps you could include some reasoning as to what a mind is and why it should have mass? — whollyrolling

First off, my post was a misstep. I thought physicalism implied that mind, itself, must be material. It doesn't actually - the mind is just the functional aspect of, as a physicalist would put it, the the brain. In this view, the mind is just the brain doing its thing and needn't have mass.

However, it can be directly appreciated that thoughts are not physical, not even in the sense that light/energy is for thoughts are not measurable in the same way as light/energy is. At the very least, thoughts are, if you insist they're physical, are in a different category of physical than, say, a block of concrete or light or energy.

It may be true that there are physical correlates to thoughts e.g. activity in neurons and synapses and whatnot, these being measurable with instruments but that doesn't diminish the fact that thoughts are, as evidenced by experiencing them, not the same as what are familiar to us as physical. Even if it were possible to exactly match each thought to something physical in the brain, it would still be true that what's directly perceivable in thinking/thoughts is, unquestionably, nonphysical.

The fact that it can't be measured shows that it doesn't exist, not that it does. — ep3265

Good point but that's presupposing physicalism.

'Mind' is a label for something the existence of which is speculative. How we perceive thoughts is not necessarily how they occur, and we can only imagine them occurring without a brain, which is further speculation. Many things were not familiar to us as physical and now are just that--physical. I agree that correlation isn't solid evidence, so to say that thoughts are physical is speculation as well. I can't begin to say that I understand how or why we've become self-aware, which is really what's led to our notion of 'non-physical' things, although I have pondered it extensively.

That being said, I don't 'believe' that anything exists or can be discussed which is not a direct result of some physical process, and physically linked, physically dependent in some way.

Do i understand you are saying if it cant be measured it cant exist?
What measuring tape are you using? — Asif

No, if it can't be measured using mathematics, then using mathematics to prove its existence isn't going to work. I get what you mean and I will retract my statement of lack of measurement being reason for nonexistence.

Good point but that's presupposing physicalism. — TheMadFool

Good point.

However, using mathematics to prove something non-mathematical isn't going to solve your problem.

However, using mathematics to prove something non-mathematical isn't going to solve your problem. — ep3265

The nonmathematical (unquantifiable) nature of mind is the proof.

1. All physical things are quantifiable (mathematical) things

Ergo,

2. All non-quantifiable things are nonphysical things

3. All minds are non-quantifiable things

Ergo

4. All minds are nonphysical things

All non-quantifiable things are nonphysical things

I wouldn't necessarily assert that, but sure.

All minds are non-quantifiable things — TheMadFool

I definitely disagree with this premise. You mean to tell me we cannot quantify the firing of neurons, or the lighting up of the brain? These are clearly linked to thoughts correct?

What about color? Can we quantify color? Actually, yes. We can show which parts of the brain light up when one color is shown. We can also take a biometric look at the lenses associated with the eyes.

My stating of it being "non-quantifiable" is using your definition of mind. We can quantify "thoughts", but you and I are committing an equivocation fallacy. Mind is the thoughts and the brain matter, as well as the neurons and perception of the host, from my definition. You're using thoughts as your metric, but aren't thoughts created in conjunction with brain matter? Aren't thoughts ACTUALLY brain matter?

My question, I guess, is what is your definition of mind?

I definitely disagree with this premise. You mean to tell me we cannot quantify the firing of neurons, or the lighting up of the brain? These are clearly linked to thoughts correct? — ep3265

Are you thinking about something right now?

Of course you are.

Kindly quantify whatever it is that you're thinking about?

Note that I'm not denying the reality of physical correlates like nueronal activation that can be quantified; what I'm asking for is some physical interpretation of thought itself.

Note that I'm not denying the reality of physical correlates like nueronal activation that can be quantified; what I'm asking for is some physical interpretation of thought itself. — TheMadFool

Information cannot be destroyed. If, given we know in which way the brain interpreted information, then the physical representation can therefore be translated to us. Feelings, factual information, philosophical thoughts, all can be interpreted to an experience in some sense.

Simply because we lack a tool of which to interpret feelings to another's experience, doesn't therefore mean it is outside our universe. It just means we don't know how to quantify qualities, or we know how to quantify it, but not quantify it to a universal metric, then reinterpret it to someone's personal experience.

Information cannot be destroyed. If, given we know in which way the brain interpreted information, then the physical representation can therefore be translated to us. Feelings, factual information, philosophical thoughts, all can be interpreted to an experience in some sense.

Simply because we lack a tool of which to interpret feelings to another's experience, doesn't therefore mean it is outside our universe. It just means we don't know how to quantify qualities, or we know how to quantify it, but not quantify it to a universal metric, then reinterpret it to someone's personal experience. — ep3265

Agreed!

Information cannot be destroyed. If, given we know in which way the brain interpreted information, then the physical representation can therefore be translated to us. Feelings, factual information, philosophical thoughts, all can be interpreted to an experience in some sense. — ep3265

This suggests, rather strongly, that the entirety of existence is interpretive. And interpretation applies as much to human science as every other aspect of human perception. Since everything is a product of interpretation, how can we presume that ANYTHING is absolute?

Well, we can presume only because of the absolute tremendous amount of indicative evidence gained through science by using inductive reasoning.

Oh so you agree? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point of view on the matter. Or I changed your mind!

Well, we can presume only because of the absolute tremendous amount of indicative evidence gained through science by using inductive reasoning. — ep3265

“Evidence” and subsequent “inductive reasoning” are dependent upon perception, even if apparatus is used (we have to perceive what the equipment tells us). Everything EVER recorded by humans had to have been as such, so quantity is irrelevant. Still, our reasoning certainly has value if only to exercise our capacity to think.

However, unless thought creates, thinking alone cannot reveal to us what may or may not be absolute. It is merely a guess. Again, to paraphrase Obi Wan, “Your perceptions can deceive you. Don’t trust them”.

My Mind is not physical. — TheMadFool

Huh? Can the same not be said for a stack of dominos. They all weigh the same together but when ordered a certain way they all fall on top of each other and can cause a chain reaction that could result in turning on a switch or whatever.
Unless you're going to get into the Achilles/Tortoise idea that action is not physical/quantifiable I can't see how it's true.

Oh so you agree? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point of view on the matter. Or I changed your mind! — ep3265

It just means we don't know how to quantify qualities, or we know how to quantify it — ep3265

The mind could be the brain so no issue there with physicalism. However, thoughts are evidently very different to brains - we can't touch them, we can't weigh them, we can't measure their dimensions, and so on.

There are two kinds of the physical - matter and waves - we have to take into account. There's matter, things like the brain, which has mass (and occupies space) - thoughts don't have mass so, that's that. Then there are waves, which are considered physical like light or electromagnetic waves but are massless but the difference between waves and thoughts is that the former are measurable in terms of frequency, wavelength, etc. and the latter, thoughts, have no (known) similarly quantifiable properties.