Mind is that which creates. Without memory it would feel as if one is unconscious or between dream states, where there is no sense of duration, however it is still there and can awaken and reach for memory via the body it had created. This might also be the state of death.

Can you not feel conscious without memory? In fact I would think that we would even more conscious without memory.

This might also be the state of death. — Rich

So in essence the mind cannot perish? In some way the mind is eternal?

What is mind?

Never matter.

What is matter?

Never mind.

I'm just not sure we can talk intelligently about this, because we can't experience anything about our minds when the mind isn't working away full blast. So, when you say "what is the mind without its content" what do you even mean?

We know from experience that when we give people certain anesthetic drugs (an + aisthēsis, sensation) systemically they become unconscious. When they wake up they have no memory from the period of unconsciousness. Sleep is similar, but we often wake up with what we believe are memories from that state -- dreams.

When we wire up the box in which the mind is presumably located, we know that whatever is going on inside the box keeps going on during sleep, and anesthesia, though not quite the same as when the person is awake. The EEG trace is not something we can read to see what we were thinking about, if anything.

FMRIs provide similar information about what is going on in the box, whether we are awake or not.

We can't get outside of our heads to objectively view our minds, and we can't directly observe somebody else's mind.

If we switch to what the brain is doing, we can make a little more sense of what is going on.

When the mind is vacant of thought, perception, ideas, concepts, etc, it is asleep or maybe more simply not overthinking.

I'm just not sure we can talk intelligently about this, because we can't experience anything about our minds when the mind isn't working away full blast. So, when you say "what is the mind without its content" what do you even mean? — Bitter Crank

We as philosophers should not shy away from investigating matters such as these just because it appears to be unintelligent.

You are speaking about the brain as if it is synonymous with the mind. The brain always has activity, activity that we are mostly unconscious of. The brain itself is just a highly complex system of matter, it does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.

So lets focus on the immaterial aspect of the mind, we have perceptions, we have continuous narrations and self talk, we have a large array of images and sounds but if the mind were absent of all these qualities could we still say there is a mind that is present?

I would lean more to it being asleep however sleep implies unconsciousness. I would maybe use the word resting, because you can rest and still be conscious.

The mind is a form of working memory. Working memory includes the aspect of attention, or a central executive - the thing that wanders around the mind focusing on, or amplifying, certain signals, or qualia, that are relevant to accomplishing some goal.

So lets focus on the immaterial aspect of the mind, we have perceptions, we have continuous narrations and self talk, we have a large array of images and sounds but if the mind were absent of all these qualities could we still say there is a mind that is present? — Fumani

These are all software features, as is consciousness.

Can you not feel conscious without memory? In fact I would think that we would even more conscious without memory.

This might also be the state of death.
— Rich

So in essence the mind cannot perish? In some way the mind is eternal? — Fumani

I cannot say that when I am in an unconscious state I feel anything and there doesn't appear to be memory in the manner I normally experience it. But there is definitely something there because I do wake up!

Yes, the Mind appears to be eternal. It continues in many forms. But more than this, personal memory is persistent and we can actually observe it as interested, inborn, innate traits. We are all different because of the way our memory evolves.

Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide, and act.

The brain itself is just a highly complex system of matter, it does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.

--@Fumani

Incorrect.

What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties? — Fumani

I think, from a physical point of view, there is no such thing as a mind if you think it as having an existence independent of the brain.

When we see an umbrella we think ''sun/rain protection'' but that's just man-made functional attribute. There isn't anything real about ''sun/rain protection''. Similarly, the mind is just a function of the brain. It lacks any real, brain-independent existence. The brain=umbrella and ''sun/rain protection''=the mind.

So, the question could be accused of arising from a misconception - the false belief that the mind is something real and of which we could ask questions.

However, there are n number of possibilities. There could be a mind and it could be independent of the brain but then it begs the question ''how can we engage in meaningful discourse with mere speculation?'' Perhaps we need mystical knowledge. Could there be such a thing?

I think, from a physical point of view, there is no such thing as a mind if you think it as having an existence independent of the brain. — TheMadFool

From the physical point of view we cannot perceive the mind yes, but we can always see the physical effects that it has on matter.

When we see an umbrella we think ''sun/rain protection'' but that's just man-made functional attribute. There isn't anything real about ''sun/rain protection''. Similarly, the mind is just a function of the brain. It lacks any real, brain-independent existence. The brain=umbrella and ''sun/rain protection''=the mind — TheMadFool

You are making the assumption that the mind is the function of the brain. Just because mental states correlate with the brain it does not mean there is a causation. I would flip the script an say that it is the mind that is senior to the brain. Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.

However, there are n number of possibilities. There could be a mind and it could be independent of the brain but then it begs the question ''how can we engage in meaningful discourse with mere speculation?'' Perhaps we need mystical knowledge. Could there be such a thing? — TheMadFool

In fact we can engage this matter appropriately, we can apply the knowledge that we attain from phenomenology to this case it needn't be mystical. We can attempt at perceiving the world without interpreting the data with our minds but through directexperience

you need to choose a ground of belief to talk about it. It's too big a question.
Let's start with this point

but we can always see the physical effects that it has on matter. — Fumani

does that mean you can still stand on the ground of modern physics and talk about mind? I doubt very much. What we "see" is not always a good proof.

Well it can actually hold ground in quantum physics, just another rendition of physics. The observer has an effect on the substance of matter.

But that still does not make the mind an independent entity from the brain.

Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.

Or, more logically, mental states are an experience caused by those chemicals.
And your above quote still does not answer the question: how do you "see" the effects of the mind on matter?
Another question. Do you believe that a flatworm has a mind? How about a grasshopper? Or an iguana, or a chimpanzee? Or is it only humans?

Or, more logically, mental states are an experience caused by those chemicals — bioazer

Why is it more logical to infer that the chemicals are causing the mental states? It seems as if your basic assumption is that matter is senior to the intangible universe. Just because the brain demonstrates physiological changes that match mental states does not mean the brain is creating those mental states. How did you calculate this? Did you measure the brains electrical speed or the speed of the mind?

And your above quote still does not answer the question: how do you "see" the effects of the mind on matter? — bioazer

Many experiments have been done that have demonstrated the effect the brain has on matter.

Another question. Do you believe that a flatworm has a mind? How about a grasshopper? Or an iguana, or a chimpanzee? Or is it only humans? — bioazer

I believe they do, the mind is not solely reserved for human beings. Our minds maybe more complex but mind is a field that is shared.

The mind is the soul, or a physical representation of it. This may be proven false later on but until then I believe this is the best answer.

Just because the brain demonstrates physiological changes that match mental states does not mean the brain is creating those mental states. How did you calculate this? Did you measure the brains electrical speed or the speed of the mind?

No, I did not. But neurologists have done so hundreds of times.
Clearly you have not done your homework.
Those "physiological changes" you talk about occur before the "mental states" with which they correlate.

Many experiments have been done that have demonstrated the effect the brain has on matter.

I'd love to see your sources.

I believe they do, the mind is not solely reserved for human beings.

So if a flatworm has a mind, does an amoeba? How about a plant? Or a bacteria? Or a virus? Or bovine spongiform encephalopathy? How do you draw a line between what is and is not a "mind"?

"Mind" means several things. Sometimes it means mental imagery and thoughts, sometimes it means more of a process (the computing powers of the brain), or the particular individual's style of mental processes and expressions.

The most general meaning that sort of fits with all these (though not in any really tight, essentialist way) is probably that the mental is marked by intentionality ("aboutness") - i.e. out of all the contents of experience, some are about others, or refer to others, and those are the mental contents of experience.

Another way of saying this might be that the mind is like an engine for processing symbols, or just the processing of symbols, full stop. "Processing" here would mean: shuffling symbols around in ordered ways. The leanest distillation of this would be that the mind is an algorithm (recipe) for shuffling symbols around, and one's own mind differs from other minds in its particular style of symbol shuffling (while still sharing some methods of symbol shuffling - like the rules of maths or language - with others).

I think the question you're asking might be better put as "what is consciousness without its contents?" And that touches on questions of experiential mysticism and non-duality. And here we're at the limits of what can be talked about: one can say either that consciousness without contents isn't anything, or that there's something left over, that might be called "capacity" or "awake/knowing space" or something of that nature. Both ideas have their merits and problems.

That may be true with conscious attention, but conscious attention is just one facet of the mind, what about the sub conscious? Have neurologists studied the speed of its operations?

I'd love to see your sources. — bioazer

Read up on the observer effect. You do know that there is a section in the brain that takes the impression that it received from electrical signals and creates the world that you see?

So if a flatworm has a mind, does an amoeba? How about a plant? Or a bacteria? Or a virus? Or bovine spongiform encephalopathy? How do you draw a line between what is and is not a "mind"? — bioazer

This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence? Can we not say that every organism shares that propensity? Yes our minds maybe more complex I am not denying it however it still functions as a tool for the organism.

I think the question you're asking might be better put as "what is consciousness without its contents?" — gurugeorge

But mind and consciousness can be studied separately, consciousness is a whole other subject. Unless your saying that the mind is just an expression of consciousness?

This is bred by the human condition to differentiate things, look can we not agree that mind is an intelligence that assists the organism to navigate its way through existence? — Fumani

I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary.

what about the sub conscious? Have neurologists studied the speed of its operations?

Yes.

Read up on the observer effect. You do know that there is a section in the brain that takes the impression that it received from electrical signals and creates the world that you see?

That is literally what the linked article is about.
And the reason I linked said article was to refute your claim that the brain's impulses are only reactions to some kind of spiritual "mind state." Yes. You are correct. The brain processes information and synthesizes conscious experience, in that order-- but previously, you claimed that

[the brain] does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.

and

Just because mental states correlate with the brain it does not mean there is a causation. I would flip the script an say that it is the mind that is senior to the brain. Mental states determine the chemicals that the brain secretes to add resonance to that mental state.

I see no evidence of any of these (entirely speculative) claims in the given facts.

I would say mind is the organism appearing in different subtle form. It is continuous from the most ethereal to the most solid and extends out without a clear boundary. — Rich

Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind?

[the brain] does not account for experience. Experience is the domain of the mind because experience is immaterial and the contents of the mind are immaterial as well.

Yes I still stand by this statement, experience is immaterial the brains functionings are material, we can observe the electrical surges and see the changes in the cortexes, but can we do the same for experience? Experience by definition is qualitative, can we quantify this?

Yes. You are correct. The brain processes information and synthesizes conscious experience, in that orde — bioazer

Okay I can agree with conscious experience, what about the unconscious? We are studying how quickly we register information compared to the brains registering of set information, we are not taking into account the unconscious aspect of the mind that interprets information faster than conscious attention and potentially registers information before the brain demonstrates a change.

What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties? — Fumani

A hazy concept either wrongfully co-opted from a "common psychology" in current philosophy, or condoned by by a refusal to move to the newer paradigm of animal cognition.

The use of 'mind' is excusable in phenomenology, epistemology and ontology as a shorthand for 'all the cognitive functions of the brain relevant to the conversation', but otherwise, in proper theory of the mind, or cognitive science, it has no place anymore.

Okay that makes sense, so are you implying that the mind is not solely linked to organisms? That inanimate objects are capable of possessing a mind? — Fumani

Inanimate objects are debris of the mind. Life is gone. Possibly just a bit left which would be the decay half-life. Life can recycle February by consuming it, e.g. minerals.

But mind and consciousness can be studied separately, consciousness is a whole other subject. Unless your saying that the mind is just an expression of consciousness? — Fumani

I think they're rather just two ways of looking at something - one (consciousness) has a more passive connotation (it receives content), whereas the other (mind) has a more active connotation (it manipulates content).