If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind? — Daniel

Not true, fluids occupy a space but dont have a strictly limited boundary. You could stretch them out in almost any configuration all the way down to just an atom thick or condense them into the smallest compartment possible. Yes theres an ultimate limit to the number of atoms of liquid but almost infinite possibilities for configuration.

The problem with the mind is that if you look at everything a body does, some specific things that happen in minds, like what the color red looks like, are nowhere to be found. — Echarmion

I'm not sure if they are "no where to be found" so much as we dont know what we are looking at when we observe an fMRI scan of the brain during activity. We are likely looking at exactly what red looks like to the person but because we have no way of reading or decoding these electrical signals into a language we can understand we might as well be looking at the ocean and trying to see the currents.

Secondly personality/individualism- or the way in which ones brain is wired, processes, stores and perceives information is unique for each individual like a neural fingerprint so why on earth would we expect the micro structure of brains to be organised the same... that the same colour red uses the same neurons to perceive it and not more or less or in a slightly different location etc. I'm left handed and just that alone means that my right motor cortex contains more neurons than the left one. That alone would have huge implications for any neurons connected to the motor cortex and so on in a cascade of differences

is? I am asking this because it seems that everything that occupies a space is limited — Daniel

This seems a bit redundant because you could argue that the universe occupies space... but what space... the space of the universe, ie. it occupies itself - it's self-contained. So the limit is completely set/dictated by itself. And then what occupies outside the universe if it has a limit?

Limits or boundaries are between things that have boundaries. I dont believe space inherently has a boundary but that rather they are generated with the existence of things within space. A limit cannot exist outside something which by itself (vacuum) has nothing to discriminate a boundary -no mass, no energy, no heat etc.

What about things that do not fit into either of the categories 'exist' or 'not exist'.
— A Seagull

What things would those be? — Pantagruel

Money for example. In some tribes the concept of a standardised currency doesnt exist. But for most of the world it does. But wait it only exists when you believe it does. When you stop believing in the value of money it doesnt exist. So "to whom" is the "existence" relevant? Who do we believe when we try to qualify the existence if money? How does money "exist" or not "exist?" It has both a material and symbolic component. Both of which can "exist." And both of which can be made redundant/ discarded and no longer "exist".

It seems some things can exist and not exist simultaneously depending on what perspective is used to measure it.

Money for example. In some tribes the concept of a standardised currency doesnt exist. But for most of the world it does. But wait it only exists when you believe it does. When you stop believing in the value of money it doesnt exist. So "to whom" is the "existence" relevant? Who do we believe when we try to qualify the existence if money? How does money "exist" or not "exist?" It has both a material and symbolic component. Both of which can "exist." And both of which can be made redundant/ discarded and no longer "exist".

It seems some things can exist and not exist simultaneously depending on what perspective is used to measure it. — Benj96

This doesn't explain to me how something exists and does not exist. You are talking about whether a concept is known or unknown, not whether it exists or does not exist. The category of existence (and it's dyadic opposite) is plenary by definition. Once you abandon that framework, you are simply talking about something other than existence!

In that sense, it ‘occupies’ all of the spacetime that I do - although all of this spacetime that I consist of need not occupy all of this mind. — Possibility

So basically you think your whole body contains your mind?

Data surely occupies space in the computer. This space may be no larger or less than it was previously but rather a specific pattern or configuration of "on" switches and "off" switches but no less the information occupies the space of the computer in a certain encrypted order. — Benj96

This reminds me of the guy that wanted his laptop cleaning out completely because it was to heavy to carry.
Data in a computer does not occupy any space at all.

This is why I said that someone needs to define what exactly space is supposed to be in this context.

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind? — Daniel

If consciousness is related to a type of working memory, then you could say that the finite information in working memory occupies memory space.

If there are other minds then it seems to be necessarily so that each mind occupies its own space. My mind does not overlap your mind or else how could we say that our minds are separate?

If there are other minds then it seems to be necessarily so that each mind occupies its own space. — Harry Hindu

If there are other minds only implies that they are separate, you cannot conclude that they occupy a space from that.

My mind does not overlap your mind or else how could we say that our mind are separate? — Harry Hindu

My computer memory does not overlap with yours, but I cannot prove that they occupy a space either.

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

Great question.

Consider that in consciousness during human cognition when neurons interact with each other they end up having a weight to them. Then consider the computer analogy where memory is full and presumably there is no more space.

Then also consider when two computers are talking to each other like on a lan Network they presumably are occupying a 'simultaneous space'. This could be further analogized to going to a concert being in the same space and time having reactions to the same music being heard. Music itself is conveyed through space-time and the harmonics of moving air.

This little synopsis seems to suggests space is required for the mind to function and presumably exist.

So basically you think your whole body contains your mind? — Sir2u

No. The body cannot contain the mind, because the spatial aspect of the mind need not be confined to the body.

The spatial location of the mind is a ‘fuzzy’ concept. The highest probability of ‘measuring’ it at any one time would locate the mind in the brain, but neither the brain nor the body appears to necessarily contain it.

do you think there is a definition which would encompass every space there is? like, is there a feature which is common to all spaces so that they all can be classified as such in terms of such feature? does my question make sense?

If there are other minds only implies that they are separate, you cannot conclude that they occupy a space from that. — Sir2u

Also, if they are separate, what does this mean? I mean, to be separate, wouldn't they have to occupy a different point in some kind of space?

No. The body cannot contain the mind, because the spatial aspect of the mind need not be confined to the body. — Possibility

So the mind of a person can be outside of the body?

The spatial location of the mind is a ‘fuzzy’ concept. The highest probability of ‘measuring’ it at any one time would locate the mind in the brain, but neither the brain nor the body appears to necessarily contain it. — Possibility

First of all, no one has yet provided any proof of spatial location of the mind, if it were so then this discussion would have ended already.
What is measured in the brain is electrical and chemical activity, is that what the mind is?

do you think there is a definition which would encompass every space there is? — Daniel

I have no idea, but for the sake of this discussion it would seem necessary to have a clear idea of exactly what is meant by "a space".

like, is there a feature which is common to all spaces so that they all can be classified as such in terms of such feature? — Daniel

Is there a difference between spaces? Could it be possible that the different spaces have nothing in common?

does my question make sense? — Daniel

Do my answers make sense?

Also, if they are separate, what does this mean? I mean, to be separate, wouldn't they have to occupy a different point in some kind of space? — Daniel

Would that not depend on it being a fact that they do actually occupy space? If they don't, then it is irrelevant.

Data on my computers hard drive does actually have a very specific location, but it does not exist as separate from the disk. The data in my mind might be the same.

So the mind of a person can be outside of the body? — Sir2u

That depends on what you mean by ‘being’ outside of the body. I think it’s possible for the mind to conceptualise itself relationally outside of the body for a time, particularly in situations when internal sensory information is unavailable or blocked. Given that the information the mind uses to interact with the world comes from conceptual systems and interoceptive networks rather than directly from the external world, an interoceptive network that doesn’t have access to any internal sensory information is capable of orientating mind external to the body. The eardrum still vibrates and the skin still reacts to touch, even if the information doesn’t reach the mind via regular internal channels.

What is measured in the brain is electrical and chemical activity, is that what the mind is? — Sir2u

What is currently measured in the brain can be interpreted as potential evidence of mind, in the same way that similar measurements are also interpreted as evidence of potential energy. Hence the scare quotes. We can predict mind based on these measurements in the brain because it’s difficult to measure electrical or chemical activity anywhere else and be in any way convinced that what we are measuring is evidence of ‘mind’ and not of something else. Modern science being convinced only by quantitative probability, this is about as close as measurement can get to locating the mind.

As for what the mind is, in my view it is five-dimensional, integrated information - the atemporal, non-local aspect of our existence. It includes both quantitative and qualitative potentiality.

Data in a computer does not occupy any space at all. — Sir2u

If Data does not occupy space in a computer than how can there be a limited capacity for storage of data? I'm not suggesting that data occupies a physical material space like hardware does but that it occupies a "configurative" space - that is to say... in a sense hardware is analogous to an amorphous solid - such as that different patterns can be created in its structure "bytes" and these symbolic patterns denote data. So yes the data does occupy space because without the hardware that it is configured in there would be no data.

Think of it as a container of water occupies a cube of space. Now change the container. The water still occupies the same "quantity" of space (volume) but a different "quality/type" of space just as data does in a hard drive.

I would argue that all information must occur in spatial dimension. Because if it didnt it would have to occur outside the universe.

If there are other minds only implies that they are separate, you cannot conclude that they occupy a space from that. — Sir2u

If minds are separate then what is the medium that separates them?

So basically you think your whole body contains your mind? — Sir2u

Well how would a mind identify itself without having a physical body? Neurons reach to every point in the body and also regulate hormones and mobility. Without the Peripheral nervous system you couldn't have a central nervous system. I think its meaningless to try to remove or separate the mind from the tool it uses to sense - to feel to see to hear to taste etc.

My computer memory does not overlap with yours, but I cannot prove that they occupy a space either. — Sir2u

Does a computer occupy space? If so, then why wouldn't the memory inside it also occupy space? The amount of memory that you can install in a computer is limited by the amount of space inside the computer.

Does a person's body occupy space? Does a human body possess memory? Is seems to me that more information would occupy more space than less information.

So now we have a problem.

Let's stay with the computer hard disk for now instead of the brain.

A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer.
If the data occupies space then it would have to be added to the total of the disk, as we know that this does not happen we are obliged to accept that data is immaterial and does not occupy space.
The only other possibility is that they both occupy the same space but one of the two would still have to be immaterial for that to happen. The data occurs through the rearrangement of the atoms, not by adding to them

When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour or that 2+2=4, does it add atoms or anything else to your body? No extra space is added to the space occupied by you body, it stays exactly the same. What happens is that neurons get rearranged, new synapse connections can appear. But the brain is not getting bigger, it is just a different arrangement.

So, either we need a proper definition of "a space" or we accept that the mind has no physical qualities except for the sensory organs that it uses as tools.

A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer. — Sir2u

This is because the data on the disk is just a different arrangement of magnetic patterns than a blank disk. Your disk may have more information stored on it than mine does but that doesn't mean that your drive takes up more space than mine. It means that your disk has more patterns than mine does, but we are both limited by the same amount of storage space if we both have the same sized drive.

The complexity of our neural network indicates how much information we have stored in our brain, but brains are more or less the same size.

A blank drive occupies the same amount of physical space as a drive filled to capacity. What makes them different is the complexity of the patterns within that physical space.

The complexity of our neural network indicates how much information we have stored in our brain, but brains are more or less the same size. — Harry Hindu

So does the mind take up space or not?

A blank drive occupies the same amount of physical space as a drive filled to capacity. What makes them different is the complexity of the patterns within that physical space. — Harry Hindu

So does the data take up space or not?


If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, please tell me how you define space.

The electrons which correlate with the concepts that humans have mentally assigned to them certainly do occupy a space within computers and microchips.

The electrons which correlate with the concepts that humans have mentally assigned to them certainly do occupy a space within computers and microchips. — Francis

But they would still be there even if there was no data on the chips. So the data is none existent in the sense that it occupies no extra space.

Yeah but that's only true for objects which have meaning projected onto them. An objects mass doesn't take up any extra space but mass still exists, but it exists as a property of an object that takes up space and not as an object itself.

1. Everything that exists occupies a space.
2. The mind exists.
3. The mind occupies a space. — Daniel

What space does my mortgage occupy?

And if none, does it follow that it does not exist, and I can cease to pay it?

Or does it follow that there are things that exist and yet do not occupy space?

Yeah but that's only true for objects which have meaning projected onto them. An objects mass doesn't take up any extra space but mass still exists, but it exists as a property of an object that takes up space and not as an object itself. — Francis

OK, so the answer to the OP

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

Is yes.

The mind then is a property of the brain.

Do all properties of an object take up mass of the object?

and others

or each mind depends on, among other things* (but mainly on), both the composition-what it** is made of and the relative(?) proportions of its components-of its brain, and the point in "brain space" which each of its** components occupies with respect to every other of its component at any given time.

* the composition and relative position of its** components is affected by the environment.
** the brain('s).
BOLD unnecessary(?)

Fine. Data is one of the properties of the brain.

But the mind is more than data, it is reaction to data, analyses of data, emotions. Do they have a location?

No, in my viewpoint things like Qualia do not have locations but they exist as properties of things that have locations.