For just take divisibility for starters. Sensible things can be divided. Or at least, they can if they are physical things - that is, if they take up space. For anything that takes up some space can be divided in two. One can have half a mug, half a piece of cheese, half a molecule, and so on. But not half a mind. Well, if all things that are extended in space can, by their very nature, be divided and one's mind cannot be divided, then one's mind is not extended in space and is thus not a sensible object. — Bartricks

Maybe the mind is not obviously divisible, but it is clearly distinguished into parts, which makes it in a sense divided. Perhaps one day it might be possible to reverse engineer this structure of mind and simulate it in a computer or some technological medium, even treat it medically via nonexclusively brain-centric models of its substance. The mind could become physical as the physical is redefined by advancing science, in fact this seems a probable outcome to me. Whether we can explain what that model will entail at this stage of knowledge is the conceptual difficulty, and what my posts in this thread have tried to get at.

But our reason represents minds to be positively indivisible. So, not 'not obviously divisible' but 'indivisible'.

To see this, just consider me. Do you attribute a mind to me, or half of one? What would attributing half a mind to me even mean? It makes no sense, right? Half a mind is incoherent.

So minds are positively indivisible. Or so says our reason. And simply to ignore such a representation of our reason is, well, irrational. That way dogma lies.

They don't have parts and talk of parts has to be treated very carefully (Plato, who also recognized that the mind is indivisible, nevertheless talked of parts of the mind, but he did not mean by this that the mind has parts in the way that an apple does or a building does, but rather that the mind has different faculties - faculties of reason, appetite and spirit. These are not 'parts' of the mind, but aspects of the mind).

Take an ice sculpture and a lump of ice. Both are made of the same stuff, but one is very complex. It does not, however, have more parts than the lump.

Minds can differ, one from another, much as the ice sculpture differs from the lump. Yet just as the ice sculpture and the lump of ice are made of the same kind of substance (in this case a divisible substance), so too minds are made of the same kind of substance, no matter how great the difference in their aspects (in this case an indivisible substance).

Anyway, what you say about reverse engineering simply assumes right at the get go that the mind is material, or that some kind of functionalism about the mind is true, and is not any kind of evidence in support of such views. Indeed, there is no evidence - none - that such views are true and plenty that they are false. One being the obvious indivisibility of the mind! So you are begging the question. You are taking it for granted that the mind is material and then speculating on that, not offering any positive evidence that the mind is material. The mind is 'not' material - all of the evidence is that it is immaterial. All of it.

@Bartricks I believe the mind is physical. In your analogy of the house with two floors, the kind of dependency of the second floor on the first (a structural dependency) I think is misleading when applied to the dependancy of the mind on the brain. Imagine that instead of the first floor, you are given 4 walls, a roof, a couple windows, and a door which you could arrange to your will. Not all arrangements of these things will give you a floor; only some of these arrangements will give you a floor. Also, it would be really hard to make a floor with materials that are made of liquid water and liquid water only, for example.

If you organize all the materials required to make a brain in the shape of a straight line, I assure you, you will have no mind. If you mix these materials randomly and shape them like a brain, I assure you the same thing will happen, there would be no mind. However, if you organize these materials in the shape of an actual brain [at the micro- (quantum?) and macroscopic levels], I am confident you would obtain a fully functioning brain (one with a mind like mine or yours). So, the mind does not depend only on the materials that make the brain (cells, ions, extracellular molecules) but also on their arrangement in 4d space. The first floor is not a first floor if you use the roof as a door, and a window as a wall (or if you use concrete for the windows and glass for the walls - it would be a really weird floor; or if you use foam for your walls). There is no second floor, the mind and the brain are the same thing (or the mind is a process occurring to brain components inside the brain itself). Think about this, the mind changes; the brain changes; why could the mind not be the result of change occurring to brain components (where the rate of change changes with time)?

In your analogy of the house with two floors, the kind of dependency of the second floor on the first (a structural dependency) I think is misleading when applied to the dependancy of the mind on the brain. — Daniel

The point of the example was to show that one cannot conclude from 'A depends on B' that 'A is B'. Dependency and identity are not the same relation.

If you organize all the materials required to make a brain in the shape of a straight line, I assure you, you will have no mind. — Daniel

Question begging. Your assurance counts for nothing at all. Show me that Reason assures us of this and I'll believe it.

Think about this, the mind changes; the brain changes; why could the mind not be the result of change occurring to brain components (where the rate of change changes with time)? — Daniel

And there's that argument again. Same one. A change in the brain causes a change in the mind. That does not show that the brain is the mind. Christ.

Without simply assuming that the mind is the brain, show me that the mind is the brain.

Don't tell me you're confident it is. That's no kind of evidence.

Show me how the proposition "the mind is the brain" can be derived, validly, from a set of assumptions each one of which is self-evident to reason or can itself be derived from some self-evident truths of reason.

I can show you how "the mind is immaterial" can be derived, validly, from a set of assumptions each one of which is self-evident to reason 14 times.

Show me how the negation can be so derived. Just once.

I can show you how "the mind is immaterial" can be derived, validly, from a set of assumptions each one of which is self-evident to reason 14 times. — Bartricks

A lobotomy might change your mind about this. :chin:

They don't have parts and talk of parts has to be treated very carefully (Plato, who also recognized that the mind is indivisible, nevertheless talked of parts of the mind, but he did not mean by this that the mind has parts in the way that an apple does or a building does, but rather that the mind has different faculties - faculties of reason, appetite and spirit. These are not 'parts' of the mind, but aspects of the mind). — Bartricks

But you could say that subjective color is an aspect of the mind, and all the colors grouped together but nonetheless separate constitute parts of the mind. The distinctions between the feeling of touching an object, the hearing of a sound, the seeing of a mental image etc. also amount to a division into parts. When we're talking about percepts insofar as they are located within the mind and not in the associated objects, it is evident that the mind can be divided into various structural parts, not merely functionally meaningful aspects delineated only for conceptual conveniences such as approximately defining the discrepancy between classes of species and such.

What would that show?

Again, doing things to the brain - such as removing a bit - clearly affects what goes on in the mind.

That's not evidence that the mind 'is' the brain.

You think it is.

Some clear thinking might change your mind about this.

Is there a name for an operation that adds material to your brain, thus enhancing one's ability to reason well? I will coin one: a topupobotomy. A topupobotomy would change your mind about this.

Again, doing things to the brain - such as removing a bit - clearly affects what goes on in the mind. — Bartricks

What bit?

That's not evidence that the mind 'is' the brain. — Bartricks

Are you arguing that a lobotomy would not change your mind?

Are you arguing that a lobotomy would not change your mind? — Pop

:ok:

Is there a name for an operation that adds material to your brain, thus enhancing one's ability to reason well? I will coin one: a topupobotomy. A topupobotomy would change your mind about this. — Bartricks

I think you need one indeed

Again, doing things to the brain - such as removing a bit - clearly affects what goes on in the mind.
— Bartricks

What bit? — VincePee

Point. Missed.

No, I am not arguing that.

Did yours change yours?

Did yours change yours? — Bartricks

No. I changed mine.

But what? Please copmplete your thought. I like to know your opinion. — Alkis Piskas

Just like Dumbo is certain that the magic feather makes him fly, we too are completely convinced that it's the brain that thinks. The feather isn't magical, it doesn't make Dumbo fly; likewise, it's possible that the brain doesn't think, we just believe it does.

BTW, in your first comment (which I quoted in my "collection" of responses) you stated "So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking." Are you revising or questioning your view? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I'm revising my position. Yes, when our brain is out of commission, we stop thinking - any boxer worth his salt will attest to that. However, the brain could be an illusion - remember that anything we perceive with our senses is, according to Cartesian skepticism, unreliable - and getting knocked out by a blow to the head quite possibly is part of the magic show. :chin:

But I am arguing that.

Just like Dumbo is certain that the magic feather makes him fly, — TheMadFool

What then does make Dumbo fly?

What then does make Dumbo fly? — VincePee

Definitely NOT the magic feather.

You need some serious soul cleansing. — TheMadFool

This is very offensive against motherfuckers! I might flag you!

:gasp:

:rofl:

Yes, I'm revising my position. — TheMadFool

Fair enough.

the brain could be an illusion — TheMadFool

Come again? :smile: Are you talking about that spongy organ inside the skull?

anything we perceive with our senses is, according to Cartesian skepticism, unreliable — TheMadFool

It might well be so. But I still trust my senses! :grin:

But I still trust my senses — Alkis Piskas

I don't mean to burst your bubble and I know this is hard but, take a look at the following:

Can you really rely on your senses when,

A. Your mind can auto-generate all-modality sensory perceptions like in

1. Hallucination

B. Your mind can alter the perceptions themselves and make you come to false conclusions like in

2. Mirage

3. Optical Illusion

4. Tactile Illusion

5. Formication

6. Auditory Illusion

?

I don't mean to burst your bubble — TheMadFool

No problem, go ahead please, you cannot "burst my bubble"! :smile:

and I know this is hard — TheMadFool

No, you really don't! :smile:

Hallucination, mirage, optical/auditory/tactile Illusion, ... You can bring dozens of such states. They all have this in common: they are abnormal and refer to physical or mental sickness.
But don't go that far! Having some drinks can be enough to make you behave abnormally and alter your perception.
And you don't even have to go that far: Anger, fear, grief and all sort of negative emotions can all alter your perception.
And you don't even have to go that far: Just beign absent-minded, lost in some thoght, imagination and other temporary things related to mental states can alter your perception.

When one knows well what is his normal mental state (under healthy condictions), he can differentiate it from states he may get in after being influenced by one or more of the above mentioned conditions. Only a madman does not know he is mad. (Well, figuratively speaking, of course.)

See? You shouldn't have worried. You didn't burst my bubble and nothing of all that was the least hard for me! :grin:

and I know this is hard
— TheMadFool
No, you really don't! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Nothing counterintuitive in it then? All your life you've depended on your senses, never doubted them in any way and now, when someone like me tells you to think twice about how truly reliable your senses are, it doesn't even register. I'm most amused. I'm like you - nothing seems to surprise me anymore. Good/bad that, no idea.

normal mental state — Alkis Piskas

How do we know that we are normal? I remember watching an old horror short film where the patients in an asylum have escaped and confined the resident psychiatrists and nurses in the same cells the patients were confined in and in a twist of fate, the patients are treating the doctors. I dunno!

Hallucination, mirage, optical/auditory/tactile Illusion, ... You can bring dozens of such states. They all have this in common: they are abnormal and refer to physical or mental sickness. — Alkis Piskas

TheMadFool makes a good point and they can all happen to an entirely healthy person. The most likely scenario would be environments that are at the limits of discernment such as chaotic, noisy, dirty, dark, time limited, physically constrained or unfamiliar conditions.

Anyone know the name of TheMadFool's short film? That would be tons of fun to watch.

in a twist of fate, the patients are treating the doctors. — TheMadFool

It sounds like a modern version of the Haman's gallows story from the Bible. One of my favorites

It sounds like a modern version of the Haman's gallows story from the Bible. One of my favorites — Mark Nyquist

I can't remember the film's name. Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be. I'll check out Haman's gallows.