Two points – (1) walking : legs :: mind-ing : brain (IME "mind" is an abbreviation for the verb minding) and (2) "soul" is a nonphysical entity separate from the brain, which assumes "substance dualism" (re: MBP which was dissolved about three and a half centuries ago by Spinoza via 'property dualism', etc) and so what's called "soul" is not analoguous or related to what cognitive neuroscientists (re: functionalists) call "mind" – minding – today. Also: multiple realizability says that the connectome ('pattern of functions' of which minding consists) is like digital files that can be transferred from a CD to a flash drive or a DVD, that is, encoded into a different substrates; your analogy of "people moving houses" doesn't work, Fool, because minding is a property and not a separate entity like people who exist without, or separate from, houses (which implies 'minding separate from a brain' or 'walking without legs' ... :roll:).180 Proof, I'm only guessing, would've said, as walking is to legs so mind is to brain. Once we look at mind as a function, Putnam's notion of multiple realizability becomes powerful and minds can be transferred from one medium to another,like people moving homes. I guess the notion of a soul was millennia ahead of its time. — TheMadFool
To the extent that the wood is identical to the camp fire. — DingoJones
To the same extent that a program is identical to a computer. — khaled
We could ask what is physical and what is not. — Jack Cummins
In other words, to what is do mind and matter come together in the realisation of embodied human experience? — Jack Cummins
To the same extent that your TV set is identical to "Gilligan's Island." — T Clark
It is indeed a puzzle and I imagine that 180 Proof may have something to say if he is not sick and tired of this underlying question in philosophy. I wonder to what extent it can ever be explored sufficiently or whether many of us could spend our entire lives wondering about the nature of consciousness, especially how it is bound up with the nature of matter, as the underlying basis of it, as one of the central philosophy conundrums — Jack Cummins
your analogy of "people moving houses" doesn't work, Fool, because minding is a property and not a separate entity like people who exist without, or separate from, houses (which implies 'minding separate from a brain' or 'walking without legs' ... :roll:). — 180 Proof
We could ask is the physical the starting point for mind? I am not saying that they are not, but I do wonder about this, especially in relation to philosophies of idealism, such as those of Berkeley. Are these outdated ideas? The exact same role of matter and mind, or which is primary seems to be essential within philosophy. Is it possible that it may go beyond an either/ or? What is mind and matter and how are the two differentiated in the first place? Is dualism is an issue here, although I am certainly not clear where mind and body end or merge, especially in the realms of emotions. — Jack Cummins
I would argue the concept mind is not equivalent to the brain but to the entire body. No other entity, least of all parts of that entity, engage in any act of minding. Besides, what is a brain absent the blood or oxygen or energy or support from the rest of the organism? — NOS4A2
To what extent is consciousness based on the physical basis of human experiences? — Jack Cummins
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.