Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu

You can, just not with your naked eye. Brain scans etc with instruments of science. — DingoJones

When I look at your brain I see a grey, squishy mass. Is your mind a grey, squishy mass? Are you saying the entirety of your experience of the world is just various quiverings of a grey squishy mass?

"Technological scientific means" is a meaningless statement. — Xtrix

"Technological scientific means-tools" is a statement? And meaningless too?

Why should aspects of human behavior be "non-physical"? That's hardly an obvious point, and in fact is what's being discussed here. — Xtrix

Aspects of human behavior like morality are physical? Do they have" matter"? Sorry I really can't follow you. For me the difference is obvious.

So "empirical observation of ourselves" isn't science? Then what is science? — Xtrix

When I observe that I have mind or two legs or two arms am I doing science?? That makes me a scientist?

So here again we have another idea you simply take for granted, assuming by simply declaring something "scientific" we will all nod our heads in agreement, and that will settle the question of what's physical. — Xtrix

From all that you write here also the general point is that as I told you before with your way of thinking we can't talk about anything. You question every single word and we don't have even a base to start discussing. Now you put into question the definition of "science" So it's really pointless.

There are common definitions of what some things mean(like science, physical etc), even if some of them aren't perfect and of course some might change at the future(as the 17th century example you gave) still they are more than enough as people to understand each other and discuss about it.

With your way you make philosophy forbidden. I really see no use in playing such definition game.Even if the definitions aren't crystal clear the general concepts of some words are more than enough as people to discuss about them.

When I observe that I have mind or two legs or two arms am I doing science?? That makes me a scientist? — dimosthenis9

Sure. Anytime you attempt to integrate your observations into an consistent explanation of reality, you're doing science.

But I don't put any effort at all for that. It's what I can do a priori. I can observe myself. I was born with that ability. I can walk also. When I walk I perform science also? Sorry but I can't consider that science.

So "empirical observation of ourselves" isn't science? Then what is science?
— Xtrix

When I observe that I have mind or two legs or two arms am I doing science?? That makes me a scientist? — dimosthenis9

It's empirical observation, according to you. So what's the difference?

You question every single word and we don't have even a base to start discussing. — dimosthenis9

No, I'm questioning the word "matter."

I also made quite clear that technical notions (nomenclature) are not the same as everyday talk. If we want to speculate about ectoplasm or "work," etc., we can. But the technical notion of "matter" or "body" had a technical notion within the mechanical philosophy. It was abandoned long ago. There hasn't been one since.

Now you put into question the definition of "science" — dimosthenis9

Indeed, since you invoked "science" to define what's physical. Yet you don't seem to have much appreciation for the long history of the philosophy of science.

There are common definitions of what some things mean(like science, physical etc), even if some of them aren't perfect and of course some might change at the future(as the 17th century example you gave) still they are more than enough as people to understand each other and discuss about it. — dimosthenis9

True, which is partly why a discussion about mind and body can continue. I'm indeed questioning that. I'm challenging the assumptions we're making about "body," specifically -- and hence matter, material, physical. If the "physical" is "what science observes and identifies," then I ask: "What is science?" This shouldn't be surprising. What it is is uncomfortable -- at least for you.

I really see no use in playing such definition game. — dimosthenis9

It's not a game, it's asking questions. If that's a game, then Socrates was playing games as well.

Sorry but I can't consider that science. — dimosthenis9

Because you've apparently defined science as "what scientists do," and a scientist is someone in a lab coat doing experiments, some specialized, professional labor.

That's fine for everyday discussion. Not when we're questioning philosophically.

You take walking for granted. Learning to ride a bike or drive a car is a science as much as learning that you can walk and then learning how.

How is observing yourself any different than observing nature? Are you not part of nature? Any explanations you come up with about what you are and your relationship with everything else is a product of your scientific thought processes that allow you to make predictions which is basically the only reason we produce explanations in the first place.

If the "physical" is "what science observes and identifies," then I ask: "What is science?" This shouldn't be surprising. What it is is uncomfortable -- at least for you. — Xtrix

Science, among others, is what provide us proofs as to categorize what we observe to "matter".
Such proofs haven't been provided in the case of "mind". Instead of the protons example you presented before,that have been provided.
Now I guess your next question will be "what is proof?". And so on.

Yet you don't seem to have much appreciation for the long history of the philosophy of science. — Xtrix

Well you seem not to have much appreciation in philosophy in general. Considering such a great question like mind/body, that philosophers dealt for centuries useless just cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions. Anyway I see no point continuing that.

When I look at your brain I see a grey, squishy mass. Is your mind a grey, squishy mass? Are you saying the entirety of your experience of the world is just various quiverings of a grey squishy mass? — Harry Hindu

Yes, with your naked eye.

How do programmers write programs that they can't see? — Harry Hindu

I didn’t say you can’t see code. I said you can’t see code by simply looking at a computer. You can bust open the motherboard and look at it all you want (like looking at a brain) and you won’t see what’s happening in there.

you can see if you have the right software. You can't do this with your mind. — Harry Hindu

False. With the right software I can see what you’re feeling generally well. Whether it’s fear, anger, etc. Brain scans exist. They don’t show everything, but they are showing more and more.

Science, among others, is what provide us proofs as to categorize what we observe to "matter". — dimosthenis9

What are you referring to here? What “proofs”?

Frankly, you’re talking in circles.

We can define matter in several ways. We can say it’s anything made up of particles, energy fluctuations, substance. Then nature consists of matter and forces. This is the common view.

As we know at least since Kant, what is “true” is not simply a correspondence between the object and the subject — rather, there’s a contribution of the human mind.

Best to at least review these ideas before continuing. Otherwise you’re simply talking nonsense.

We can say it’s anything made up of particles, energy fluctuations, substance. Then nature consists of matter and forces. This is the common view. — Xtrix

So exactly which of these common view criteria mind meets as to consider it as "matter"?? Is there any substance of mind that has been observed? Or you consider the brain energy as mind?

Best to at least review these ideas before continuing. Otherwise you’re simply talking nonsense. — Xtrix

Yeah whatever. Anyway told you it's pointless. We have no base at all to start talking. The game you play it is silly. And trust me non Socratic at all. I will just leave you on your own here.

So exactly which of these common view criteria mind meets as to consider it as "matter"?? — dimosthenis9

Many say the mind is simply the brain.

Notice I’m not saying either, because the question itself is meaningless.

Yeah whatever. — dimosthenis9

No, not “whatever.” If you want to be taken seriously on here, then doing a minimal amount of reading is essential. Otherwise you sound ignorant — which you do.

If you want to be taken seriously on here, then doing a minimal amount of reading is essential. Otherwise you sound ignorant — which you do — Xtrix

What reading has to do with the silly definition game you play here?What exactly I stated here that was ignorant?

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions. And that's ridiculous.
If people could talk only about what we know for sure (which arent much) then philosophy would be condemned. Unless if you consider philosophy same as science. But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either. So wtf.

Well no thanks I don't want to be taken seriously from people who I don't take seriously. So cool.You can think whatever you want for me. No harm feelings.And yes, that was my last response.

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions. — dimosthenis9

No.

But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either. — dimosthenis9

That’s not what I said.

You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about.

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays.
— dimosthenis9

Yes. — Xtrix

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions.
— dimosthenis9

No. — Xtrix

Now you put into question the definition of "science"
— dimosthenis9

Indeed, since you invoked "science" to define what's physical — Xtrix

But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either.
— dimosthenis9

That’s not what I said. — Xtrix

Sorry I couldn't resist.You are weird. Bye.

Sorry I couldn't resist. — dimosthenis9

Couldn't resist continuing to make yourself look foolish?

I'll help you:

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays.
— dimosthenis9

Yes.
— Xtrix

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions.
— dimosthenis9

No.
— Xtrix — dimosthenis9

That's exactly correct.

The question is meaningless. That has nothing to do with "absolute truth of definitions," which was your claim, and a complete misinterpretation.

Now you put into question the definition of "science"
— dimosthenis9

Indeed, since you invoked "science" to define what's physical
— Xtrix

But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either.
— dimosthenis9

That’s not what I said.
— Xtrix — dimosthenis9

Again, exactly correct. But because you're having trouble, I'll again help:

Questioning the definition of science does not mean we "can't define science." If we can't define it, I wouldn't be asking for a definition. You simply failed to give one, because you really don't know what you're talking about.

But please continue...

And yes, that was my last response. — dimosthenis9

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Apparently your word is as reliable as your reading.

I didn’t say you can’t see code. I said you can’t see code by simply looking at a computer. You can bust open the motherboard and look at it all you want (like looking at a brain) and you won’t see what’s happening in there. — khaled

What is it that you're looking for that you say you can't see? You'll need to define "computer program" because now it seems that you're just moving goalposts. Also, explain what a "computer program" is independent of someone observing it and then what it looks like when someone looks at it and how they would know that is what they are looking at.

With the right software I can see what you’re feeling generally well. Whether it’s fear, anger, etc. Brain scans exist. They don’t show everything, but they are showing more and more. — khaled

That's the point I'm trying to make - what is a "feeling" when looking at it through software or a brain scan as opposed to experiencing it? Why is there a difference at all? Why is there an experience of a feeling in the first-person and also a coinciding experience of neural activity in the third-person? Which perspective is of the feeling as it actually is? In other words, which perspective has more direct access, or knowledge, to the "feeling" and why?

define "computer program" — Harry Hindu

explain what a "computer program" is independent of someone observing it — Harry Hindu

what it looks like when someone looks at it — Harry Hindu

What is it that you're looking for that you say you can't see? — Harry Hindu

A set of instructions to do something. Answer to all of the above.

how they would know that is what they are looking at. — Harry Hindu

By knowing the language the instructions are written in.

what is a "feeling" when looking at it through software or a brain scan as opposed to experiencing it? Why is there a difference at all? — Harry Hindu

There is a difference between seeing something and being something. I can see someone who's sad. That's not the same experience as being sad. I don't get what you mean by the quesiton "Why". You're asking why is feeling X (seeing something, in this case a brain scan) different from feeling Y (in this case being sad). That makes as much sense to me as "Why is this car different from this plane?"

I didn’t say you can’t see code. I said you can’t see code by simply looking at a computer. You can bust open the motherboard and look at it all you want (like looking at a brain) and you won’t see what’s happening in there. — khaled

Wouldn't you see a set of particular switching operations? That's what code ultimately is.

Brain is a noun. Mind is a verb. They aren't identical but they're related - what the brain does is the mind. Functionalism?

Wouldn't you see a set of particular switching operations? — RogueAI

Try it. Open up the motherboard and tell me what the first 10 switching operations for the Windows Kernel is.

Of course, there are devices that can detect binary code. You can't do so with your eyes however. Similar to how you can't see feelings when looking at a brain without the use of special tools.

Try it. Open up the motherboard and tell me what the first 10 switching operations for the Windows Kernel is.

Of course, there are devices that can detect binary code. You can't do so with your eyes however. Similar to how you can't see feelings when looking at a brain without the use of special tools. — khaled

But it is possible to see the switching operations. For example, the first computers were the size of rooms and made of vacuum tubes. Could you "reverse engineer" the code from the switching operations, if you had the right tools?

If you can see them, yes I think.

If you can see them, yes I think. — khaled

But the reverse isn't true. You couldn't reverse engineer a mental state by observing brain states. Even if you were looking at the brain states of someone you were convinced is seeing red, the inverted spectrum problem would pop up. Is the person with brain states "seeing red" really seeing red, or does red to them look blue to everyone else?

You couldn't reverse engineer a mental state by observing brain states. — RogueAI

Yes you could.

Is the person with brain states "seeing red" really seeing red, or does red to them look blue to everyone else? — RogueAI

Why would it look different? If I clone you do you think there is a chance that “red” to the clone will look different from “red” to you?

If not, then there must be some physical difference that inverts the spectrum for you, or do you disagree with that? If there is such a thing, then we can scan for it and find out exactly whether or not someone is seeing an inverted spectrum or not.

They seem to be two different descriptions of the one thing.

Why would it look different? — khaled

Why would red to you look different than red to me? Maybe small changes in neural structure and brain chemistry. Who knows? My point is simply that looking at brain scans cannot tell you that red to me looks the same as red to you.

If I clone you do you think there is a chance that “red” to the clone will look different from “red” to you?

The clone would occupy a different point in space, would physically diverge from me right after the cloning process. These are very small changes, but who's to say whether they result in different mental states. Since the contents of my mind are a black box to you and vice-versa, you can't get around this problem. You will never know if red to me is the same as red to you. It's an insolvable problem.

I'm 100% sure that you see the same graphical design and colors used for this forum. My black and white are the same as yours — Goldyluck

I would call "all in" for the opposite. And it's totally the opposite indeed.

Details, and emotional and epistemic load, might be different though. — Goldyluck

Exactly cause all that "load" you mention is different makes your perception of "red" unique. And different from any other's.

The way that each of us experiences all the "data" that our senses give us is a total personal case.
All that sensational data we get, are "filtered" by these and many others factors and give us our own unique personal perception of "red". And it is an unsolvable problem indeed so far.