There's no such thing as a mind which thinks. Thinking is the mind! Mind is an activity (thinking), not an actor (thinker).

There's no such thing as a mind which thinks. Thinking is the mind! Mind is an activity (thinking), not an actor (thinker). — Agent Smith

That is a false statement in common English. Again, not up for debate, it's a fact of the language. I will reiterate that if your method leads you to having to reinvent the English language in order to justify your views, then I think your method is flawed, and suggest you rethink it.

You're also free to just keep insisting that your new and novel use of language is the better one and hope we all adopt it, but I'm not optimistic for you if you can make no better case than just insisting it is so by fiat.

That is a false statement in common English. Again, not up for debate, it's a fact of the language. I will reiterate that if your method leads you to having to reinvent the English language in order to justify your views, then I think your method is flawed, and suggest you rethink it.

You're also free to just keep insisting that your new and novel use of language is the better one and hope we all adopt it, but I'm not optimistic for you if you can make no better case than just insisting it is so by fiat. — Reformed Nihilist

I can't simplify it further. I've avoided linguistic references and focused on what is true.

Thinking = Mind.

Thinker $\neq$ Mind.

It's as easy as ABC. I don't see why we don't see eye to eye on this matter.

Because I insist, perhaps dogmatically, on speaking English, and in English, the word "thinking" isn't a synonym to the word "mind". You seem to want to insist that either they are synonyms, which is blatantly and demonstrably (check any dictionary) false, or that they should be, for which you have offered no justification. Do you see what I am saying? I'm really not sure that you do.

Because I insist, perhaps dogmatically, on speaking English, and in English, the word "thinking" isn't a synonym to the word "mind". You seem to want to insist that either they are synonyms, which is blatantly and demonstrably (check any dictionary) false, or that they should be, for which you have offered no justification. Do you see what I am saying? I'm really not sure that you do. — Reformed Nihilist

All I can say is you're hung up on language. I made it clear to you that language isn't the only way to understand my point.

but Information is also an immaterial function. — Gnomon

Dunno. This directs attention away from the matter itself. And, so I think, that's exactly the stuff conscious resides in. You can consider the conscious as an outside function of matter, like force fields, but these are a necessary element to express the conscious, to form forlmations, so to speak. The force fields emanate from charged particles (though they were, and still can be, given a quite independent existence, like real photons are created when charges interact, thereby influencing other electrically bound charges or free charges, say an atom they excite or an electron they scatter from). The potential energy fields, which can be charged even themselves, like is the case for the colored interaction fields, have a function, but conscience resides inside matter, like charge in a particle, and it is in fact informed charge. That renders it material in a sense, but the inside of matter, its charged content, is not really material.

If mind is a verb, why do we use it as a noun so often (e.g., my mind is made up)?

All I can say is you're hung up on language. — Agent Smith

Seeing as though language is virtually the only tool we have to communicate in this forum, I can't possibly imagine how you could communicate otherwise (pictures or graphs, I suppose).

I made it clear to you that language isn't the only way to understand my point. — Agent Smith

Can you point me to where you did that? I missed it, and it isn't at all clear to me.

Qualia are caused by physical processes, but have no causal powers of their own. — Gnomon

Hi. Picking on qualia is a hobbyhorse for me lately, so please pardon a question. How would one establish that qualia are caused by something? Would we not instead be limited to saying that reports (like 'I heard music') are caused by physical interference (like running a current through some part of the brain) ?

How would a case be made for the existence of qualia in the first place? Like the red square I'm using as my thumbnail. All we have to offer as evidence are public entities like reports or a rat trained to stop at a surface reflecting a certain frequency of light, etc.

Let's not get bogged down in what's going to be unfruitful.

Let's start over.

For me what we call mind is an activity like walking & talking , and not an object, like legs & mouth. To think the mind is an object and not an activity is an error that's committed by many. That's about the gist of what I want to share.

If mind is a verb, why do we use it as a noun so often (e.g., my mind is made up)? — RogueAI

That's precisely the problem. Mind is an activity à la breathing, walking, talking. It is not an object like lungs, legs, mouth.

Let's start over.

For me what we call mind is an activity like walking & talking , and not an object, like legs & mouth. To think the mind is an object and not an activity is an error that's committed by many. That's about the gist of what I want to share. — Agent Smith

Look, adding "For me" doesn't fix the problem you have here. I could say "For me, radishes are berries", but all that displays is that I either don't know much about radishes, berries, or both. Minds are things, not activities, no matter how often you want to say otherwise, and the only way to change that is to change the English language... which brings me back to what I originally said: If your way of approaching the question requires you to change the English language in order for it to make sense, then I think it is a good idea to change the way you approach the question. So I acknowledge what you're saying, and I'm pretty sure I understand it, and I think it's a bad way to approach the subject for the reasons I explicated.

Do you understand why I say that "Mind" being a noun isn't a matter open for debate, but a fact of the English language?

'activity' is a noun also.

Minds are things, not activities — Reformed Nihilist

Yes, and "verb" is also a noun. So?

Thanks! That’s a good answer, well articulated too. You’re saying that once we understand the nature of an illusion, the illusion no longer affects us.

The way I saw it was that our perception is inaccurate, and we cannot change or perception, therefore we need to come to terms with the idea that everything we perceive is an illusion. But you made a case that an illusion is when we incorrectly interpret what we perceive. Although we cannot change our perception, we can change our interpretation, therefore we can overcome the illusion.

Now I can see what people mean when they say something is not an illusion. But paradoxically, we can only overcome an illusion when we accept that it exists and affects us. By saying that something is an illusion we’re making the illusion disappear, according to your post. I’m fine with that.

Once you interpret the sensory data correctly the illusion disappears — Harry Hindu

Minds are things, not activities, no matter how often you want to say otherwise, and the only way to change that is to change the English language... — Reformed Nihilist

That's what you think. Not all words in English language refer to things though. That's your limited interpretation. How would changing language change your mind?

Mind is not a thing. In plain English.

Do you understand why I say that "Mind" being a noun isn't a matter open for debate, but a fact of the English language? — Reformed Nihilist

I deeply regret ever having brought language into the discussion.

Anyway...

Look at the following nouns:
1. Horse
2. Brain (not mind)

Look now at the following verbs
3. Run
4. Think (mind)


Do you see my point?

Why isn't it ("mind" being a noun) open for debate. Even the great Aristotle made mistakes.

Look, adding "For me" doesn't fix the problem you have here. — Reformed Nihilist

I merely made explicit something that's true for everyone, including yourself unless there's someone who's omniscient. Are you omniscient? I hardly think so.

I replied to you.

I have seen your point from the beginning. I don't think you see mine.

If you want to say that minds are manifested through actions, then that's a sensible thing to say that is consistent with the English language. If you want to say that minds are activities or actions, then you are speaking nonsense. It matters that you express yourself in sensible ways, and just because what you're saying makes sense to you in your own head doesn't really mean anything.

When you speak carelessly, then you are likely to incorporate the careless propositions into your reasoning, which leads to careless reasoning and false and fallacious conclusions. I'm sure you don't want that result, so I am trying to suggest things you can do to avoid it.

I merely made explicit something that's true for everyone, including yourself unless there's someone who's omniscient. Are you omniscient? I hardly think so. — Agent Smith

But what you are claiming to be true, in the way you are claiming it, is demonstrably false. "Mind" is in no way a verb. You need to find a way to express what you're trying to say accurately and sensibly, or you will just keep saying things that are false.

Look, you know that it's correct to say "a mind", and not "to mind", right? So you already know what I'm saying about nouns and verbs is true, right? So I'm not saying that whatever idea you have in your head is wrong, I'm saying that what you have said in writing is incorrect in standard English, which is what we're using to discuss the matter. The only way I'll know if what you have in your head is sensible or not is for you to find a way to say it sensibly. Get me?

If you want to say that minds are activities or actions, then you are speaking nonsense — Reformed Nihilist

Just like it is utterly blatant, and seriously grave nonsense if you say mind is a thing. It's not an activity either. A volcano is a thing. It erupting is an activity, if it's an active volcano. Neither posses mind.

Why isn't it ("mind" being a noun) open for debate. Even the great Aristotle made mistakes. — Agent Smith

Because what is or isn't a noun is a function of how billions of English speakers have historically and continue to currently speak, not a function of what makes sense to you. that's how language works.

I'm assuming that you are functionally literate person and actually know that mind is a noun, but have just committed yourself to something that if you stepped back from for a second, you'd see that as spoken what you've said is incorrect. Am I correct to assume you are fluent and at least minimally literate in English?

If you want to say that minds are activities or actions, then you are speaking nonsense — Reformed Nihilist

I regret to inform you that I don't see you as an authority on sense and nonsense. Do pardon me.

What's the difficulty in accepting mind as an activity/action? You say this is nonsense, but I don't think you understand what nonsense is. If you did, you would never have said what you said. Perhaps, you mean to clarify in subsequent posts. Do go on...explain.

Do you agree that in English, to say "I was thinking about Aristotle" is a sensible sentence, but "I was minding about Aristotle" isn't?

Or we can do it the other way. "I heard the song in my mind" is a sensible sentence, but "I heard the song in my think" is not.

Do you dispute these? These are simple demonstrations that "Mind" is a noun and not a verb in English.

Do you agree that in English, to say "I was thinking about Aristotle" is a sensible sentence, but "I was minding about Aristotle" isn't?

Or we can do it the other way. "I heard the song in my mind" is a sensible sentence, but "I heard the song in my think" is not.

Do you dispute these? — Reformed Nihilist

You're hung up on language is all I can say. Good day. I learned a lot from our little chat. Thanks.

You're hung up on language — Agent Smith

Only because it's the only thing we can use to discuss these ideas. Maybe it's more important than you think.

Good day! I hope we can have a more fruitful discussion another time.

Minds are things not activities. You seemed to be arguing that minds are nouns and thus not activities. Activities is a plural noun. So, how does mind being a noun rule it out being an activity or activities.

It seemed like you were identifying nouns with 'things'. And, as quoted, as things they cannot be activities. Perhaps I missed something.

A blizzard is a noun. It's also a process. One can certainly argue it is a 'thing' of some kind. But what are you ruling out when you say minds are things.

Evolution is a noun.
Natural selection is a compound noun.

Civilization is a noun.

Why does mind being a noun mean it is not some complicated activity? or set of activities?