the physical is not mental because physical stuff cannot be mental stuff. — Manuel

How is it then that in the dream state, things appear as real physical stuff, even though it is all dream stuff or mind stuff? Is it possible that the "real" world operates in a similar way? How would one be able to distinguish physical stuff from mental stuff in these two scenarios? What if all there is is mental stuff at different levels, but that mental stuff only appears physical to other mental stuff?

However there are two forms of monism. One could assume that the only things that really exist are the objects of sense experience and then conclude that the default simplest view is that the mental is an aspect of those objects; or one could assume that the only things that really exist are the subjects of sense experience - minds - and that the sensible world is made of such sensations.

Although a monistic view is inevitably simpler than a dualist one, it is question begging to assume the kind of monism that turns the mind into a sensible object, as opposed to assuming the kind that turns sensible objects into mental states. It would be equally question begging to go the other way. That is why I do not think appeals to simplicity favor materialising the mind over mentalizing the sensible.

That applies as well to the claim that material entities cannot causally interact with immaterial ones. As well as being a claim that - to my mind anyway - is not self-evident to reason and so seems no more than a dogma, it leaves open whether the fact of interaction should lead us to conclude that the material is mental, or that the mind is material.

This is why I think appeals to such arguments are question begging. They will only seem to have evidential value to those who are already convinced that really only material things exist (and thus are already convinced the mind is material).

None of this is evidence that the mind is immaterial, but it doesn't seem to rise to being evidence that the mind is material either. The matter seems left open.

I should say that I am not arguing that monist immaterialism is true - though I don't dismiss it either - just that there still seems no real evidence that the mind is material

However there are two forms of monism. — Clearbury

What do you think about neutral monism? I believe neutral monism is a better interpretation of monism than materialistic or idealistic monism. In my view, the choice between materialism and idealism is arbitrary. Let me try to explain:

If one assumes substance to be fundamentally physical, then things appear to be physical as you would expect according to one's own definition or assumption (you expressed the same thought as well). Conversely, if one assumes substance is fundamentally ideal, things still seem to appear physical regardless of one's definition or assumption. In either case, materialistic or idealistic monism appears to result to our subjective senses in the same experiences of the physical and the ideal. It is a difference that makes no difference.

For this reason, i tend to lean towards a kind of neutral monism, which proposes one substance with two potential relative fundamental expressions. I think i would venture to say that this neutral substance is most probably spacetime itself. Thoughts?

To lose any aspect of myself would be to become less than what I was. Every forgotten memory, bad relationship, failed project, every single aspect lost is a reduction of who you were. There is no core, there is simply an experience that changes. The notion that any aspect is more central than another is a valuing you place upon those aspects, not evidence of a metaphysical reality.

The self is a pattern of value, not substance. If you replaced me with a perfect replica, this would not be me, because I value the un-ending and dynamic pattern. I am myself now, because I was myself a second ago, and my experience links the past and future into a chain.

I would say that, it's clear from near-death experiences in which people have seen their own body from outside it, that you are not your body.

That is exactly my point; there is no real "you" and "your" body is not "yours". The question dualists need to consider is why a human body wouldn't be itself without the constructions and projections we classify as a separate entity and call mind. Why is a lizard still a lizard without thought and language, but only humans have a soul? Sure, we claim that God prefers us and gave us a soul. But I think we've grown up enough to stop clinging to that. — ENOAH

So you must be an atheist and materialist, is it correct? If you are, of course that would be your view.

But there are spiritual and religious folks who believe that body means nothing, and souls and mind are the true selves. They would also likely believe eternal life, after life or resurrection into the material world (in case of buddhists), existence of God, heaven and hell ... etc.

In my view, body is the precondition of mind, and mind is a part of body. Body can lose some of its parts. You see some folks with no leg, arms or fingers. When you shave your hair, you have no hair.
Just like that, body can have no mind. You see on TV unconscious folks or dead bodies with no mind in the movies and dramas due to sleep, drugs, illness or accidents. But you have never seen in your whole life, souls or minds without body, I dare to guess.

Therefore, body is you. Mind emerged from body, as body grew up and developed biologically. When body dies, the mind in the body also dies.

what would you say is vibrating to produce the sound of music? — punos

I don't know. Maybe the piano is the universe.

But this is all happening because there is a kind of neural self-simulation still going on in the brain even when sleeping. — punos

What's odd is that we can detect this. The simulation has to be calibrated to the world. We can tell when it's off. Dementia is a case where the simulation is still working, but there's little to no calibration anymore.

So you must be an atheist and materialist, is it correct? — Corvus

I consider myself religious; however, I suspect that unlike science which requires empirical or mathematical proof to support fact claims, religion has no business in facts or proof, but is rather, related to being [whatever it is God/Nature/Reality 'designed/evolved' us to be] and not knowing. Tree of Life, not of knowledge (of good and evil).

Therefore, body is you. Mind emerged from body — Corvus

Yes. I believe that too. Only the emergent mind is not real like the body is.

Hello,

I think the issue of whether materialist monism or idealist monism is the correct view is another matter. The point I was making is that it is question begging to assume materialist monism for the purposes of refuting the view that the mind is immaterial.

If someone argues that the simplest thesis about why the sensible affects the mental is that the mental is sensible, then they are begging the question as it is equally simple to suppose the sensible is the mental.

Yes. I believe that too. Only the emergent mind is not real like the body is. — ENOAH

Why is the emergent mind not real? What do you mean by "real" and "not real"?

Why is the emergent mind not real? What do you mean by "real" and "not real"? — Corvus

Very simplified:

Obviously speaking hypothetically from what I have gathered and without any authority nor claim thereto, that is exactly the point I am following in the OP. Not necessarily adhering to Merleau-Ponty's reasoning, I agree that we have gotten it all wrong. We have privileged the Mind (unique to humans), unwittingly giving it lofty designations like spirit and soul, imbuing it not just with reality, but a higher reality, eternity; relegating the flesh to a category shared with 'animals' as if we are superior to 'them', and worse, relegating it as the source of evil. Yet, prima facie, any animal born into this world has no 'cause' to question it's reality nor that of the natural Universe. Then why do we question reality? Because the 'we' doing the questioning is not our bodies, but this process of constructing and projecting (emerging out of our real imaginations--a thing we presumably share with primates, elephants, and sea mammals for e.g.) which has developed over generations, is transmitted with socialization, and has displaced our natures with--admittedly very functional--fictions. The subject, arising out of the need to unify the 'stories' arising from a single locus or embodiment, stands in for the body; but we have displaced the body with this mechanism. This 'illusion' though it has created another world, layered for humans, on top of the real one, has also caused much suffering, due primarily to the attachment to the world which is fictional, and ignorance about the one which is natural. A simplified solution is not to call for the extinguishing of mind, which would mean tge same for history, but a recognition that when we speak of I or Mind, we are referring to an excellent tool, our true nature remains that animal which God created/Nature evolved.

I agree that we have gotten it all wrong. We have privileged the Mind (unique to humans), unwittingly giving it lofty designations like spirit and soul, imbuing it not just with reality, but a higher reality, eternity; relegating the flesh to a category shared with 'animals' as if we are superior to 'them', and worse, relegating it as the source of evil. Yet, prima facie, any animal born into this world has no 'cause' to question it's reality nor that of the natural Universe. Then why do we question reality? Because the 'we' doing the questioning is not our bodies, but this process of constructing and projecting (emerging out of our real imaginations--a thing we presumably share with primates, elephants, and sea mammals for e.g.) which has developed over generations, is transmitted with socialization, and has displaced our natures with--admittedly very functional--fictions. — ENOAH

I am not sure if the emergent mind is not real.  It is utterly real in that it knows, observes, feels, predicts and feels.  How can the mind be not real? 

Enoah has a mind and body.  The body has a head, arms, feet and hands etc etc.  The mind can feel, know, observe, recall, predict, reason ... etc etc.

The mind is a part of the body, which is invisible not only to other minds, but even to the mind itself.  But it is as real as the body so long as it operates with its expected functions.
Mind dies when the body dies, because it is a part of the body.

Mind asks about the world and also about reality, because it is one of the nature / functions of mind i.e. curiosity.

Saying other animals are not the same as humans in reasoning is not placing the animals into the lower level out of arrogance of the human mind.  It is just telling the truth and reality out of observations on nature and the world.  It would be like saying the Sun is brighter than the Moon.  It is just stating the fact, not making the Sun any superior to the Moon, or trying to make the Sun feel proud.

unwittingly giving it lofty designations like spirit and soul, imbuing it not just with reality, but a higher reality, eternity; — ENOAH

If mind believes in God, after life, resurrection, the heaven and hell etc, then it needs to postulate the existence of soul or spirit, so that it will unite with divine when it dies. We could say that soul or spirit is a postulated entity for a mind, like Thing-in-Itself is a postulated entity in Kant's system.

knows, observes, feels, predicts and feels. — Corvus

Knows=mind constructing, and settling on what fits by triggering body to feel 'good' [about it]
Observes=the aware-ing body observes, attaching no words to the observation; mind constructs perceptions to layer over the observations
Feels=body feels, attaches no word to the feelings; mind constructs emotions using words to layer over the feelings
Predicts=mind constructing, and settling on what fits by triggering body to feel 'good;'

The body has a head, arms, feet and hands etc etc.  The mind can feel, know, observe, recall, predict, reason ... etc etc. — Corvus

curiosity — Corvus

The body is plainly real in every sense of the word real. You're offering that in your statement.

All of the enumerated things mind can do are what we (mind) ascribes to itself as proof of its reality 'beyond' the physical body. But these are just functions being carried out by a system of stimulus and response. Just happens the functions have evolved to act in such a richly complex and sophisticated way, with a narrative form, mechanisms like the ones we call logic, grammar, reason, etc., that the body observing these functions and responding, triggers good feelings when tge system classifies itself as "real"

arrogance — Corvus

We are a conceited ape. The conceit is the illusion that our imaginations are special beyond their function (yes, that is impressive) but somehow as an eternal truth

Remember, just hypothetical.

after life, — Corvus

Mind craves an afterlife because the mechanism of the subject creates the illusion of continuing. I think, harsh as it is a pill to swallow, the so called subject doesn't really exist, and as for we tge body, it dies and is reborn in tge incessant present. If we want to put it into religious terms, There's God's gift to us, the eternal present, life, our fall is ignoring life and opting for knowledge and our own world that we built with it.

The body is plainly real in every sense of the word real. You're offering that in your statement.

All of the enumerated things mind can do are what we (mind) ascribes to itself as proof of its reality 'beyond' the physical body. But these are just functions being carried out by a system of stimulus and response. Just happens the functions have evolved to act in such a richly complex and sophisticated way, with a narrative form, mechanisms like the ones we call logic, grammar, reason, etc., that the body observing these functions and responding, triggers good feelings when tge system classifies itself as "real" — ENOAH

Your problem seems to stem from conflating mind and body at times, and then looking at mind and body separate entities as you go along. Constancy and coherence are lacking in your argument.

Mind and body are the same. Mind is is a part of the body. You are born in your body with little or no mind, then as your body grows, your mind emerges from the body. If you look at the mind as one of the organs of the body, then things get clearer.

Body has different parts, and the different parts do different things. Mind and body work together to function properly. If you had no eyes, then you won't have sights. If you have no ears, you won't hear. If you had no mind being unconscious, you will not see or hear even if you had eyes and ears. It is that simple.

We are a conceited ape. The conceit is the illusion that our imaginations are special beyond their function (yes, that is impressive) but somehow as an eternal truth — ENOAH

Yes, humans have logic, grammar and reasoning, which are handy for delving into more sophisticated tasks for survival in nature and the real world. All other animals which are non-human lack the capacity, and even humans have different levels in logic, grammar and reasoning. It is just a fact, nothing to do with conceit.

You can call humans as apes, because they share some biological mechanisms in life. They both have to be born, eat and drink, sleep, get old and die eventually. But that is where the common features exist and end as beings with the biological bodies. But they are not the same, when you look into their capacity of minds i.e. logic, grammar and reasoning. Saying that they are the same sounds over simplification of the beings in categorization trying to brush them under the same carpet for some peculiar reason.

Mind craves an afterlife because the mechanism of the subject creates the illusion of continuing. I think, harsh as it is a pill to swallow, the so called subject doesn't really exist, and as for we tge body, it dies and is reborn in tge incessant present. If we want to put it into religious terms, There's God's gift to us, the eternal present, life, our fall is ignoring life and opting for knowledge and our own world that we built with it. — ENOAH

It is a bit strange that you seem to acknowledge the existence of God, and creation of the universe and humans by the God. But at the same time you deny the existence of souls and spirits, and brush aside death as the final page of the chapter for the beings.

Souls and spirits are the essential elements in most religions. They are not for those non-believers. But if anyone is religious, then souls and spirits are the important existence which are real as the mind and body in the real world.

Your problem seems to stem from conflating mind and body at times, and then looking at mind and body separate entities as you go along — Corvus

I agree it appears that way. That’s because Mind requires Body as its infrastructure and response; there is a seeming grey area with an apparent overlap. But there is no overlap, the appearance is owing to the limitations of Mind in both discerning where one ends and tge other begins, and, insisting upon such discernment.

If you look at the mind as one of the organs of the body, then things get clearer. — Corvus

I'd like to. Please show me, where is that organ Mind?

Saying that they are the same sounds over simplification — Corvus

I recognize the empirical differences, by the same, to stick with the religious, I mean, we think our minds, aka souls, make us more valuable to nature/God. But I hypothesize that that is what alienates us from nature/god; in n/g eyes what makes as valuable is tge same as what makes a squirrel valuable, that we are living.

But at the same time you deny the existence of souls and spirits, and brush aside death as the final page of the chapter for the beings. — Corvus

I understand why the two seem to go hand in hand--God and spirit--but I do not see why it is necessary, or why, other than desire for immortality of a narrative the spirit is necessary

I'd like to. Please show me, where is that organ Mind? — ENOAH

It is not a physical organ, but conceptual and functional organ. All your thoughts, feelings, emotions and senses i.e. the bundle of perceptions are your organ of mind, which emerged from your brain.
You cannot see it of course. It is conceptual and functional, hence even Hume couldn't see it, and he had to conclude the existence of self doesn't exist. There is only a bundle of perception when looking at the idea of self.

I will do some thinking for my reply to your other points. Later~

You cannot see it of course. It is conceptual and functional — Corvus

Ok. Yah. Splice that sentence from our entire exchange, and you and I agree generally on what Mind is and how it's different from Body, though it emerges therefrom.

EDIT: if I am incapable of leaving well enough alone, which, to wit, I am incapable, then the potential locus of our divergence is I say that emergence which is conceptual and functional does not share one and the same claim to reality as the body--unless it is a Spirit, which you seem to be saying. While your position is not only reasonable, but seems to be conventional, even to those who claim to be rejecting duality, I just am convinced of a different conclusion, I.e. that it exists, is not body, but is not spirit either, is just the imagination having emerged into something we both utilize and are tricked by.

Ok. Yah. Splice that sentence from our entire exchange, and you and I agree generally on what Mind is and how it's different from Body, though it emerges therefrom. — ENOAH

:up: :cool: