Let's do it. I agree, they all are mental representations, although I'd say "past" is more complex than the rest. Let's not include it in the dissection. So, I'd like to ask you, what do you feel when you think of nostalgia? What is it represented by?

The correct measure of the mind's physicality is its energy consumption. — apokrisis

So, the mind has Power. Power is defined as the rate with respect to time at which work is done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)). The SI unit of Power is the watt which in SI base units is equal to a (kg x m^2) / s^3. Wouldn't this indicate that the mind has mass?

but isn't the rotation confined to a space?

I'd say in one scenario you are enjoying your beer and every attitude* of yours reflects your joy. Whilst in the other scenario, every attitude of yours reflects some other mental state which is certainly not the same as the one you have while drinking the beer or while you write the comment AND drink a beer. At some point in the near future, let's say you decide to have another beer, your second one, because fuck the comment. The mental state you had when drinking the first beer I think cannot be the same mental state you have while drinking the second beer. They are similar mental states, very similar, but not the same.

I'd say it is obvious that our minds are constantly changing; however, less obvious is our inability to replicate any given thought exactly. Also, I cannot think of two ideas at once; I can think of a car in a park, but I cannot focus on the park and on the car at the same time.

I don't think we ever have the same mental state. If a mental state is physical, then you having a beer is physically different to you writing a comment, even if much doesn't seem to have changed.

*Attitude: a position of the body indicating a particular mental state.

Honestly, I am having trouble coming to terms with the claim that there can be something which is not physical but which is the product of something physical. By not being physical, it would not occupy a space, and it would be changeless. I think it changes, however.

It is easier for my brain to agree with the following claim:

The mind is the process, the process is physical, and it is affected by time and space.

However, I know that agreeing is not the same as understanding, and I don't feel I understand neither claim.

Is information produced? I understand some types of information travel at the speed of light (acoustic waves don't, for example). Are these types of information also produced at the speed of light? When I ask if the mind is timeless, I ask if it is affected by change. If the mind is purely information, is it produced? What produces it? At what rate is it produced? Does this information change? Does the source of this information change?

Now, if something occupies a space and changes in time (possesses the quality of changing/change), isn't it physical?

Edit: When I ask if information is produced at the speed of light, I am asking if there exists a time interval between a production event and the next or if there isn't.

I'd say at this point I'm struggling more with the idea of something existing and not being physical, at least in regards to the mind. If the mind changes, why not consider it a physical entity?

Ok. I might be wrong on this. Aren't time and space connected? Can they act independently of one another; as in, can something occupy a space and not be affected by time, and vice versa? If the mind is affected by time, shouldn't it also occupy a space?

Is the mind timeless? Does it change at all with the passage of time? Or does it always posses the same exact qualities as time progresses?

As in responding to the passing of it. Like, does the mind changes with time? Or is it outside of time, timeless, not affected by time, at all?

Is the mind affected by time?

I agree, some ideas are. But when an idea is expressed by a subject and received by another, and when it becomes the object of discussion/debate, the idea is not the subject who expresses it, nor does it belong to such subject alone. All I am saying is that in a philosophical discussion/debate, words should be directed to that shared idea which is under discussion and not to the person or people who expressed the idea.

But not the person itself.

Pardon my language. I meant, direct your words to the idea, not to the person. Attack was such a strong word.

Attack the idea, not the person.

It's a Philosophy forum.

No one needs to repent.

Imagine every molecule in your brain. At any given time, every molecule in your brain occupies a particular point/position in the space determined by the extent of your brain; however, not all the volume of your brain is occupied by molecules at any given time. The shape/figure/architecture/distribution of the volume inside your brain which is void of molecules is not the same at any given time since the position of the molecules changes. The volume inside your brain which is void of molecules is constant as long as the number of molecules is kept constant; however, the shape/figure/architecture/distribution of this volume is not constant even when the number of molecules is kept constant. Is it plausible that the shape/figure/architecture/distribution of the volume inside your brain which is void of molecules and its constant change in shape are correlated to the mind?

A definition of nothingness cannot accept the existence of possibility. Nothingness is the absence of existence and as such it cannot be an emergent property, either. A substrate's existence requires the substrate to be different from the medium in which it exists, otherwise the substrate would be the same thing as the medium itself. If the quality of difference is absent then no substrate (including possibility) can exist; that is, in the absence of difference a particular (any particular) cannot exist. In other words, in the absence of difference there is an absence of existence because no particular can substantialize.

So now you are imagining unlimited and unbridled difference — apokrisis

.

What if you imagine unlimited and unbridled no-difference? I don't wanna use the term "similarity" because I think this term also presupposes substrate; however, unlimited and unbridled no-difference implies the impossibility of substrate.

So, the absence of difference is not the same as the absence of existence?

I think there is a difference between something “having the quality of being different” and a “state of nothingness”. — DingoJones

Just to be sure, in the sentence above you meant "having the quality of being no-different," right?

I don't really understand what you mean.

By variance I mean the quality of being different. Thus, a state of no variance would be a state where there is no difference/dissimilarity. Qualities such as unchanging and static presuppose a subject* whereas the quality of no-difference implies the impossibility of any subject. This way, nothingness equals no-difference.

What do you think?

* A person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with.

You say that we are different from each other both physically and in the contents of our minds. You also say that the contents of each mind determine its identity and that that which thinks has no distinct identity. Therefore, there is a mind, there is a that which thinks and there is a body, and all these make an individual. In addition, you say that that which thinks is common to all individuals; however, that the body and the mind are unique to each individual. Thus, an individual is made of a body which is unique to the individual, a mind which is also unique to the individual, and a that which thinks which is the same for all individuals. That is, there are many minds, many bodies, and only one that which things in the known universe. Is this interpretation of what you said correct?

Think about your life as an individual in a community. Think about the interactions you have with other individuals. Think about the set of all interactions all individuals have with each other. And then tell me Society is not physical. The mind is the Society of brain molecules; not just the molecules but also their interactions.

Can we do something similar with thoughts? — TheMadFool

Well, if you were able to measure the trajectories that brain molecules follow inside the brain throughout a given thought, then I think these trajectories would not be the same for every thought and similar thoughts would be represented by similar trajectories (given that molecular composition is held constant). Thus, every thought would be represented by a set of molecular trajectories particular to such thought.

Keep in mind that I am oversimplifying the matter since the composition of the molecules and environmental factors would also determine the nature of thoughts. The set of possible molecular trajectories would change with molecular composition, and, for example, with internal temperature (which in turn changes throughout the day-night cycle).

1. Mind
2. The trajectory a water molecule makes in a drop of water. And the set of all possible trajectories.
3. The trajectory a planet follows around its star. And the set of all celestial trajectories.
4. The trajectory this comment follows to go from my screen to your screen. And all trajectories that information follows in the www*.

*edit: internet

how do you explain the fact that the mind is never the same? or the self is never the same? I bet you are never the same person. Your self changes through time. How do you explain that with a non-physical entity?

The pattern exists independently of the meaning that you give to the pattern. The pattern is then objective, its meaning subjective.

The mind depends on the molecular composition (chemical properties, absolute quantities, and ratios) of the brain, the relative position of the component molecules with respect to each other* (including those molecules which make cells), and the allowed/permitted** change in both the composition and relative position of such molecules.

*this describes their interactions, in a broad sense.
**there is a limit to how much the composition or the relative position of the molecules which make a brain can be changed. (AND THIS I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MINDS, THEIR LIMIT). What determines how much these features can change before the mind stops being that?


Off course, all this characteristics of the mind (the molecules, their composition, and their spatial organization inside the brain) are influenced by the environment external to the body. In addition, they are in constant change.

Every molecule in your brain is different/unique. Every molecule in your brain occupies a unique position in your brain at any given time (no molecule can occupy the space other molecule occupies). Every molecule in your brain does not occupy the same position relative to other molecules in your brain at two consecutive times (molecules are in constant motion). Since every molecule is in constant motion, the interactions of a given molecule change with time (a molecule will never have the same set of interactions). Assuming all molecules in the brain are directly involved in the generation of thoughts, a particular thought would be represented by a set of molecular spatial organizations (a set of molecular interactions). As the molecules assume the spatial organizations associated with a thought, a thought develops. For every thought, there is a particular set of molecular spatial organizations (two thoughts are never the same nor can a thought arise from a static/non-changing molecular spatial organization). The totality of molecular spatial organizations (the total set of molecular interactions) which occur throughout an individual's lifetime determines the totality of thoughts that an individual has. The total possible set of molecular spatial organizations depends on the molecules, their absolute quantities, their ratios, and environmental cues.

I did not mean that thoughts depend (entirely) on the flow rate or composition of (or any other property of) blood that reaches the brain. I was using the circulation of blood as an analogy to mind. To ask how much a thought weighs would be analogous to asking how much blood circulation weighs. The mind and the circulation of blood are both processes which depend on a particular set of molecules with a particular set of properties occupying a particular volume of space with a particular architecture.

But once you arrive at that argument, all philosophical thinking stops because you simply explain everything with the existence of god or you put a constraint to any discussion (everything is within god's existence). I think philosophy must be done from a completely atheist perspective, which does not mean that you must be an atheist to do philosophy; it simply means that one must assume that no god exists when doing philosophy. Being honest with oneself, one must admit that if god exists, its existence may never be proven (at least not in our lifetime). So, why have as an objective of one's philosophy proving the existence of god or why use the existence of god as one's philosophical foundation? It is better, I think, to use philosophy as a tool to explore that which is unknown and to use one's curiosity and ignorance as one's philosophical foundation (that is, I know nothing, and I am that which is curious and explores the unknown through reason).

Our feeling of insignificance may arise from our feeling of superiority; I think they go hand in hand. When a kid sees a small ant and realizes he can kill it because he is larger and more powerful, the thought that the ant for being smaller is weaker must also be present. The thought that the ant is less complex because it is weaker and smaller comes later in life, I think, when we are taught about complexity and the notion that things which seem more complex are more significant/important/essential. I think we think that with complexity comes significance. Thus, that which seems to be more complex, is at the same time larger and stronger, and more significant. However, all complexity there is has evolved for the same amount of time. In a sense, we are as old as all other things in the universe.

But, everything about a circulation can be measured physically - the flow rate, the physical appearance of the blood, the chemical content of the blood, etc. but can you measure thought - what is it's color? how much does each thought weigh? — TheMadFool

When you ask how much each thought weighs or what is the colour of thought, you are asking how much each circulation weighs or what is the colour of circulation. In the case of blood circulation, you can measure its features (flow rate, pressure, cellular content, gaseous content, ionic content, protein content, etc) which, individually, are not the circulation of blood itself. Same with thought. Like blood circulation, thought is a process which occurs in a defined space (the brain or certain areas of the brain) and which is determined by the molecular properties of the medium in which it occurs (the brain or certain areas of the brain).

Too many cells in blood plasma and blood circulation is going to slow down; too many proteins and the same thing is going to happen. Too many cells in the brain (i.e., a tumour) and you are not going to be the normal you. Too much THC in your brain and you are not going to be the normal you, either; not enough oxygen in your brain and you will feel its effects. You have a stroke, blood gets inside areas of you brain where it should not be, a short circuit occurs, and you loose consciousness not because consciousness decided to go but because the conditions required for there to be consciousness are not there anymore.

That the self changes when the chemical composition of the brain changes I think is a strong indicator of the self's dependency on the brain and of the self's physicality.

When you die, oxygen stops flowing to the brain (the heart stops pumping blood). Oxygen is a requirement for the production of ATP, which is in turn required to maintain chemical gradients across cell membranes; these chemical gradients are then used to do work.
No oxygen, no ATP, no chemical gradients, no work. A cell does work to maintain a state of low entropy which is compatible with life. If a cell is unable to do work, entropy does its part. Decomposition of the body (or cells) is entropy in action. If the brain is unable to maintain the molecular conditions required to generate thought (unable to maintain their ordered state), thought does not occur (or deviates from normal).

The question is: why the state of entropy maintained by living cells allows life?

I am not a neurologist nor am I studying neurology (I haven't even finished my degree), so please take my words with caution. There's a book called Molecular Biology of the Cell (6th Edition) which I think is available for free online (maybe at the NCBI's website) which explains quite neatly a lot of the processes which maintain cells alive. I think that understanding these processes gives insight into phenomena such as the mind, free will, etc. There is also a book called Human Physiology: An Integrated Approach (7th Edition), which talks more about systems biology, and which might be easier to digest if one does not have a background in cell biology (I think you could also find it for free online). The books are very well written so I'd recommend anyone one to give them a look.

Every thing which exists is significant; otherwise, it would not exist.

Mind is to the nervous system as the circulation of blood is to the circulatory system.

Meaningful communication about mental states was exchanged. — RogueAI

Their communication was not about mental states; it was not about sympathy or pain. Their communication reflects their mental states; the words used in their communication express the mental state that cause them, but are not about the mental states that cause them. I can use words to express a mental state without talking about the mental state.

If thoughts are immaterial,

would you say that they are immaterial entities which depend on material ones (molecules), and their properties (ratios, absolute quantities, spatial organization, chemical properties), to exist or that they are entirely immaterial and do not depend on any material entity to exist?

True; I think a full/exhaustive characterization of the average values for such factors under biologically-relevant conditions (sleep, euphoria, fear, hot weather, cold weather, anxiety, etc) must be done before we can really start exploring the reasons that control those factors. And although it is already being done, it is still in its infancy, I think. I mean, such characterization won't be finished in my life time. However, it is an interesting topic to discuss, and I think debates like this may help some people feel more human (they humanize the self), or at least debates like this may give rise to very interesting questions.