.

I think there is a lack of easily accessible spaces where ordinary people can express and debate their thoughts with each other respectfully and in the absence of prejudice and judgement. Normally, ordinary people has easy access to programs/shows where the opinions of academics, politicians, tv or music stars and other famous people are expressed and/or discussed (i.e., news, tv shows, radio shows, youtube shows, etc.), but I am not sure if a show/program exists where an ordinary person has the opportunity to really express and debate his/her point of view of life as an ordinary person (a program where the host interviews regular people). I think that having access to such a space would help people develop their ideas and their view of the world and also to see their thoughts and own experiences reflected in other people's experiences; I think this would promote communication and empathy, which I think are required for the people to start working towards a common good. While spaces like this forum are amazing, I think they lack the means to reach most ordinary people; in addition, they are too impersonal. Places like this forum, which rely on written debate, lack personal connection between participants which I think is key in any kind of debate. Also, to be completely honest, I have not done enough research to see if places like the one I am trying to describe exist, and if you (whoever reads this) know of any I'd appreciate it if you let me know.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing in favour of the mind existing without a body. Like you, I also believe that it cannot exist without a body and that there is no such thing as a soul. So, when I say that the mind occupies a space, I mean that the process (the allowed set of molecular interactions and their allowed change through time) from which the mind arises occupies a space (such process is limited to the space delimited by the brain-or a space within the brain). The process, again, does not only depend on the spatial organization of the molecules which make it possible, but it also depends on the chemical properties of these molecules, their absolute quantities and ratios.

This way (read above) the mind is not the molecules which make it possible, nor is it their spatial organization, their chemical properties, their absolute quantities, or their ratios. The mind would be a process limited by these factors. Once any of these factors changes to an extent which does not support the existence of the mind (the process), the mind stops existing. But what determines the allowed values for such factors?

I agree; the person is also the place its body occupies (and maybe more things), and this I think makes our existence something really wonderful. Each mind is indeed pretty unique and worth taking care of.

If this is true then the mind, the YOU, is nothing more than a bunch of biological/chemical reactions. — Sir2u

I would add: ...chemical reactions [which nature depends on the interacting molecules, their ratios, and their spatial distribution in the brain] Thus, the mind is limited by the kind of molecules which form it (not all molecules can form a human mind), the ratios* in which they are found (not all combinations of allowed molecules can form a human mind), and their position with respect to each other (even if you have the allowed molecules at adequate ratios, if they do not follow an allowed distribution in space, you wont have a mind). The last requirement limits the mind to a space, I think; but then the mind does not only depend on the spatial distribution of the molecules which form it; it would also depend on their ratios, absolute quantities*, and their chemical properties**.

* and absolute quantities (?)-as in, even if you have the right molecules and ratios, you need a minimum/maximum amount of each molecule.
** this would lead to the question: why this limits? why a human mind cannot be replicated with any combination of molecules in any spatial orientation other than the allowed ones?

How do we control the chemical reactions? — Sir2u

Honestly, I do not know if we do.

ALSO, I'd like to remind everyone that whatever has been said in all these comments (mine and others') is merely speculative, at least in some (most) part. I say it because I think it is an important reminder.

An idea would depend on the spatial organization and composition of the molecules at the moment when such idea comes to mind.

To ask what makes the idea come to mind would be the same as to ask what makes the spatial organization and the composition of the molecules be the one which allows the existence of, or represents, such idea.

Each idea has associated to it a particular molecular spatial organization and composition, which changes in time, just like the idea.

The mind depends on the molecular composition (chemical nature and relative 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 are influenced by the environment external to the body. In addition, they are in constant change.

Objectifying mind could be a category mistake. — jorndoe

could you explain this a bit more? I don't know if I get what you are trying to say (and still, I'm replying to your comment; forgive me if I got it wrong)

However:

If the mind is the temporal arrangement* of brain components in space, wouldn't it be an object like any other?

and others

or each mind depends on, among other things* (but mainly on), both the composition-what it** is made of and the relative(?) proportions of its components-of its brain, and the point in "brain space" which each of its** components occupies with respect to every other of its component at any given time.

* the composition and relative position of its** components is affected by the environment.
** the brain('s).
BOLD unnecessary(?)

and is every mental representation in the form of images or "sounds" made by my inner voice? or am I missing some other type of mental representation?

do you think there is a definition which would encompass every space there is? like, is there a feature which is common to all spaces so that they all can be classified as such in terms of such feature? does my question make sense?

If there are other minds only implies that they are separate, you cannot conclude that they occupy a space from that. — Sir2u

Also, if they are separate, what does this mean? I mean, to be separate, wouldn't they have to occupy a different point in some kind of space?

not knowing and wanting to know — Victoria Nova

What causes the want (the desire) to know?

When I try to think about which space the mind would occupy, I always end up asking myself "relative to what?". As if for it to occupy a space, there needs to be something else other than itself. So, if the mind occupies a space, it has to be a shared space (i.e., whatever space it occupies, it cannot be the only thing that occupies such space).

so, if the mind has a limit... what is the cause of this limit... what is it that limits the mind? what makes its boundaries? what makes it a discrete entity, a particular? what causes it to conform to such limit? what hinders its going beyond its own limit? what keeps its limit? what is (are) the thing(s) that determine(s) the mind's limit? is it something external to it? something in itself? if it has a limit... does it have a limit relative to something else (that which is outside its limit)? Does it occupy a space?

I don't think the mind works at the quantum level..... it'd be too easily influenceable(?) for it to be able to form the human character. I dunno if that makes sense. I once read this book called "What is Life?" by Erwin Schrödinger; here, he says that (and please don't trust my words cause I am probably wrong) life is design to perceive bulk aggregates of particles because if it was sensible to the effects of individual particles there would be too much chaos for there to be something like the kind of life which exists today. Probably, the same thing could happen to the mind if it worked at such small levels.

I guess I just wanna give it a shape... you know, make it something more tangible. If it exists, it must have a shape/limit/form/figure/boundaries, and thus it must occupy some kind of space.

Isn't just about everything in philosophy subjective? (including the concept of objective) — A Seagull

So, is there a limit for the human mind?

The wind is not 'material' nor does it have a shape nor a fixed location but it is definately physical and interacts with matter. — Asif

Wind is made of gas molecules following gas laws. Wind is not earth, nor is it water, nor is it fire, nor is it anything else but wind; so, I'd say wind does have a shape. It has a location. You will not feel Earth's wind in space, nor will you feel solar wind on Earth (I think the magnetic field shield us from it, I might be mistaken, but I'm sure you know what I mean). Earth wind can only happen on Earth's surface (the atmosphere).

Now, why should the mind be consider something divine? Just because we don't understand it?

what kind of space would it be?

The mind is where thoughts live, so when a thought is successfully translated from some immaterial realm inside one's head to some sort of existence that is tangible, and physical, isn't that the mind occupying a space? — oni

So, there is in my head an immaterial, non-physical realm? Are you saying that the mind indeed does occupy a physical space when ideas "materialize", but that there is something else, where ideas live when they have not been materialized, which exists but does not occupy a space? Is there a moment in one's life when there is not a single materialized idea in one's mind?

So, something that does not have a definite location still can occupy a space. My question is about the mind occupying a space and not about it having a definite location.

what are you doing to save them? what in the world gives you the moral right to put forward and defend such an evil proposition?

I think there is an idea in the human mind in which such mind is believed to be divine/not of this realm/world, supernatural (a dangerous idea, in my opinion). Even though the human mind is certainly something really special, it is not something divine, in my opinion. It is just a trait, like echolocation or sight, for example (astonishing traits which are not considered to be divine). A product of evolution. The original question was intended to challenge the idea that the mind is not something physical while at the same time it was an attempt to determine what space it occupies (since it exists).

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, I guess? Every concept a result of it.

Is not to have a location the same as to not occupy a space? An electron's position might not be able to be stablished, but it will never be found in the nucleus of an atom. Makes sense?

I dunno Seagull... I'd say that something does not exist when it does not interact with anything at all. Therefore, I guess something would be a thing that interacts. I mean, I do not think it is possible to truly talk about something which does not exist... when we do, we are talking about an idea that represents the concept of non-existence, which does exist.

Also, like Pantagruel, I'd like to know what things do not fall in any of those categories?

Honestly, I do not know how to define the mind. When I think about "the mind" I think of that quality (of my body?) which allows my body to refer to itself as I and to reason as I... if that makes sense. But to be honest I have never been able to fully grasp the concept. I think this is the purpose of my question, to try to define it by finding its properties (if it occupies a space, in this case).

For me to-exist is a synonym of to-be-a-particular/unity/discrete-entity. Something either exists or does not, no matter the state in which it exists. Space is the dimensions of height, width and depth within which all things exist and move (I borrowed this definition from a dictionary). An idea is a neuronal process dependent on physical elements (cells, molecules, and their interactions) which occupy a space. Every concept is an idea. Therefore, every concept exists as a neuronal process which occupies a space. Math and phase space are concepts. They exist as ideas. They must occupy a space.

Not sure. Maybe a mind is the space that a brain occupies. — bert1

Interesting definition. I have come to believe that the mind is the set of changes in the composition of the extracellular space surrounding neurons (and supportive cells) which occur throughout the life of an individual. In my definition, the mind is not the cells which form the brain nor is it the space they occupy; it is rather the microenvironment that surrounds such cells and its dynamics (change in composition). As such, the mind would occupy a space (the extracellular space) different to the space which the cells occupy.

Could you give an example of a property of space other than the mind? Now, if you think the mind occupies a space, what would you say its limit is? I am asking this because it seems that everything that occupies a space is limited (i.e., it has a shape/form/limit).

Do you think, however, that the mind occupies a space?

Edit: Also, isn't everything that interacts with matter physical? Does the mind interact with matter?

Is there any specific reason you're asking? — Echarmion

I was just trying to find an argument in favour of the mind's physical nature. My reasoning was:

1. Everything that exists occupies a space.
2. The mind exists.
3. The mind occupies a space.

But what space does the mind occupy?

You made me think of another question: is everything that occupies a space of a material (physical?)* nature?

*some particles are said to be massless but still physical... they interact with mass and must occupy a space (right?). Mind could be massless but physical nonetheless.

What would it occupy if not a space? — Isaac

If it occupies a space, it must have a limit. What limits the mind?

Existence appears out of necessity since nothingness cannot exist (there cannot be nothing, never). This is not the same as saying that existence comes from nothing since, again, nothing can never be (something cannot come from something else which does not have the capacity to exist (or the quality of existent)-this is an assumption). There must always be something. Existence is a requirement because there cannot be nothing.

I do not think it would be ethical to take advantage of someone's desire to be free.

You should be experimented on for propositions like that.

I was not trying to justify racial discrimination but presenting what I think might be one of the causes of racist behaviour. All races are racist to some extent (I'd even say all people are racists to some extent), and this fact, makes me hypothesize that racist behaviour might be a consequence of kin selection in action. Again, I am not saying that racist behaviour is right nor that kin selection is the only cause of racist behaviour; all I am saying is that I think that the theory of kin selection could be used to explain why an individual fights for the prolongation of its race. In fact, I think such theory could explain any act of discrimination. (Racism exists, and to try to find its causes is not the same as to justify its existence).

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(02)01344-1.pdf

Read it and let me know if such theory could not be used to explain some of the phenomena observed in racist behaviour. Also, I am not an expert in evolutionary forces, and thus everything I say is just (educated) conjectures.

How does materialism even begin to explain how moving electrons across synaptic gaps in certain ways gives rise to conscious experience? — RogueAI

single electrons do not move across synaptic gaps, it is neurotransmitters which pass a signal from neuron to neuron.

We are debating the existence of something. To be able to debate the existence of something, one must be able to talk about that something; one must be able to describe the experiences one has had of that something. So far, you have not written a single sentence in which you describe your experience of God. You have said that your god is the god of christians, the god of the bible, the god of Aquinas; I do not know what kinds of gods those gods are, and I am not going on Google to look them up because, as I said, I am having this debate with you and not with Google or anyone else.

What arguments in favour of the existence of God do you have?

You talk about many things being but no about how they are.

How can you argue in favour of the existence of something that you can't describe with your own words, not even in the most basic way?

Interesting. Does this suggest that there is a subjective truth at work? — 3017amen

Off course, what you experience is not what I experience. We do not occupy the same space. As a consequence, what you think is different to what I think. Our conceptions may be very similar, but never the same; hence, I ask for your definition of God, so that I can make an idea of the thing you believe in and compare it to my idea of God.

I'm not following that. From history, Jesus was known to be a man. Describing his physical, objective attributes, as you have in describing a dog's, would be a bit redundant I think. — 3017amen

Then describe to me its non-physical, non-objective attributes. I mean, if it exists, it must have at least one attribute other than "it is Jesus".

No I don't. Who knows the mind of God and/or man? For instance, do you know the nature of your existence? Of course not. Why should this be any different? — 3017amen

How do you (you, 3017amen-I am not asking anyone else but you) perceive God? Or are you trying to argue in favour of the existence of something you have never experienced?

This is called simple volitional existence. In other words, you have made that choice. End of story right? — 3017amen

Are you saying Jesus, in the condition of human, chose to be a god, and then became a god?