The issue is one of whether or not the mind itself is strictly constituted of quantitative energy - such that each conceivable thought (and intention, desire, emotion, perspective, percept, ect.) is part of the quantitative energy of the universe that is conserved. If so, and if e = mc^2, then an individual thought is equivalent to some physical mass multiplied by the speed of light squared that, via the law of conservation, removes energy from the non-mental aspects of the universe by virtue of the thought’s occurrence. Um … yea, I don’t think so. Though I’m sure some physicalists may want to endorse such a view. — javra

This paragraph is not at all clear.

This paragraph is not at all clear. — Banno

:lol: :ok: :cool:

If the mind is physical, then thoughts are physical. If a thought is physical, it consists of physical energy. If physical energy can be validly quantified as e = mc^2, then our physical thoughts, which consist of structured physical energy, then consist of physical mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Ergo, our physical thoughts have physical mass.

Where's the logical fallacy in this?

Can we be sure the brain is where the mind is? A friend likes to remind me that our digestive system contains more neurons than a cat's entire brain and generally cats do ok. — TiredThinker

When you do a calculation with pen and paper, the pen and paper are part of your calculation. Does your mind extend to the paper?

When you rotate a jigsaw piece to rethink how it might fit, aren't you using your fingers as part of your thinking?

Other examples will become apparent with a bit of thought. Cognition is embodied.

I don't see a problem.

I don't see a problem. — Banno

OK, you. Given that you also find the premise true, let me know what the quantifiable mass of "the theory of evolution" is, or at least how to go about obtaining it. Next, is the physical mass of your average intention greater or smaller than the physical mass of the average percept?

But I grant, you are a dyed-in-the-wool physicalist. :smile:

Seems you utterly missed the point. You want to know the length of the bill on the rabbit. You are mixing your language games.

Yes, the theory of evolution has a mass. But unfortunately that mass is mixed in with a whole lot of other stuff in such a way that it would not be calculable.

Anomalous, social monism.

Yes, the theory of evolution has a mass. But unfortunately that mass is mixed in with a whole lot of other stuff in such a way that it would not be calculable. — Banno

As to being mixed with other stuff, the same can be said of any physical thing, like a rock. You know, fields, quanta that fly in and out, and such. But we can nevertheless quantify the mass of a rock well enough for all given purposes.

You're basically saying thoughts are quantifiable energy that ain't quantifiable. A logical contradiction.

But have it your way.

Your argument is rhetorical.

You cannot tell me the mass of all the rocks in the Simpson Desert, therefore those rocks do not have mass.

Your are basically saying that the rocks in the Simpson Desert have a quantifiable mass that is not quantifiable. A logical contradiction.

But have it your way.

You cannot tell me the mass of all the rocks in the Simpson Desert, therefore those rocks do not have mass. — Banno

Well with some empirical investigation and added resources I could give you at least a ball park figure.

How can one go about quantitatively approximating the mass of the theory of evolution in principle ... oh yea, one can't. :yikes:

But have it your way. — Banno

Alright.

Given the exchange rate, no more than a fraction of a gram.

Given the exchange rate, no more than a fraction of a gram. — Banno

Yes, maybe, but how do you quantitatively obtain that approximation?

Banno's method is to drag all of these debates into the realm of the banal by repeated use of innappopriate metaphors, cliches and over-simplifications repeated ad nauseum until all interest is drained out of the discussion and everyone looses interest. The debate isn't resolved so much as strangled in the crib.

There is one interesting and scientifically-validated piece of evidence for the immaterial nature of mind. This comes from a discussion of the 'neural binding problem' in neuroscience. 'Binding' is the cognitive process which brings together all of the various elements of perception - movement, shape, colour, position, the nature of the object, and so on - into the unified whole that comprises subjective experience (called the 'stable world illusion'). In brief, the neural binding problem is that neuroscience can find no functional area of the brain which can account for this unified sense of self.

There is a plausible functional story for the stable world illusion. First of all, we do have a (top-down) sense of the space around us that we cannot currently see, based on memory and other sense data—primarily hearing, touch, and smell. Also, since we are heavily visual, it is adaptive to use vision as broadly as possible. Our illusion of a full field, high resolution image depends on peripheral vision—to see this, just block part of your peripheral field with one hand. Immediately, you lose the illusion that you are seeing the blocked sector. When we also consider change blindness, a simple and plausible story emerges. Our visual system (somehow) relies on the fact that the periphery is very sensitive to change. As long as no change is detected it is safe to assume that nothing is significantly altered in the parts of the visual field not currently attended.

But this functional story tells nothing about the neural mechanisms that support this magic. What we do know is that there is no place in the brain where there could be a direct neural encoding of the illusory detailed scene (Kaas and Collins 2003). That is, enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience. So, this version of the NBP really is a scientific mystery at this time.

The author of this paper, Jerome S. Feldman, from the Computer Science Institute Berkeley, acknowledges that this amounts to scientific acknowledgement of Chalmer's 'hard problem of consciousness':

There are intractable problems in all branches of science; for Neuroscience a major one is the mystery of subjective personal experience. This is one instance of the famous mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) concerning the relation of our subjective experience (aka qualia) to neural function.

You can find the specifics here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/#Sec3title

The 'mystery of subjective personal experience' is a pregnant phrase. If you look into the subjective unity of perception, it becomes clear it is a long-standing area of interest in philosophy, and one of the major concerns of Kant in his famous Critiques.

Or, it might be a duck-rabbit.

Same way you did for the rocks.

I don't see a point to your questions. They show you haven't understood the suggestion.

Banno's method is to drag all of these debates into the realm of the banal by repeated use of innappopriate metaphors, cliches and over-simplifications repeated ad nauseum until all interest is drained out of the discussion and everyone looses interest. The debate isn't resolved so much as strangled in the crib. — Wayfarer

This is how folk respond when their arguments have been flattened - they attack their interlocutor.

The remainder of the post is an appeal to the god-of-the-gaps...
or should that be mind-of-the-gaps?

In brief, the neural binding problem is that neuroscience can find no functional area of the brain which can account for this unified sense of self. — Wayfarer

Yup.

Same way you did for the rocks. — Banno

You can empirically investigate - such as by visually seeing, touching, or smelling - thoughts such as the theory of evolution? Because empirical investigation is part and parcel of how I'd quantify the rocks' mass. No empirical data about them, no quantification of their mass.

I wager you can't. So your answer is, well, wrong.

This is how folk respond when their arguments have been flattened. — Banno

You have to understand something to flatten it. You can't flatten anything by incomprehension.

By the way, there's an excellent repository of arguments for, by and about dualism here

https://www.newdualism.org/newtheory.htm

Not all the links work but there's a trove of content.

What if the mind, perhaps of ethereal substance doesn't effect the physical world and therefore cannot be measured? Maybe it is essentially 0 dimensional or omnipresent and cannot be quantified? And in any event even with physical measurements we keep underestimating the electrical and chemical effects within the brain. It is yet still too subtle. But assuming the brain is a receiver as some say, but not the mind, couldn't the mind influence the brain and the brain influences the body? What if we can't measure before a thought? Tedious perhaps, but what if that ended up being the case? Physics and science can operate within limited spaces if need be? — TiredThinker

Close to the fact of the matter. Physics, science, and natural philosophy generally operate within the scope of the objective, what can be objectively measured and known. Obviously - it's very obvious when you reflect on it - 'the mind' doesn't fall within that domain, the mind is the subject of experience, not an object of analysis.

You can empirically investigate - such as by visually seeing, touching, or smelling - thoughts such as the theory of evolution? Because empirical investigation is part and parcel of how I'd quantify the rocks' mass. No empirical data about them, no quantification of their mass. — javra

That was the point of this.

Are you now agreeing with me? Good.

Anomalous Monism.

You have to understand something to flatten it. — Wayfarer

Ah. A worthy admission on your part.

Talk about rhetorical bulshitology.

What does the theory of evolution visually look like?

How can one quantify its mass in principle?

Your answer: "I'm agreeing with you". This due to gestalt principles of awareness no less.

No.

@javra, @Wayfarer

You decide to raise your arm, and low, the damn thing goes up.

The only rational explanation is that there is a physical link of some sort between mind and arm; that they are basically the same sort of thing.

Those who suppose otherwise - the ball is in your court. It is over to you to explain how mind can have an impact on the physical world if it is an utterly different sort of thing.

What does the theory of evolution visually look like? — javra

This simply shows you have not understood the proposal.

Your question is like asking what the mass is of democracy, and using the lack of an answer to argue that since democracy does not have a mass, it doesn't exist.

It's just using words incorrectly.

It is over to you to explain how mind can have an impact on the physical world if it is an utterly different sort of thing. — Banno

You know they know they can't. :smirk:

Yeah, but it seems they don't.

Well what if the information goes in one direction? The mind to the brain to the body? We can measure the brain effects, but can't prove there isn't a power over it? What if the mind was arranged in a similar fashion as the brain except doesn't suffer physical death? It could be 1:1 relationship and remain hidden in that sense.

Dark matter and dark energy have noticeable and measurable effect, but they themselves haven't been tracked down. It often seems we learn more from the wakes than the things themselves?

You decide to raise your arm, and low, the damn thing goes up. — Banno

Humans are capable of intentional actions, as are animals.

Well what if the information goes in one direction? — TiredThinker

What would that mean? You could move things but not see around you? You could hear and feel, but not move? But we know the information goes in both directions - you see things around you and you move them.

Dark mater and dark energy are both things in the physical world, as is mind. We know they are there from what they do to the stuff around them.

Mind is special. It is different to everything around it. But it is as much a part of the physical world as are rocks, black holes and pop music.

And when it stops? You already know about not being conscious - you were unconscious last night, and before you were born.

Humans are capable of intentional actions, as are animals. — Wayfarer

Yes. Do you have a point to draw from this?

SO here's myaccount: there are two ways to describe raising your arm. One involves forming the intention and acting on it. The other involves the firing of neurones and the contraction of muscle tissue.

I say these are two differing descriptions of the very same thing.

IS that so hard to grasp?

I answered the question. Anything else?

Which question?

How it is that humans raise their arms. It’s very simple, unless of course they’re quadriplegic or unconscious.