The fact that in REM sleep we're not conscious of ourselves, like we are when awake, means that the defining characteristic of mind, self-awareness, is missing in it. Ergo, this ability to recognize our own existence can't be a brain-activity phenomenon. — TheMadFool

For one thing, self-awareness isn't missing in REM sleep. When I'm flying in a dream, for instance, I know that it's me flying. The same neurons for self-awareness are firing awake or dreaming. Also, I don't believe that self-awareness is the defining characteristic of a mind.

Yes, fire is energy. And the mind is a result of electricity and chemical reactions zipping around the brain matter. A non-living mind does not have these measurable physical reactions and energy.

According to physics, matter and energy are interchangeable. Arguably, they are the same thing. Electricity for example is the zipping of electrons extremely quickly into adjacent atoms in an orderly fashion.

Our philosophy must be grounded first upon the knowledge of today. The men of centuries ago did the same. We cannot postulate ideas without first knowing what we can about our modern day truths of the world. It is a nice conjecture that the mind is somehow not physical, but everything in science shows us that the mind is very measurable, physical, and within this world.

When I'm flying in a dream, for instance, I know that it's me flying. — praxis

Really? You remember your dreams. That seems to contradict the well known fact that to remember dreams one has to be woken up in the middle of it.

Also, I don't believe that self-awareness is the defining characteristic of a mind. — praxis

Then what's the defining characteristic of mind?

What are the physical properties of a thought?

I'm mainly concerned about the brain activity being the same between awake and REM sleep states. If the mind is the brain, we should be conscious on both occasions but we're not. — TheMadFool

If the engine is running, but the gearstick is in neutral, is it a puzzle the car is not going anywhere?

Consciousness isn't something separate from the physical fact of being in the world. It is all about that way of being in the world. It is controlling a car in motion that makes one a driver, not merely sitting in the driver's seat.

When we are awake, the difference is that the brain has physical stimulation that it is responding to in terms of its "pattern fitting". There is a real world problem getting constantly solved.

Your Matrix simulation could only work as it mimics some kind of real physical stimulation, even if you have reduced that to winking LED lights in a set of VR googles, or whatever. And in a VR simulation, you change the view "realistically" by physically moving your head in space. A Matrix world is only convincing to the degree it provides this normal seeming level of interaction with its "physics".

So your arguments rely on your failure to be realistic about what is actually involved in a brain forming a working relationship with the world.

The whole point of the mind is to provide a way of regulating the physics of the world. And it does this by implementing a modelling interaction. Remove the physical half of the equation - as happens when the brain shuts off the normal flow of sensation from the senses at the brainstem level - and we get the confused states of sleep where the brain is just riffing off its own memory patterns.

It is revving the engine, stomping on the accelerator, for sure. But there is no physical response - no challenge of actually having to drive. And hence no feedback to structure the resulting states of experience.

Here is how thoughts are generally measured. https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-are-thoughts-measured/

Mri's and dopamine are one level. In studies, they'll ask a person a few questions, record when a person thinks an answer, then can repeat the process. From the first article I linked you:

"So his team turned to a computer algorithm known as a 'vocoder' that can synthesise speech after being trained on recordings of people talking.

Professor Mesgarani said: 'This is the same technology used by Amazon Echo and Apple Siri to give verbal responses to our questions.'

He taught it to interpret brain activity by teaming up with US neurosurgeon Dr Ashesh Mehta whose epileptic patients have allowed him to implant their brains with electrodes to find the source of their seizures.

Explained Prof Mesgarani: 'Working with Dr. Mehta, we asked epilepsy patients already undergoing brain surgery to listen to sentences spoken by different people, while we measured patterns of brain activity. These neural patterns trained the vocoder.'"

Feel free to go and read more. Its neat stuff.

Let's suppose the mind = brain and that physicalism is true. What are the physical properties of thoughts? At the very least, something - thoughts - aren't physical at all.

You didn't answer my question. Right now I'm thinking about the brain. What are the physical properties of this thought of mine?

Let's suppose the mind = brain and that physicalism is true. — TheMadFool

But that is not what I said. I said the mind is an informational model of the entropic world. It is a pattern that exists to the degree it can regulate that world as something "external" to it.

But by the same token, it only exists to the degree the world is actually being regulated. So without a physically effective impact, there is no consciousness happening.

What are the physical properties of thoughts? — TheMadFool

They would be the physical results of those thoughts (plus the general but small constant cost of keeping the brain running as the pattern generator).

So did a skyscraper get built on the corner lot? Some architect's vision had a physical impact on the world then.

At the very least, something - thoughts - aren't physical at all. — TheMadFool

The thought results are their physical consequences. The thought process has its standard brain metabolic cost.

The only reason you see no physics here is because you refuse to look. Where is the evidence that thoughts aren't physical "at all" when they are "all about" information patterns that need to be able to manage the physics of the world in real-time?

So yes, there is a division. There is this biological thing of information regulating physical entropy flows.

But you are just re-running the old vitalist argument about living organisms being some great unphysical mystery.

Life and mind are the same kind of deal. One models the world it wants - the metabolic flows that constitute living - using the information held by genes. The other also models the world it wants - the thoughts that regulate the wider environment - using the information held by neurons.

I'm not sure what else to tell you sir. I've pointed to two articles which have shown physical properties we can track to measure thoughts.

Here is an in depth article on neurotransmiters, and how the brain functions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/

Now can we see your thoughts exactly as you do? Well, no. But that applies to anything. I cannot experience what it is to be a fire, or a duck, or a dog, but I can measure that they exist. Science has proven time and time again the chemical workings of a living brain. How it can be disrupted, damaged, improved, and affect a person's thoughts. If you're genuinely curious, google a few more articles afterwards. I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter. It is incontrovertible at this time in our scientific advancement that the active mind is a physical reality.

But that is not what I said. — apokrisis

They would be the physical results of those thoughts (plus the general but small constant cost of keeping the brain running as the pattern generator). — apokrisis

The only reason you see no physics here is because you refuse to look. Where is the evidence that thoughts aren't physical "at all" when they are "all about" information patterns that need to be able to manage the physics of the world in real-time? — apokrisis

I'm not sure what else to tell you sir. I've pointed to two articles which have shown physical properties we can track to measure thoughts. — Philosophim

Those are physical correlates of thinking and not thoughts themselves.

I ask tne two of you again the simple question: what are the physical properties of thoughts?

I've answered your questions. If you want me to add further answers, you're going to have to do more then just repeat the same question.

I've answered your questions. If you want me to add further answers, you're going to have to do more then just repeat the same question. — Philosophim

You have only pointed to articles by scientists that correlate particular physical brain phenomena with thinking but you haven't demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction, that thoughts themselves are physical. Sorry.

Those are physical correlates of thinking and not thoughts themselves. — TheMadFool

The thoughts are causal. The productive interaction is what physically exists as "a self".

I ask tne two of you again the simple question: what are the physical properties of thoughts? — TheMadFool

You simply ask an incoherent question if your notion of physics is as limited as your notion of mind.

Do you think "physics" is the easy part of the problem here? There is a lot to unlearn on that score as well then.

You simply ask an incoherent question if your notion of physics is as limited as your notion of mind — apokrisis

You maybe correct but here's what I'd like you to do: List 4 things that are physical starting with 1. thought. What would your list look like? I'm curious.

I'm mainly concerned about the brain activity being the same between awake and REM sleep states. If the mind is the brain, we should be conscious on both occasions but we're not. — TheMadFool

Then what do you mean by "consciousness"?

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

Hah. It would look like a pattern - a pattern of entropy dissipation - of course. Everything physical looks more like a process, a "mindful" flow, if viewed on the right scale to reveal its causal structure.

You have only pointed to articles by scientists that correlate particular physical brain phenomena with thinking but you haven't demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction, that thoughts themselves are physical. Sorry.

Oh, is this just a semantics issue of what physical means? Physical is matter and energy (really the same thing). Thoughts are more on the energy and process side of things. If you mean your own personal experience of having a thought? That too is physical. You are a physical being and brain. If your brain is damaged, your thoughts are as well. We know there are certain areas of the brain that if damaged, prevent a person from hearing, seeing, or sensing in any way. Damage to the frontal lobe prevents higher level thought and awareness.

All of this is a physical result from physical things. This is the evidence before us. When I mean you'll need more than to just ask the same question, why don't you argue how thoughts are not physical, and give your evidence? How are they something different from matter and energy, when that is how we detect them, understand them, and the only substances we know of in the universe?

Hah. It would look like a pattern - a pattern of entropy dissipation - of course. Everything physical looks more like a process, a "mindful" flow, if viewed on the right scale to reveal its causal structure. — apokrisis

Why are you avoiding a simple question? I only asked you to provide 4 physical items that includes thoughts as one. :chin:

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 — Daniel

You can measure the length of a trajectory. Can we do something similar with thoughts? :chin:

why don't you argue how thoughts are not physical, and give your evidence? — Philosophim

I did. You seem to have missed it. For your reference: Physical Properties Do thoughts possess any of these properties?

Then what do you mean by "consciousness"? — Harry Hindu

That's the million dollar question. Is it just thinking understood as data processing? Computers and flies can do that as inferrable from the way they handle data but we don't consider them conscious.

The only difference between humans, computers and flies seems to be that humans are self-aware while flies and computers don't seem to be. However, referring to Descartes, self-awareness is, at the end of the day, an inference - just an instance of data processing.

What do you mean by "self"? The mind, the body, the brain? Is a fly aware of its body, but not its mind or brain? Then you're taking about awareness. How can an immaterial thing be aware of material things?

In these material/immaterial debates what gets lost is the difference between matter and animation. Also,immaterial does not mean non physical. The concept Non physical has no literal meaning. Everything is physical!
Is breathing material? How heavy is ones breathing?

Ok, so it IS semantics then. Using their vocabulary, thoughts are supervenient, just like their description of color. I've noted that thoughts are the combination of matter and energy, or physical and chemical processes according to their vocabulary.

2 physical properties of thought are:

1. Thoughts generate emissions of electricity and chemical reactions which can be monitored.
2. The intensity of waves localized in areas of the brain associating with types of thoughts.

But largely these are physical measurements of the chemical reaction. Thoughts generally happen when neurons receive electrical and chemical impulses. Again, thoughts are like a fire on logs. You need the logs, or the fire cannot burn. The fire itself is energy, or a chemical reaction. In your definition, physical and chemical reactions are still matter and energy, meaning what I'm saying is still holding true.

Most of the old questions of philosophy of mind has largely been outdated due to advancement in science. Neuroscience is where many of the questions about mind are now answered. If you want to have a serious discussion, or figure out new questions and answers about the mind, I would start there. Philosophy of mind is fun to examine as a precursor to neuroscience, but it is largely primitive and out of date with today's knowledge.

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).

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). — Daniel

Interesting theory of mind. You should work on it but I'm not really concerned about molecules in the brain. There's a difference between molecules and thoughts - the former, molecules, have physical properties like mass, charge, etc. but the latter, thoughts, don't. Reminds of the concept of category mistake - to think thoughts possess physical properties like mass, charge, etc. is to not know that they're completely different categories of things. Mind and matter, apples and oranges.

thoughts are supervenient — Philosophim

Ok. That's how it looks and I won't disagree but if given to categorize a list of items, say, "thoughts", "water", "iron", "number", you surely wouldn't put "thoughts" in the same class as "water" and "iron". The question is, why not?

If you want to have a serious discussion, or figure out new questions and answers about the mind, I would start there. — Philosophim

:smile: :up:

What do you mean by "self"? The mind, the body, the brain? Is a fly aware of its body, but not its mind or brain? Then you're taking about awareness. How can an immaterial thing be aware of material things? — Harry Hindu

The self is the "I" that the mind infers to from what is essentially the Cartesian I think, therefore I am.

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.

Ok. That's how it looks and I won't disagree but if given to categorize a list of items, say, "thoughts", "water", "iron", "number", you surely wouldn't put "thoughts" in the same class as "water" and "iron". The question is, why not? — TheMadFool

Well for one, they aren't supervenient. You would need to compare thoughts to sight, sound, fire, chemical reactions, etc. If you agree that thoughts are supervenient, then I think we are on some level of agreement. Do you have anything to add to the proposal of thoughts? Do you think they are something different from matter and energy? If so, what are they, and can you demonstrate this in some way?