But the mind is more than data, it is reaction to data, analyses of data, emotions. Do they have a location? — Sir2u

The mind doesnt have to be more than data because data can react to data. Analysis, computation and processing of data requires "software" ie. Data. All information reacts with information to transform it into new or derivative information.

Just as a mathematical function is information with input (data) and an output (data).

So does the mind take up space or not? — Sir2u

Yes.

So does the data take up space or not? — Sir2u

Yes. We IT experts use the term, "space" to talk about how much is taken up by data and how much is free on your computer's hard drive. You have a finite amount of space on your drive to store data.

If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, please tell me how you define space. — Sir2u

Well, I tried to get on with that by asking you this, but you seemed to want to ignore the question.

If minds are separate then what is the medium that separates them? — Harry Hindu

Space is the medium that separate minds and the more complex some pattern is within some amount of space, the more information within that space.

Let me ask you this:
Do the things in your mind take up mental space? For instance there is only so much that you can think of at one moment, yet you know more than what you are presently thinking. You possess long-term memory and short-term (working) memory. Long-term has more space than working memory as you can hold more information in long-term than in working memory. Where is the information in your long-term memory stored? Where is the information in your working memory stored?

What space does my mortgage occupy? — Banno

You don't have physical/digital documents that describe the conditions of your mortgage? When you forget the conditions of the mortgage, where do you look to find it?

No, in my viewpoint things like Qualia do not have locations but they exist as properties of things that have locations. — Francis

But if they do not have a location, their mere existence does not mean that they occupy space. as Banno pointed out his mortgage is real, but it does not occupy any space at all.

The mind doesnt have to be more than data because data can react to data. Analysis, computation and processing of data requires "software" ie. Data. All information reacts with information to transform it into new or derivative information.

Just as a mathematical function is information with input (data) and an output (data). — Benj96

So if emotions are similar to mathematical operacions, math like data would also have space that it occupies? That does not make much sense.

Yes. We IT experts use the term, "space" to talk about how much is taken up by data and how much is free on your computer's hard drive. You have a finite amount of space on your drive to store data.

Well, I tried to get on with that by asking you this, but you seemed to want to ignore the question. — Harry Hindu

And this is why I said that before the question can be answered we need a definition of what "a space" actually is.

Space for IT people is not the same as it is for a NASA person, and neither use the word in the same way that a writer would.

We are using space in different ways and therefore we will never resolve anything.

If we take space to mean something that can be occupied by material objects the arguments would be different to those where space is used to mean the re-arrangement of existing material to accommodate non material OBJECTS.

Does anyone want to provide a fixed definition of space?

Space is the medium that separate minds and the more complex some pattern is within some amount of space, the more information within that space. — Harry Hindu

Paper might fit the definition here.

You don't have physical/digital documents that describe the conditions of your mortgage? When you forget the conditions of the mortgage, where do you look to find it? — Harry Hindu

The piece of paper is not the mortgage, only the physical representation of it. Think of a mortgage as a promise, is that physical?

The piece of paper is not the mortgage, only the physical representation of it. Think of a mortgage as a promise, is that physical? — Sir2u

If you burned all the papers, deleted all the hard drives, and killed (or lobotomized) all the people with knowledge of the mortgage, how would there still be a mortgage? Yet if the mortgage doesn't take up any physical space, then how have I destroyed it entirely just by destroying physical things?

So if emotions are similar to mathematical operacions, math like data would also have space that it occupies? That does not make much sense — Sir2u

Math is a human construct and can only "act" as mathematical functions through either our brains or the devices we have programmed to do it for us; calculators, computers and other artificial machines both of which are physical objects that occupy space. It in this sense is a quality or behaviour of physical things.

The concepts of "one, two, three, plus, minus, multiply etc" are all artificial and ultimately arbitrary- based on discrimination between things for example I could say 1 molecule of water, 1 ml of water, 1 ocean of water. The concept of one is repeated but the definition of the quantity of water is different because we are discriminating differently in each case. Maths is just a descriptive tool to understand the universe, and like language, symbols, ideas, data, emotions feelings etc they are symbolic of an information state or relationship between things that is always inextricably linked to our awareness/consciousness.

All information occupies space. It has to. We are getting caught up on "how" that space is occupied as in in what form - material or conceptual that this information (energy, matter, interactions) occupy the universe (space).

If math doesnt occupy a space in the mind regarding the symbolic meaning of the external world then it must occupy a space in the physical external world. If that is the case show me the external natural proof of "multiple" or "add" or "square root". You can prove any of them experimentally which means the space they occupy must be in the brain as patterns of neuronal connections and organisation. If not that then from what "non-location" in "non-space" is mathematics coming from?

Energy occupies space. Something does not have to have mass to occupy space. Just because a photon is massless doesnt mean it doesnt have a velocity, a location, a distance to travel- all of which denote location or "space".

Maybe, ?

Observations suggest that your head is more clearly spatial, and mind more clearly temporal.

• spatial object-like body: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, locatable, inertial/movable (conservation)
• temporal process-like mind: comes and goes, starts and ends, interruptible, occurs, un/consciousness, anesthetic, dementia, coma (obviously there aren't anyone describing what unconsciousness is like)

Objectifying mind could be a category mistake.
(None of which suggests "supernatural magic" or whatever of course.)

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?

, I'm going by observations, the rest are just suggestions.
Without the head (or body), no mind occurs, mind seems localized to head/body.
Yet, mind is not (identical to) the head, which you still have while unconsciousness; say, mind isn't like an object with mass and width and height.
So, perhaps mind is something body can sometimes do, if you will, and you (as a person) are the synthesis, what you do and what you do it with?
This, at least, is fairly consistent/coherent/cogent, and I wouldn't conflate spatial objects and temporal processes (mentioned category mistake).
"Some lose their mind, without losing their head." ;)

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.

If you burned all the papers, deleted all the hard drives, and killed (or lobotomized) all the people with knowledge of the mortgage, how would there still be a mortgage? Yet if the mortgage doesn't take up any physical space, then how have I destroyed it entirely just by destroying physical things? — Isaac

By the same method I can delete all humans from the earth, and there will be no minds. But that does not answer the question that was posed in the OP. Does the mind occupy a space. If it does, then the kind of space needs to be defined.

Energy occupies space. Something does not have to have mass to occupy space. Just because a photon is massless doesnt mean it doesnt have a velocity, a location, a distance to travel- all of which denote location or "space". — Benj96

Everything you say is true.
Golf balls are always in a place, commonly know as a physical/spacial location.
If I say I have an idea, it would only make sense to deduce that it is located in my mind. What sort of location would it be then?

If the mind is in a space, how would we define that space?

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.

Does the mind occupy a space? — Daniel

If the mind is the brain then, yes. If not then, no. Also it mind depend on what you mean by mind. If the mind is seen as brain function then, it becomes difficult to attribute a material quality like volume to function. Think of it - the lips and tongue take up space but in what sense could we say that speaking/talking has a spatial attribute.

So now we have a problem.

Let's stay with the computer hard disk for now instead of the brain.

A hard disk can be explained in the most simplistic way as a metallic disk that has its atoms rearranged to form specific magnetic patterns.
The atoms are part of the disk, no matter what the data or lack of data does to them. Filling the disk completely full will make no difference to the space occupied by the disk nor the space of the whole computer.
If the data occupies space then it would have to be added to the total of the disk, as we know that this does not happen we are obliged to accept that data is immaterial and does not occupy space.
The only other possibility is that they both occupy the same space but one of the two would still have to be immaterial for that to happen. The data occurs through the rearrangement of the atoms, not by adding to them

When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour or that 2+2=4, does it add atoms or anything else to your body? No extra space is added to the space occupied by you body, it stays exactly the same. What happens is that neurons get rearranged, new synapse connections can appear. But the brain is not getting bigger, it is just a different arrangement.

So, either we need a proper definition of "a space" or we accept that the mind has no physical qualities except for the sensory organs that it uses as tools. — Sir2u

I’ll start with the dictionary’s mathematical definition, because I think it covers most other definitions in some way.

Space: a mathematical concept generally regarded as a set of points having some specified structure.

The term ‘space’ has been used to refer to the one-dimensional structure of a binary system; the two-dimensional structure of distance; the three-dimensional structure of objects; the four-dimensional structure of time; the five-dimensional structure of capacity or the six-dimensional structure of freedom.

But there is a tendency to assume that by actual ‘space’ we mean the three-dimensional structure of the objects in conceptualised reality.

So the ‘space’ on a disk refers to the capacity of the disk as a five-dimensional structure of information to be ‘read’, not the three-dimensional structure of information that is the actual disk. It isn’t so much a rearrangement of atoms, but a re-structuring of particle relations. The three-dimensional structure doesn’t change because this potential for one-dimensional restructuring exists in the molecular arrangement of the disk.

When you learn that the milk you put on your cornflakes is sour, however, the restructuring of particle relations that occurs is integrated into the entire system of one, two, three, four and five dimensional relations. So your five-dimensional conceptual reality which predicted fresh milk is restructured at a one-dimensional level of synapse relations without necessarily affecting neuron arrangement or brain structure at all (depending how often you’ve been caught in this situation) - but the one-dimensional changes affect the four-dimensional event of you eating breakfast, the three-dimensional expression on your face, the two-dimensional molecular contents of your stomach and possibly your one-dimensional perspective of the day so far - to name just a few.

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. — Daniel

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

How do we control the chemical reactions?

If the mind is the brain then, yes. If not then, no. Also it mind depend on what you mean by mind. If the mind is seen as brain function then, it becomes difficult to attribute a material quality like volume to function. Think of it - the lips and tongue take up space but in what sense could we say that speaking/talking has a spatial attribute. — TheMadFool

Exactly. From what I have read, most people think that it is just the bio-chemical functions of the body. I tend to agree with that.

I think that it would be difficult to assert that the mind occupies a space because there is no way to define a space that it could occupy.

the five-dimensional structure of capacity or the six-dimensional structure of freedom. — Possibility

Just curious, where can I find more information about this?

But there is a tendency to assume that by actual ‘space’ we mean the three-dimensional structure of the objects in conceptualised reality. — Possibility

Which is why I asked at the beginning for someone to set a proper definition of "a space". I could not think of any definition that would allow the mind to have its own space.

The relationship of the mind to the brain is, I think, an established fact. But exactly what that relationship is, is not so well defined.
Many still refuse in this day and age to believe that the "person" is nothing more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level.

Exactly. From what I have read, most people think that it is just the bio-chemical functions of the body. I tend to agree with that.

I think that it would be difficult to assert that the mind occupies a space because there is no way to define a space that it could occupy. — Sir2u

Well, it's an interesting line of inquiry because it uncouples the two essential qualities of matter - mass & volume. Is it possible for something to have mass and no volume or volume and no mass?

Well, it's an interesting line of inquiry because it uncouples the two essential qualities of matter - mass & volume. Is it possible for something to have mass and no volume or volume and no mass? — TheMadFool

Science says that it is possible, who am I to disagree.

Personally I think that like the old song said "you can't have one without the other". Maybe something has mass and they still don't have a method of measuring the volume. Or the other way around.

the five-dimensional structure of capacity or the six-dimensional structure of freedom.
— Possibility

Just curious, where can I find more information about this? — Sir2u

The reference to dimensional structure is part of a metaphysical theory I’ve been working on, but the examples come directly from Google’s dictionary definitions of ‘space’:

4. the portion of a text or document available or needed to write about a subject.
"there is no space to give further details"

pages in a newspaper or magazine, or time between television or radio programmes, available for advertising.
"it is the media person's job to buy the press space or the TV or radio spots"

capacity for storage of data in a computer or other digital device.
"additional disk space is required for the database operation"

5. the freedom to live, think, and develop in a way that suits one.
"a teenager needing her own space"

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.

Which is why I asked at the beginning for someone to set a proper definition of "a space". I could not think of any definition that would allow the mind to have its own space. — Sir2u

Normally I have avoided referring to other dimensional relations as ‘spatial’ because of this confusion. Many qualitative chemical and temporal relations that contribute to sensory information such as hue, taste and tone for example can be understood as ‘non-spatial’ in the 3D sense: we relate to them as two-dimensional information structures in time.

The relationship of the mind to the brain is, I think, an established fact. But exactly what that relationship is, is not so well defined.
Many still refuse in this day and age to believe that the "person" is nothing more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level. — Sir2u

I think Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book How Emotions Are Made presents an intriguing body of neurological and psychological research with regards to the nature of this relationship of the mind to the brain. FWIW, I happen to believe that the ‘person’ IS “more than a group of cells interacting with each other on a molecular level” - but that may be a much bigger discussion. It depends on how we understand the various terms in this statement.

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.

Yeah I would agree with that, although I wouldn't put the mind in the same category as a concept projected onto an object such as a mortgage.

Yes. Anything measurable does.