I'll leave you to it, Apo, happy trails.

:cool:

Ask Banno for tips. He has mocking down to an art. As evidenced a couple of posts back. — apokrisis

But I learned my craft at @csalisbury's feet!

This begs the question. You have to already assume the mind and body are separate things in order to be able to subtract the body from the mind. — darthbarracuda

Ok. Let's look at it from another angle.

What's the difference between me dead and me alive? There's a difference, right? It can't be the body since the body is, in death, as it was in life. Something gets taken away when we die and that's obviously our consciousness, our mind. So assuming a physicalist stance on the mind, if something physical gets taken away, it must have a physical effect, right?

A tried and tested method for checking physical effects is to measure mass which is a primary physical property.

So, we must measure the body's mass before and after death to detect physical changes in order to come to the conclusion that death is indeed a purely physical change.

Thus my equation with myself as an example:

My Body + My Mind (when alive) = My Body (when dead) = 80 Kg (my mass/weight)

Ergo,

My Mind = 0 Kg (my mind is immaterial)

As you can see, that the mind is different to the body follows from the difference between the living and dead, to wit the loss of consciousness (the mind) when one dies. No begging the question.

What's the difference between me dead and me alive? There's a difference, right? It can't be the body since the body is, in death, as it was in life. Something gets taken away when we die and that's obviously our consciousness, our mind. So assuming a physicalist stance on the mind, if something physical gets taken away, it must have a physical effect, right? — TheMadFool

What's the difference between the mixer off and the mixer on? There's a difference, right? It can't be the mixer since the mixer is, when off, as it was when on. Something gets taken away when we turn it off and that's obviously the mixing. So assuming a physicalist stance on the mixing, if something physical gets taken away, it must have a physical effect, right?

It can't be the body since the body is, in death, as it was in life. — TheMadFool

Nah, a dead body is not the same as a living body, it's no longer alive.

年の最初の一歩が、良い場所へと至

Not applied directly. Too strong. Blended with plenty of straw, cardboard, something else with lots of carbon in it. Maybe use it for leafy stuff rather than root vegetables, at least for the first season. And it will need lime.

Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.

- Nobel Prize-winning physicist Erwin Schrodinger

Pace yourself, man. So much stupid at such a high rate is not good for you or for the forum.

My Mind is not physical. — TheMadFool

What if the mind is the brain, or vice versa? In this sense the mind weighs as much as the brain. By measuring the weight of your brain and nervous system, you are measuring the weight of your mind.

When I look at you I don't see a mind. I see a body with a brain. Does this mean that other minds don't exist?

Mind has a causal effect on the body, therefore the mind is physical. If not then how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?

...how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing? — Harry Hindu

At the quantum level?

It can't be the body since the body is, in death, as it was in life

It is not the same, at least from a biological perspective. It can no longer grow, reproduce, or respond; and of course it decays. The possession of a mind may be one way to define life, but it is not universal one, and definitely not a physicalist one.

Interesting that Aristotle’s treatise on biology was called De Anima. Animated, animal, what animates. It is said there is no ‘vital spirit’ considered as some kind of ethereal fluid or current, but there is nevertheless a coherence that characterises - animates - all living beings, and which, as soon as that organism dies, ceases to animate.

Think first of a living dog, then of a decomposing corpse. At the moment of death, all the living processes normally studied by the biologist rapidly disintegrate. The corpse remains subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry as the live dog, but now, with the cessation of life, we see those laws strictly in their own terms, without anything the life scientist is distinctively concerned about. The dramatic change in his descriptive language as he moves between the living and the dead tells us just about everything we need to know.

No biologist who had been speaking of the behavior of the living dog will now speak in the same way of the corpse’s “behavior.” Nor will he refer to certain physical changes in the corpse as reflexes, just as he will never mention the corpse’s responses to stimuli, or the functions of its organs, or the processes of development being undergone by the decomposing tissues.

Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.

The corpse will not produce errors in chromosome replication or in any other processes, and neither will it attempt error correction or the repair of damaged parts. More generally, the ideas of injury and healing will be absent. Molecules will not recruit other molecules in order to achieve particular tasks. No structures will inherit features from parent structures in the way that daughter cells inherit traits or tendencies from their parents, and no one will cite the plasticity or context-dependence of the corpse’s adaptation to its environment. — Steve Talbot, The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings

All of this is now pretty well understood by biology, but what exactly it is that animates is still an open question in my view. ‘Vital spirit’ there may not be, but the assertion of ‘vitality’ seems uncontroversial. And I don’t know if we know what imparts that.

自分の脚本の最初の一行が、

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

...how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?
— Harry Hindu

At the quantum level? — Dan Cage

Is the quantum level physical, non-physical, or something else?

I think you're forgetting energy here. Think of it this way. You can have a car with a working battery, and a car without a working battery. A "living" car is one that actively has its electricity flowing through the system to cause all the parts to work. An "unliving" car does not have these interactions.

When the brain is "on", its constantly sending chemical reactions and electricity all over the place. Matter is being lost and replaced by the food you've eaten. It is not a rock, but a battery zapping electricity around your entire body.

"the brain uses roughly 300 calories (a day)". https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/science/02qna.html#:~:text=Studies%20show%20that%20it%20is,brain%20uses%20roughly%20300%20calories.

So with that, we know that there is a physical mass that is consumed each day for you to have a mind. Once the mind leaves, so does the consumption of calories. Therefore according to your premise, the mind is indeed an expression of physicality. The mind is not physical like the firewood of a campfire, it is the flame itself.

Nah, a dead body is not the same as a living body, it's no longer alive. — darthbarracuda

What's the difference between a dead body and a living body?

What if the mind is the brain, or vice versa? In this sense the mind weighs as much as the brain. By measuring the weight of your brain and nervous system, you are measuring the weight of your mind.

When I look at you I don't see a mind. I see a body with a brain. Does this mean that other minds don't exist?

Mind has a causal effect on the body, therefore the mind is physical. If not then how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing? — Harry Hindu

The mind can't be the brain because when I die, my brain doesn't go anywhere but my consciousness (mind) is missing.

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

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?

I think you're forgetting energy here. Think of it this way. You can have a car with a working battery, and a car without a working battery. A "living" car is one that actively has its electricity flowing through the system to cause all the parts to work. An "unliving" car does not have these interactions.

When the brain is "on", its constantly sending chemical reactions and electricity all over the place. Matter is being lost and replaced by the food you've eaten. It is not a rock, but a battery zapping electricity around your entire body.

"the brain uses roughly 300 calories (a day)". https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/science/02qna.html#:~:text=Studies%20show%20that%20it%20is,brain%20uses%20roughly%20300%20calories.

So with that, we know that there is a physical mass that is consumed each day for you to have a mind. Once the mind leaves, so does the consumption of calories. Therefore according to your premise, the mind is indeed an expression of physicality. The mind is not physical like the firewood of a campfire, it is the flame itself. — Philosophim

See my reply to Daniel

It is not the same, at least from a biological perspective. It can no longer grow, reproduce, or respond; and of course it decays. The possession of a mind may be one way to define life, but it is not universal one, and definitely not a physicalist one. — Radians

If I'm correct, life/death is defined in terms of brain function given that materialism is true. The diagnosis of death requires, in most cases I suppose, the demonstration of permanent cessation of brain function with an electroencephalogram. The physical processes don't matter, do they? There is such a thing as a vegetative state in which the body can perform normal physical functions like growing, reproducing, eating, etc. but a person in this state lacks consciousness and is considered closer to being dead than alive.

What's the difference between a dead body and a living body? — TheMadFool

What's the difference between a broken dishwasher and a functional dishwasher?

A dead body is one that is not alive, ya know, doing stuff that living things do.

What's the difference between a broken dishwasher and a functional dishwasher?

A dead body is one that is not alive, ya know, doing stuff that living things do. — darthbarracuda

Give me something more to go on than that...

It's not complicated, I don't think. What's the difference between a normal leg and a broken leg? One is whole, the other fractured. One holds weight, the other doesn't.

What's the difference between a living body and a dead body? A dead body by the definition of clinical death does not circulate blood or breathe. The same body can be alive one minute and dead the next, because of a change in its components.

It's not complicated, I don't think. What's the difference between a normal leg and a broken leg? One is whole, the other fractured. One holds weight, the other doesn't.

What's the difference between a living body and a dead body? A dead body by the definition of clinical death does not circulate blood or breathe. The same body can be alive one minute and dead the next, because of a change in its components. — darthbarracuda

There are two clear aspects to human life. 1. the body (sex, feeding, etc) and 2) the consciousness. What is the current medical definition of death?

The cessation of circulation, respiration, and brain activity (which includes consciousness).

The ceasing of circulation, respiration, and brain activity (which includes consciousness). — darthbarracuda

If the circulation and respiration are functioning and the brain is not then?

Circulation and respiration require the brain to function, and vice-versa. The human body is a system after all.

Circulation and respiration require the brain to function, and vice-versa. The human body is a system after all. — darthbarracuda

If I give you a choice between my body and my consciousness, which would you say is me?

More riddles...