More riddles... — darthbarracuda

A straightforward question.

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

Once rhe brain is deprived of oxygen cell death occurs.

Then where does your consciousness go when you're asleep? And how does it come back when you wake up?

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? — TheMadFool

When you ask how much each thought weighs or what is the colour of thought, you are asking how much each circulation weighs or what is the colour of circulation. In the case of blood circulation, you can measure its features (flow rate, pressure, cellular content, gaseous content, ionic content, protein content, etc) which, individually, are not the circulation of blood itself. Same with thought. Like blood circulation, thought is a process which occurs in a defined space (the brain or certain areas of the brain) and which is determined by the molecular properties of the medium in which it occurs (the brain or certain areas of the brain).

Too many cells in blood plasma and blood circulation is going to slow down; too many proteins and the same thing is going to happen. Too many cells in the brain (i.e., a tumour) and you are not going to be the normal you. Too much THC in your brain and you are not going to be the normal you, either; not enough oxygen in your brain and you will feel its effects. You have a stroke, blood gets inside areas of you brain where it should not be, a short circuit occurs, and you loose consciousness not because consciousness decided to go but because the conditions required for there to be consciousness are not there anymore.

That the self changes when the chemical composition of the brain changes I think is a strong indicator of the self's dependency on the brain and of the self's physicality.

When you die, oxygen stops flowing to the brain (the heart stops pumping blood). Oxygen is a requirement for the production of ATP, which is in turn required to maintain chemical gradients across cell membranes; these chemical gradients are then used to do work.
No oxygen, no ATP, no chemical gradients, no work. A cell does work to maintain a state of low entropy which is compatible with life. If a cell is unable to do work, entropy does its part. Decomposition of the body (or cells) is entropy in action. If the brain is unable to maintain the molecular conditions required to generate thought (unable to maintain their ordered state), thought does not occur (or deviates from normal).

The question is: why the state of entropy maintained by living cells allows life?

I am not a neurologist nor am I studying neurology (I haven't even finished my degree), so please take my words with caution. There's a book called Molecular Biology of the Cell (6th Edition) which I think is available for free online (maybe at the NCBI's website) which explains quite neatly a lot of the processes which maintain cells alive. I think that understanding these processes gives insight into phenomena such as the mind, free will, etc. There is also a book called Human Physiology: An Integrated Approach (7th Edition), which talks more about systems biology, and which might be easier to digest if one does not have a background in cell biology (I think you could also find it for free online). The books are very well written so I'd recommend anyone one to give them a look.

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

I think that's a relatively easy one Harry. The answer is more non-physical/something else. The atom has no real physical structure. Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter. Kind of like light energy.

Light is not [really] matter. Light is just light --- it has its own qualities. Light is made up of "things" called photons, and these photons can possess some of the properties of matter. For example, they are always moving, and when they move, they can exert a (usually very small) force on an object (just like moving matter can).

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=512#:~:text=Light%20is%20not%20matter.%20Light%20is%20just%20light,on%20an%20object%20%28just%20like%20moving%20matter%20can%29.

When you ask how much each thought weighs or what is the colour of thought, you are asking how much each circulation weighs or what is the colour of circulation — Daniel

But there's a problem with this view. I find it hard to believe that each thought is associated with a particular weight or other physical characteristics of the circulation. I agree that the blood flow to the brain is variable but I have serious doubts that particular physical characteristics of this flow represents particular thoughts. Like you I'm not a neurologist myself but I can imagine a particular set of physical characteristics of brain circulation associated with more than one thought i.e. it can't be the properties of circulation that determine which thoughts are occurring inside a brain. :chin:

Once rhe brain is deprived of oxygen cell death occurs.

Then where does your consciousness go when you're asleep? And how does it come back when you wake up? — Harry Hindu

There lies the rub. The mind seems to be independent of the brain because when we sleep, the brain is still intact inside the head and yet we're not conscious. :chin:

I did not mean that thoughts depend (entirely) on the flow rate or composition of (or any other property of) blood that reaches the brain. I was using the circulation of blood as an analogy to mind. To ask how much a thought weighs would be analogous to asking how much blood circulation weighs. The mind and the circulation of blood are both processes which depend on a particular set of molecules with a particular set of properties occupying a particular volume of space with a particular architecture.

I did not mean that thoughts depend (entirely) on the flow rate or composition of (or any other property of) blood that reaches the brain. — Daniel

What else do thoughts/minds depend on then?

There lies the rub. The mind seems to be independent of the brain because when we sleep, the brain is still intact inside the head and yet we're not conscious. :chin: — TheMadFool

Yet drugs and damage to the brain causes a change in consciousness.

Why do we need a brain then, or even a body?

When you look at others, why is the only way to perceive their mind is by observing their body?

But there's a problem with this view. I find it hard to believe — TheMadFool

Sums up your entire arguments in all of your most recent posts. Your confusion about the fact that what seems to you to be the case has no bearing at all on what actually is the case.

Why do we need a brain then, or even a body? — Harry Hindu

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that we don't need a body/brain. I guess I'd be happy with the view that the mind, although being associated with a physical brain, is some kind of pattern of brain activity - patterns are abstractions and are, in my humble opinion, not physical. For instance, the laws of nature, although patterns in the way matter interact, are themselves not physical, are they?

That said, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the notion of the mind being a pattern for the simple reason that patterns are not exactly all out there in the sense that it, to me, has a subjective component. Take the phenomenon of pareidolia (seeing patterns where none actually exist, in stuff that are actually random). I take this phenomenon as evidence of patterns not necessarily being an objective property of that in which they're perceived. This puts us in a peculiar position - the mind may not be a pattern of brain activity and yet it sees itself as one.

The mind depends on the molecular composition (chemical properties, absolute quantities, and 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 (the molecules, their composition, and their spatial organization inside the brain) are influenced by the environment external to the body. In addition, they are in constant change.

Every molecule in your brain is different/unique. Every molecule in your brain occupies a unique position in your brain at any given time (no molecule can occupy the space other molecule occupies). Every molecule in your brain does not occupy the same position relative to other molecules in your brain at two consecutive times (molecules are in constant motion). Since every molecule is in constant motion, the interactions of a given molecule change with time (a molecule will never have the same set of interactions). Assuming all molecules in the brain are directly involved in the generation of thoughts, a particular thought would be represented by a set of molecular spatial organizations (a set of molecular interactions). As the molecules assume the spatial organizations associated with a thought, a thought develops. For every thought, there is a particular set of molecular spatial organizations (two thoughts are never the same nor can a thought arise from a static/non-changing molecular spatial organization). The totality of molecular spatial organizations (the total set of molecular interactions) which occur throughout an individual's lifetime determines the totality of thoughts that an individual has. The total possible set of molecular spatial organizations depends on the molecules, their absolute quantities, their ratios, and environmental cues.

I guess I'd be happy with the view that the mind, although being associated with a physical brain, is some kind of pattern of brain activity - patterns are abstractions and are, in my humble opinion, not physical. — TheMadFool

This makes no sense. If the brain is physical, then why wouldn't patterns of brain activity not be physical? What is the difference between physical and non-physical? Is the pattern of the TV show on your TV screen physical or not?

Physicalism would say, mind is located somewhere in your brain, perhaps in thalamus, brain-cells, or in neurons. And its pretty easy to calculate the mass of brain.

This makes no sense. If the brain is physical, then why wouldn't patterns of brain activity not be physical? What is the difference between physical and non-physical? Is the pattern of the TV show on your TV screen physical or not? — Harry Hindu

If pareidolia is false then patterns are objective properties of physical objects but then you'd have to believe this pattern is real and whatever it entails:

If pareidolia is false then patterns are objective properties of physical objects but then you'd have to believe this pattern is real and whatever it entails: — TheMadFool

A real pattern on a pancake. What's the problem? Every pancake is unique- meaning they have unique patterns, just like fingerprints and neural wiring. Is the pattern on the tip of your fingers not physical?

A real pattern on a pancake. What's the problem? Every pancake is unique- meaning they have unique patterns, just like fingerprints and neural wiring. Is the pattern on the tip of your fingers not physical? — Harry Hindu

Is this a real face (on Mars)?

I think all you need to do is show how a mind can exist independently of anything physical.

The

Be the first person ever to define matter

The pattern exists independently of the meaning that you give to the pattern. The pattern is then objective, its meaning subjective.

So when certain parts of the brain are damaged and it affects your ability to recognize faces, speak, etc., but when the whole brain dies you are able to rise off the physical brain and see Grandma and speak English?

I think all you need to do is show how a mind can exist independently of anything physical. — praxis

At this juncture we must take note of the fact that in dualism, the mind is distinct from thoughts. Minds in dualism do the thinking and are not the thoughts themselves.

Since the consensus seems to be that patterns of brain activity are just thoughts, minds can't be brain patterns at all.

Of course one could then say that the brain is the mind - its pattern of activity representing individual thoughts. The problem with this physicalistic position is REM sleep, which somnologists have given the interesting name paradoxical sleep, a big clue in this puzzle.

REM sleep is "paradoxical" because of its similarities to wakefulness. Although the body is paralyzed, the brain acts somewhat awake, with cerebral neurons firing with the same overall intensity as in wakefulness — wikipedia

REM sleep is a state in which the brain is as active as it is when we're awake and fully conscious but we're not conscious. If the mind is the brain then why aren't we conscious during REM sleep? After all brain activity in REM sleep resembles brain activity when awake. :chin:

Be the first person ever to define matter — Gregory

I only know the basic scientific definition of matter.

The pattern exists independently of the meaning that you give to the pattern. The pattern is then objective, its meaning subjective. — Daniel

In the case of the face on Mars, there is no pattern at all - there is no face on Mars and the face is entirely subjective.

So when certain parts of the brain are damaged and it affects your ability to recognize faces, speak, etc., but when the whole brain dies you are able to rise off the physical brain and see Grandma and speak English? — Harry Hindu

See my reply to praxis.

At this juncture we must take note of the fact that in dualism, the mind is distinct from thoughts. Minds in dualism do the thinking and are not the thoughts themselves.

Since the consensus seems to be that patterns of brain activity are just thoughts, minds can't be brain patterns at all.

Of course one could then say that the brain is the mind - its pattern of activity representing individual thoughts. The problem with this physicalistic position is REM sleep, which somnologists have given the interesting name paradoxical sleep, a big clue in this puzzle.

REM sleep is "paradoxical" because of its similarities to wakefulness. Although the body is paralyzed, the brain acts somewhat awake, with cerebral neurons firing with the same overall intensity as in wakefulness
— wikipedia

REM sleep is a state in which the brain is as active as it is when we're awake and fully conscious but we're not conscious. If the mind is the brain then why aren't we conscious during REM sleep? After all brain activity in REM sleep resembles brain activity when awake. :chin: — TheMadFool

The reason that the brain patterns are similar during REM and being awake is because you are dreaming. Where does dreaming take place - if not in your brain? When you are dreaming it is really difficult to tell the difference between dreaming and being awake, or being conscious. It is only after the fact that you realize that you were dreaming.

If the mind is not the thoughts, then what exactly is the mind and how would you know that it exists if not for some thought? "I think, therefore I am" is asserting that thinking is the evidence for the existence of the mind.

The reason that the brain patterns are similar during REM and being awake is because you are dreaming. Where does dreaming take place - if not in your brain? When you are dreaming it is really difficult to tell the difference between dreaming and being awake, or being conscious. It is only after the fact that you realize that you were dreaming.

If the mind is not the thoughts, then what exactly is the mind and how would you know that it exists if not for some thought? "I think, therefore I am" is asserting that thinking is the evidence for the existence of the mind. — Harry Hindu

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.

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

I thought your concern was the matter of the mind being physical or not. I don't see the connection to dream sleep and being awake.

Have you heard of lucid dreaming?

To show that the mind is not physical, all you have to do is show how it can be independent of the physical. That will be difficult to show. It would be like showing that you can have a conversation with someone in a vacuum, and neither of you can read lips. Sound wave patterns are weightless but require the medium of air to carry them.

how do you explain the fact that the mind is never the same? or the self is never the same? I bet you are never the same person. Your self changes through time. How do you explain that with a non-physical entity?

I thought your concern was the matter of the mind being physical or not. I don't see the connection to dream sleep and being awake. — praxis

It seems there are two dimensions to this problem. There are thoughts and then there is consciousness. REM sleep (dreaming) clearly demonstrates that there can be thoughts without us being conscious/aware of them. However, this type of thinking is not what we usually mean by mind - self-awareness has a very big role in the concept of mind.

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.

Have you heard of lucid dreaming? — praxis

This, I've come to believe, is a self-refuting concept. If one is conscious, one can't be dreaming - imagining maybe but definitely not dreaming.

how do you explain the fact that the mind is never the same? or the self is never the same? I bet you are never the same person. Your self changes through time. How do you explain that with a non-physical entity? — Daniel

Read my reply to praxis

Your reply to Daniel did not answer my point at all. The mind is like a flame in a campfire. You do not measure it in terms of logs, you measure its heat and energy.

Yes, thoughts can be measured! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6644101/Machine-read-mind-convert-THOUGHTS-speech-developed-scientists.html#:~:text=A%20machine%20that%20can%20read,built%20and%20tested%20by%20scientists.&text=The%20pioneering%20system%20combines%20the,brain%20activity%20into%20intelligible%20sentences.

Again, you are looking at the logs of the fire and saying, "Where is the fire?" A living brain is zipping chemicals and electricity all over the place, its fire in motion. An unliving brain does not have this. Would you look at a pile of logs that did not have a fire and say, "See, we cannot measure the fire of this campfire!".

All measurement is a representation of matter into another medium of expression. I can look at a brain, I can then say "It weighs 20 lbs". I can then BE a brain. I can also read a brain.

These are all very real, physical, and observable things. Can you show otherwise?

Well, to use your analogy, indeed there are logs burning in a campfire but the flames are something different to the logs, no?