I don't think you need to overthink this. I don't think blind people have lesser minds than sighted. — RogueAI

Well I guess none of us need to overthink this. I take it for granted that we can all use 'mind' in everyday chitchat. 'I don't mind if you smoke.' 'Have you made up your mind?' 'Mind your manners.'
In second quote, is it the mind making itself up? So is mind self-created? Or is this a silly inference? Maybe the mind is more like a bed, since beds are also made. But then so are mobsters.

I can somewhat understand how all these features of this proposed mind-stuff were cooked up. IMV, a casual and basically useful way of talking is transformed by philosophers into something rigid. Is a toothache immaterial? I guess one might say so, but is this science of some kind? 'Immaterial' is a negation. And yeah, intentions aren't like apples. Dreams aren't like shovels. — Zugzwang

Sounds to me like you've already decided you know what's what.

Are toothache's immaterial? That's a confused question. An 'ache' is a sensation - it is something felt - and feelings are states of mind, not things. Minds are immaterial and feelings are states of minds. But you weren't actually asking, were you?

Do we all imagine 'pure' space in the same way? Who knows? If we are locked in private minds, I don't see how we could ever check. Why should imaginary pure space correspond to practical material reality? Maybe some things can't be sliced. Or maybe there is a way to slice dreams that we haven't discovered. Or maybe this is more about usage than reality. — Zugzwang

What the blue blazes are you blithering on about??

Is the bed on casters?

Are toothache's immaterial? That's a confused question. An 'ache' is a sensation - it is something felt - and feelings are states of mind, not things. Minds are immaterial and feelings are states of immaterial minds. But you weren't actually asking, were you? — Bartricks

Confused question indeed. Consider it a parody of metaphysics. Is it a discovery that 'feelings are states of immaterial minds.' Who figured it out? Is there an experiment I can perform to doublecheck?

What the blue blazes are you blithering on about?? — Bartricks

Several things at once. 1. The 'private mind' theory tosses its own salad. 2. You used imaginary divisibility ('immaterial') as an indicator of the 'material. '

You're talking what your image is designed to receive.

My favorite thing about your posts is your jokes and insults. Seriously. That's where the artist in you can be free. Philosophy is no longer a serious matter, if it ever was.

What's your favourite thing about the Sistine chapel ceiling? That it keeps the rain out?

What's your favourite thing about the Sistine chapel ceiling? That it keeps the rain out? — Bartricks

That made me smile. I think you were chastising me for valuing the wrong aspect of your posts, but you couldn't help being funny.

obscure entities like The Mind. — Zugzwang

Hey, speak for yourself. Your mind might be obscure, but mine isn't.

you couldn't help being funny. — Zugzwang

I like @Bartricks's jokes too.

Is 'being funny' material? Can humour be weighted or measured in any way? We don't even know what humour is, and yet we couldn't live without it.

Does thinking take place in the human brain? — Alkis Piskas

Begs the question: Where is a human brain? If thinking "takes place" in it, it must be somewhere, but to be somehere presupposes meaningful spatial designations and these are groundless, every one, in the final determination. AFter all, a concept is only as good as its meaningful, explanatory underpinning. If there is no underpinning, then the concept loses its meaning. A spatial concept like, under the bed presupposes a "where" such that something can be under relative to it. But this "where", it too must be spatially determined, and this in turn the same, and so on. We all know where this goes: eternity, and this is wholly indeterminate.
So, at the level of philosophical assumptions, the "in the human brain" is spatially indeterminate. But this does raise the quesiton of infinity's indeterminacy. Is it? Indeterminate, that is? Why? If it is a quantitative indeterminacy, then there is no indeterminacy at all, for it is easily quantifiably divided. But this is a trivial infinity. Then there is the qualitative infinity, and all things are coextensive spatially; and thought being "in" something loses its meaning.

There’s no point to disputing poetry.
— praxis

Are you less of a mind if you're not smelling or seeing anything? That seems easy to answer: no. Do you think the answer is yes? — RogueAI

Okay then, let’s put the poetry aside and take the question seriously, or rather, realistically. What do you think would happen to a mind if all sensory input were blocked, if it were possible to keep the body sufficiently healthy in this condition? The mind would begin to degenerate, right? Brain cells and/or their connections would atrophy. We know this is true from studying people who’ve lost senses. The mind would slowly fade away.

Begs the question: Where is a human brain? — Constance

That's a very good start, Constance! For one thing, it shows thinking! :smile: (Most responses I read to this topic lacked such a thing! :smile:)

If thinking "takes place" in it, it must be somewhere, but to be somehere presupposes meaningful spatial designations — Constance

So, at the level of philosophical assumptions, the "in the human brain" is spatially indeterminate — Constance

Of course.

But this does raise the quesiton of infinity's indeterminacy. Is it? — Constance

In a way yes. But I wouldn't involve the concepts of 'infinity' and indeterminacy in this. They are too abstract, and we have already other abstract concepts like 'thought', 'mind' etc.! :smile:

thought being "in" something loses its meaning. — Constance

In physical terms, you are right. Thought cannot be within something physical. But we must not involve physicality here, otherwise we get back to the spongy brain, with its neurons and all.
On the other hand, that the thinking process takes place is something certain, isn't it? So, if it cannot take place in the physical universe. as we have established, i.e. its location is indeterminate, as you correctly said, this must be done in a different way.

I have presented my views on the subject at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700.
I don't want to repeat things here but only to state that although thought is not part of the physical universe, its functions and characteristics can be explained and understood.

***

BTW, I added your response to the topic in the list of worth mentioning responses that I have created at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/590743

Is 'being funny' material? Can humour be weighted or measured in any way? We don't even know what humour is, and yet we couldn't live without it. — Olivier5

If you are asking semi-seriously, then I'd say that we don't tend to paste the word 'material' on funny stuff. We use the word for things like old tired, an egg sandwich. Then 'immaterial' is used for other cases...something like that. For me there's the first issue of what we want to call which and the second issue how seriously we take this labeling game. 'Anti-metaphysical' philosophy, as I see it, is not focused on calling this or that metaphysical claim incorrect. Instead it tries to show the entire game of such claims in a new light. Just because we have a noun, doesn't mean we have a new entity we can be quasi-scientific about. It's all too easy to be arguing about appropriate usage as if some profound investigation of hidden things is involved.

Hey, speak for yourself. Your mind might be obscure, but mine isn't. — Olivier5

:smile:

I mean that the concept of mind has allowed philosophers to generate centuries of argument without obtaining consensus as to what, if anything, they are even talking about.

It's all too easy to be arguing about appropriate usage as if some profound investigation of hidden things is involved. — Zugzwang

I remember some philosopher being described as "asking ordinary questions about peculiar things and peculiar questions about ordinary things." I aspire to be so described.

the concept of mind has allowed philosophers to generate centuries of argument without obtaining consensus as to what, if anything, they are even talking about. — Zugzwang

And you know a concept, any concept, that has NOT allowed philosophers to generate centuries of argument without obtaining consensus as to what, if anything, they are even talking about?

We all have some sense of what a mind is, enough to communicate about it every day. If you have some idea of what it may be already, it's probably something like that. If you don't, then we can try dictionaries...?

Just because we have a noun, doesn't mean we have a new entity we can be quasi-scientific about. — Zugzwang

In general, I agree, but in this case there is no science possible without some faith in the capacities of the human mind to understand the world.

In general, I agree, but in this case there is no science possible without some faith in the capacities of the human mind to understand the world. — Olivier5

I'd say that, yes, we manifest something like faith in our ability to adapt as we try to make sense of things. This 'faith' seems innate. Perhaps 'need' also works. We are thrown into this mess, with needs/motives we didn't choose. I need to eat something that won't make me sick and that will stop the hunger. I need to figure out how to chew my food without chewing my tongue. Eventually I need to program a satellite so that calls don't drop, so that I don't lose my job, etc.

I remember some philosopher being described as "asking ordinary questions about peculiar things and peculiar questions about ordinary things." I aspire to be so described. — Srap Tasmaner

I like that. I also like the idea of philosophy as a way to cut through the fog, be less confused, or, when confusion is inevitable, to be aware that one is confused. Calcified confusion can sound like common sense, as long as everyone is confused together.

deleted

We all have some sense of what a mind is, enough to communicate about it every day. If you have some idea of what it may be already, it's probably something like that. If you don't, then we can try dictionaries...? — Olivier5

I agree that there's a vague 'background' notion of 'mind' that we pick up from all the uses of the word. It's like the metaphysics of ordinary language. It's like a tangle of metaphors. A mind is the something that a thing can be in, like a container. It can be made up. It can be sliced in two. It can be lost, fed, wasted, blown. Then philosophers take over and try to do the job seriously, clean up and organize the metaphors, practice a new kind of science of entities like knowledge, truth, being, and so on. A science not of the words (that would be too banal, mere linguistics) but rather of the supposed referents of these words in their crystalline splendor. The whole enterprise should be logical, like math, but the 'theorems' should be of cosmic significance, as if religion and science had a baby.

. It's like a tangle of metaphors. A mind is the something that a thing can be in, like a container. — Zugzwang

As a descriptive metaphor, I like to think of it as a space for ideas, the field our ideas play in. As a functional metaphor, I see the mind as the pilot in the plane. Animals can move around, and mobility requires piloting.

A science not of the words (that would be too banal, mere linguistics) but rather of the supposed referents of these words in their crystalline splendor. — Zugzwang

That poses a problem, which is that the essence of a word's meaning -- in all its crystalline splendor :-) -- can be meditated about, contemplated in silence within one's mind, but for some odd reason, it is extremely difficult to express such an essence in words. Thus good definitions are much harder to come by than most people think. Some people even conclude from that to the inexistence of essential meanings, which I think is going to far.

Philosophy might have something to add as far as insights into troubleshooting psychosis. Maybe just a little off topic. — Mark Nyquist

Sorry about the delay of my response. Philosophy of mind has certainly a lot to say about all mental illnesses! It's only off-topic because the subject here is the brain.

My view is brain supports mental content and mental content is a sort of virtual world that you might call mind. So if psychosis is brain based then a physical treatment might work. However, if psychosis is mental content based, then the brain could be perfectly healthy and you could only suppress symptoms and damage the brain/body by the use of antipsychotic medications. These often are prescribed for long time spans or for life. An example would be the belief in conspiracy theories which are likely a mind disorder not a brain disorder.

My view is brain supports mental content and mental content is a sort of virtual world that you might call mind. — Mark Nyquist

In what way does brain support mental content, i.e. mind? Is mind a product of and contained in the brain? Or does the brain react to stimuli created by the mind, which is independent of, separate from it?

I propose that some sort of computation does take in the brain but if you mean concious thinking, no I don't believe that. I would say my brain is one of the many brain forms that I can select from the available "multiverse" realities/possible brain forms. Now this will make exactly zero sense until you read my threat "Münchausens infinity as evidence for immortality" in the metaphysics section. I don't expect many people to have the time to do that but if you have you are happily invited :)

I hope that I didn't say something bad or that offended you ...

I hope that I didn't say something bad or that offended you ... — Alkis Piskas

Not at all. I am behind in responses. Was there a question I missed?

Not at all. I am behind in responses — Constance

I'm glad to hear this! :smile: (Not that you are "behind in responses!" :smile:)

Was there a question I missed? — Constance

No. No explicit questions.

Anyway, my intention was not to get a response on the things I said, but only to know that your lack of response was not due to something I said that offended you.

So thanks. Mission accomplished! :smile: