This is how I kind of see the mind/brain thing.

The interaction of the body with the environment changes the physicochemical composition of the body, including that of the brain. If we imagine there exists an organ able to integrate changes in the physicochemical composition of the brain, we could suppose that the mind is the net result of such integration. In this scenario, the mind is not identical to the brain (the whole brain is not the mind); however, the mind is a part of and dependent on the brain. Keep in mind that in this scenario, such integrating organ is not affected, at least directly, by the (external) environment but by the physicochemical composition of the brain. The mind is NOT the molecular mechanism responsible for integrating changes in the physicochemical state of the brain; instead, it is what happens when the integrating molecular mechanism is activated.

Edit: you are not seeing a computer screen, you are "seeing" molecular processes that occur as a result of your body interacting with the computer screen.

The idea of the 'mind' involving a whole interaction with the environment makes sense in many ways, especially with regard to the whole body. After all we are not just heads, with other parts dangling on as extra parts. The whole experience of the body includes the whole relationship between the physical aspects of the environment, such as factors like being hot or cold, what food and fluid has been taken in, and these also affect the brain and thought processes.

It would also follow that social aspects affect the mind too, and the whole emotional aspects of life, which are interconnected with the brain. Human beings are affected by the quality of the relationships they have with others. Self worth and self esteem, even the will to live and purpose are based on aspects of interpersonal interaction and how this contributes to a sense of the quality of a person's life and sense of wellbeing.

First we have to know what makes something science — but leaving that aside: we don’t observe photons — are they not physical? What about forces? They’re identified, certainly — but so is the mind, and love, and morality. All “identified” as such. — Xtrix

Photons are identified with technological scientific means and exist on their own in nature(even without human existence). So of course are physical. Love and morality are human aspects of human behavior.So of course non physical. I don't see any connection here. The difference is obvious.

So we can talk in everyday terms, or we can talk in technical terms about things. The former gets us nowhere, in this case, and the latter doesn’t exist.

So there is no problem, and the question is meaningless — Xtrix

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays.

Again with your way of thinking we can't talk about anything at all.Even if the definitions aren't crystal clear in some cases and we still discover things, that doesn't mean that we can't talk about them.This definition game that some members play here in TPF is outrageous.
Throughout history in some cases even analyzing everyday terms and finding new ideas about them is what leaded humanity to technical terms.

Physical world is whatever exists in universe and we have scientific observed and verified. Mind is something that we are sure that exists from our internal empirical observation of ourselves but still science hasn't observed its form. Its essence. So of course we can talk about that distinction.

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter. — Xtrix

Explain how a theory is not also a "technical notion". (What do you mean by "technical"?)

Matter denotes dissipative structure. Material objects (e.g. events, things) are dissipative structures and material processes (e.g. hurricanes, radioactivity) are dissipative systems. Unless, however, one discounts – denies – both thermal and cosmic entropy, then ... :roll:

The thing is that mind is clearly something non physical. — dimosthenis9

Explain how we/you know this to be true.

Explain how we/you know this to be true. — 180 Proof

My statement is based on the fact that science hasn't been able to find a physical form to describe the essence of thoughts, ideas etc. At least not yet.

Can we examine for example thoughts? Can we "see" them and consider them as something material? As other elements in universe that we can observe even with technological science tools?
For me it sounds extremely weird how someone can consider mind, thoughts etc as something material.
So either it's something non physical that as to exist presupposes brain (material) and interacts with it or what we consider as physical is something more than we already know but we haven't discovered it yet. At least that's how my mind tries to wrap about this issue.

So (according to you) we don't know – don't have a physical account of – "thoughts", so why jump to some "nonphysical" woo-of-the-gaps instead of just leaving things at we don't know – science doesn't know yet? Why make shit up that explains or clarifies even less than – even calls into question – the little we do know? Your arbitrary guesses, dimo9, don't even begin to answer the question I put to you, though it's obvious you don't know what you believe you know.

Cause that's what humanity always did. Not my stuff. It's our a priori thirst for answers.

Philosophy was always trying to find possible explanations for things that couldn't yet be understood. And in many cases it was ideas of possible explanations that were put in scientific trial and then proved to be right.

As long as someone isn't dogmatic about it and claims to hold the absolute truth (which of course I don't) I see no problem in making suggestions. Otherwise you can name all philosophical theories throughout history which aren't(or at least weren't at their time) proven scientifically as shit. I don't though.

Cause that's what humanity always did. — dimosthenis9

Appeal to popularity fallacy. C'mon ...

It's our a priori thirst for answers.

That's mere nosiness, or curiosity, not wonder (Plato et al). Philosophers strive to reflectively reason to better, more probative, questions. An answer, after all, is only a question's way of generating another question – wonder is not satisfied by "answers".

Philosophy was always trying to find possible explanations for things that couldn't yet be understood.

This is so ... confused. Philosophy, as I understand it, describes (or critiques), at most, concepts, interpretations and other discursive practices for clarity's sake. Science, on the other hand, concerns testable explanations of phenomena that's either observed or postulated. Philosophy, dimo, isn't theoretical and doesn't consist of propositions (truths) about the physical world or nature (like e.g. logic, mathematics, theology, etc).

To what extent is consciousness based on the physical basis of human experiences? — Jack Cummins

I think it is necessary to recognize at the outset that identifying the mind and the brain is a uniquely western problem. Eastern cultures have a tradition of fundamental spiritualization (Weber, Jaspers, etc.) compared to Western that, to a certain extent, transcends the mind-brain problem.

No doubt the brain is capable of engendering behaviours in response to stimuli. But if you adopt the spiritual perspective, these behaviours themselves could be thought of as subject to direction. A theory of will could be constructed along these lines.

Philosophy, dimo, isn't theoretical and doesn't consist of propositions (truths) about the physical world or nature (like e.g. logic, mathematics, theology, etc). — 180 Proof

Philosophy isn't theoretical? I can't understand that. What else is? Practical?
So for example Kant who made suggestions and propositions about space and time was full of shit for you??

Have you read the CPR or any Kant? (Rhetorical question.) :roll:

Philosophy isn't theoretical? I can't understand that.

Obviously... But maybe I might learn something here – Cite a "philosophical theory", dimo, that has been tested by making unique predictions about the physical / natural world with repeatable experiments. I'll wait. :yawn:

Have you read the CPR or any Kant? (Rhetoric question.) :roll: — 180 Proof

Yeah I did .Both of them. And that's why I asked you. Have you? Kant makes possible explanations about space time and also explanations about human a priori abilities. Are these full of shit for you?I will wait.

Cite a philosophical theory? Explain how thoughts are not physical? Why make shit up instead of accepting 'you don't know'? — 180 Proof

What exactly are you talking about? You misrepresent my views and you ask me to answer to your fictional questions also? Where exactly i stated that philosophy is science? I just mention that philosophy provides science with ideas and attempts to form suggestions for possible explanations. That's all and that is extremely helpful.

Who told you that I think my opinion that thoughts are non physical as true for sure? It's just my view. Explain how thoughts are physical then. Can you?
Please you better stop it. You embarrass yourself.

To the same extent that a program is identical to a computer. — khaled

To the extent that the wood is identical to the camp fire. — DingoJones

walking is to legs so mind is to brain. — TheMadFool

None of this helps at all. My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. Walking legs, burning wood, and functioning computers are all composed of these components of mind. Brains are no different. Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs?

Everything is process. Minds, as a process, objectify other processes thereby creating objects from processes. When you observe an object engaged in a process, like legs walking, you are actually observing a relationship between processes. Walking is a relationship between legs and the ground, both of which are processes themselves. Processes all the way down.

Brains are the way minds model the process of other minds. Brains are objectified minds.

A lot of fun and games in this thread today, and, perhaps this is how philosophy should be, including the ongoing ins and outs of the mind and body problem!

The question of how the Western world does think about the mind and brain is interesting, although as far as I am aware there is underlying debate about idealism and materialism even amongst Buddhists. I am not sure how the brain and mind issue fits in relation to the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley.I know that you read this book, so do you have any idea about how it links in any way.

Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu

You can, just not with your naked eye. Brain scans etc with instruments of science.

As far as I see, Huxley fits squarely in the tradition of spiritual realism, by which I mean that the spirit is real. As I mentioned, this is in general typical of eastern cultures, as opposed to the scientific materialist orientation of the west. It is one of Weber's primary theses.

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter. — Xtrix

I'm not sure what to say to such a statement. Maybe someone else, e.g. @180 Proof, @Banno, or @tim wood, will be able to help.

Yes, one where the same logic your using us also applied. That should tell you something. — Xtrix

Again, you've lost me.

I wonder if my consciousness were transferred to another body (brain) whether my signature would stay the same, or be slightly different because of different learned neuromuscular habits (i.e. I would essentially be forging my own signature)?

If I was "transferred" to your body, I assure you I would act more like you than you like me. Why would you act more like me when I am experiencing your body?

But the hypothesis is that you are transferred. So what is transferred then?

A good rule of thumb is that if during a philosophical discussion someone invokes Quantum, they are wrong.

As for the OP, Brains and minds are no more identical than stomachs and digestion.

delete

I think that if you wanted to transfer someone's consciousness into another body, you would either have to replace the whole central nervous system of the host (or maybe only a part of it) with that of the person whose consciousness you want to transfer, or rearrange the host's central nervous system (or maybe only a part of it), at some level of organization (probably at the molecular level), so that it resembles the current organization of the central nervous system of the person whose consciousness you want to transfer. In either case, the transferred CNS would become under the influence of the host's body - I think its organization would end up resembling the organization of the host's CNS. So, if you are transferring something from one body to another, it would be the (current) physicochemical state of the CNS of the person whose consciousness you want to transfer; as you might see, in the rearrangement scenario we would be rearranging your molecules into the arrangement of mine, which might be a problem if either of us has something the other one doesn't.

My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. — Harry Hindu

I don't think anyone disagreed with that.

Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain — Harry Hindu

For the same reason you can't see a program when looking at a computer.

like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu

I doubt you see all legs walking. If they belong to a sleeping person for example, it is very likely you can't see walking in those legs.

legs and the ground, both of which are processes themselves. Processes all the way down. — Harry Hindu

I think I'll stick to what I have.

Yes, I was hypothesizing about the transfer of some essential spiritual thing into a bio-mechanical context and wondering at what point the translation of something ideal "an essence that is the complex me" breaks down into how that essence can be expressed physically. More or less.

Photons are identified with technological scientific means and exist on their own in nature(even without human existence). — dimosthenis9

That's debatable, in fact.

"Technological scientific means" is a meaningless statement.

So of course are physical. Love and morality are human aspects of human behavior.So of course non physical. I don't see any connection here. The difference is obvious. — dimosthenis9

The difference is obvious to you, and that's the point. When you think of it a little longer, using your criteria both are "physical." Why should aspects of human behavior be "non-physical"? That's hardly an obvious point, and in fact is what's being discussed here.

Adding "of course" proves nothing, except perhaps that you haven't examined your own assumptions. I hear "of course God exists" a lot too.

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays. — dimosthenis9

Yes.

Physical world is whatever exists in universe and we have scientific observed and verified. Mind is something that we are sure that exists from our internal empirical observation of ourselves but still science hasn't observed it. So of course we can talk about that distinction. — dimosthenis9

So "empirical observation of ourselves" isn't science? Then what is science?

What people think distinguishes science from non-science is actually very complicated. So here again we have another idea you simply take for granted, assuming by simply declaring something "scientific" we will all nod our heads in agreement, and that will settle the question of what's physical.

I've told you before, and you can look it up if you'd like: there was once a definition of physical and "body," based on contact action, in the 17th century. That was abandoned.

Explain how a theory is not also a "technical notion". (What do you mean by "technical"?) — 180 Proof

By "technical" I mean a term defined specifically within a theory. I used "work" as an example, but there are many others. A theory can be defined in various ways, but here I'm referring to an explanation -- hence why I used "explanatory."

So the theory of evolution seeks to explain the development of life on earth. Within this theory there are many technical notions. Natural selection is a technical notion.

Matter denotes dissipative structure. — 180 Proof

That's one definition. I suppose the one used in the context of relativity theory.

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter.
— Xtrix

I'm not sure what to say to such a statement. — T Clark

What is unclear about this? It doesn't give a technical notion of matter.

I'll quote CERN:

The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.

What's called matter is here assumed as "fundamental particles." Is that the technical notion you were referring to?

Theories are theories. Technical terms are not the same as theories.

My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings.
— Harry Hindu

I don't think anyone disagreed with that. — khaled

DingoJones just did.

Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain
— Harry Hindu

For the same reason you can't see a program when looking at a computer. — khaled

How do programmers write programs that they can't see? I think you're thinking about the output of the program, like the webpage you see on your screen right now. But there is code that creates this webpage and that is written by programmers and you can see if you have the right software. You can't do this with your mind. Your mind is of a different category - of which you only know of brains and bodies and their behaviors via your mind composed of colors, shapes, smells, sounds, and feelings.

So if anyone wants to assert that the mind, or qualia, is an illusion then they pull the rug of reality out from under themselves as they have just declared that their only way of knowing the world is an illusion, yet they want to cling to the idea of the existence of brains in bodies with accompanying behaviors even though they are only aware of those things by the very thing they assert is an illusion.

like you can see walking when looking at legs?
— Harry Hindu

I doubt you see all legs walking. If they belong to a sleeping person for example, it is very likely you can't see walking in those legs. — khaled

This doesn't make a difference, if you want to talk about sleeping legs then I could just point to looking at your sleeping brain and seeing a sleeping brain rather than your dream you are experiencing.