Nowhere357

By definition, as I've shown by referencing the dictionary, there is too such a thing.

You've read too much into the definition, and so have come to a wrong conclusion.

We definitely have minds, we definitely have a "immaterial intelligent or sentient part", this is the mind. Minds are related to matter (the brain) but are not made of matter. We are more than the sum of our parts. Our minds emerge from our brains. The nature of these minds are in doubt; the existence of minds is not.

Just substitute "subjective mental awareness" or "subjective mental experience" for the controversial word. I hope you won't claim THEY don't exist.

John Page

This is where we differ, then. It seems to me that there are many studies that show a deterioration in the function of the mind results from a deterioration in the function of the brain.
Subjects report a change in their mental awareness with change in brain function. LSD, for example.

Cheers, John

Witt

Nowhere357:
Minds are related to matter (the brain) but are not made of matter.

I agree with that.
Mind is not physical.
But, without brain there is no mind!

John:
This is where we differ, then. It seems to me that there are many studies that show a deterioration in the function of the mind results from a deterioration in the function of the brain.

That is their correspondence.
The presumption of (one-to one)ness, is intuitive.

That there is a one-to-one correspondence of brain activity for 'all' mental comprehension, is doubtful, imo.

Witt

John Page

I see no logic in your conclusions.

Mind is a word used to refer to the abstract aspect of material (abstract in the informational sense).

What mental comprehension has no correspondence with brain/nervous system activity IYO?

Cheers, John

Witt

Witt:
......I agree with that.
Mind is not physical.
But, without brain there is no mind!
....
That there is a one-to-one correspondence of brain activity for 'all' mental comprehension, is doubtful, imo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John: I see no logic in your conclusions.

We seem to, mutually do that from time to time.

John: Mind is a word used to refer to the abstract aspect of material (abstract in the informational sense).

What other sense is there?

John: What mental comprehension has no correspondence with brain/nervous system activity IYO?

Tautologousness, does not conform to any 'brain/nervous system activity'.

Witt

John Page

Wasn't there a hint of spiritual earlier on that sprang from Nowhere?
Yes it does. Tautologousness is a word that refers to the concept whereby T(x) = True or False where T = the tautologousness-telling function, x is the proposition under study and the result must be either true or false.

When the human mind applies the concept of tautologousness it will apply a process T to the proposition x to yield an outcome. I maintain this is so even though the process applied by the mind/brain is not a formal method or mechanism (such as applying a truth table).

With this in mind, I suggest that your apprehension of tautologousness is entirely a function of your brain activity. That we can share an understanding of the conditions for tautologousness indicates to me that it is no different than any other concept.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

It's hard for something to deteriorate if it doesn't exist, so you've agreed with me that minds exist - why then are we differing?

Unless you think that minds cannot exist if they ever undergo change? Why would you think that? I guess I don't understand your position.

No, no, that came from me! Oh wait that's what you said...

Actually, I'm not the one who brought the word into this thread - I merely am defending it's validity and usefulness, which is supported by the dictionary, which makes me pretty much bomb-proof here, I think.

Nowhere357

Afaik, this is correct, and is the default position.

I certainly would not claim that mind can exist without brain, to be a fact.

John Page

Hi Nowhere:

I'm not sure exactly where we're differing either!
"Minds exist, they are an aspect of brains and its activity."

Do you agree this?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Yes I do.

The flame is an aspect of the burning candle. Would you agree with this?