spacer1

John,
Only in the sense that there are two perspectives involved - the first- and third-person experiences of a brain.
If the mind is the subjective experience (perhaps only awareness?) of the brain and body, then it definitely is a point of view. I could go on to argue that there is no such thing as "pure" objectivity, since any expression of knowledge is dependent upon a point of view and a framework of understanding.
Well, a "counterpart" (in the sense I was using it) denotes a relationship, which presupposes that the two entities are not identical. I'm not sure I understand your point about "informational properties." If the brain doesn't involve informational properties, while the mind does, doesn't this suggest a form of dualism of your own?
If you were to chop your brain up into little pieces, I think it more likely that you would have no mind (and therefore no concepts), rather than that your concepts would be lying in little pieces. Therefore, concepts aren't as divisible as the brain, because at some point, if you divide your brain enough, the mind will cease to emerge, even though somebody else may be able to keep cutting up your brain.
No, but it does mean that the two are not identical.

John Page

Which are different experiences arising from different spatially-organized phenomena occuring within the brain....
I think you're confused, this is a point of view of yours, of your mind. Your mind is not a "point of view".
I would agree with this point of view of your mind.
....and therefore not spatially identical.
I don't think the mind's physical basis is only the brain - much information is processed by the spinal cord or even prior. Anyway, the brain demonstrably does process information, what I'm suggesting is that when one talks of one's mind you are talking about the informational aspect of the brain and other parts of the nervous system. No Cartesian dualism here - just differences between things.
...and by the same token, one would have no brain to speak of either. Consider IQ tests as a valid measure of mental capacity. Those with certain less well-developed brain function have less mental capacity. Less brain less mind. No brain, no conscious mind. No brain or information processing nervous system, no mind at all.
Nevertheless, concepts are divisible. As to the rest, please see again no brain no mind etc.
This on the physical and abstract. Well, it doesn't mean that they are identical either!!

Cheers, John

spacer1

John,
Occurring within which brain? That of the first-person or the third-?
I think that, before we proceed further, we need to define the mind. I noticed in your last post your definition of "mind" includes "information [that] is processed by the spinal cord or even prior." While we may have some sense of these processes in terms of feelings and intuitions, I have restricted my definition of the mind only to the qualia-based, first-person perspective. I feel this is the right way to go, since your definition presupposes a certain relationship between the third- and first-person perspective. That is, you can not include the third-person perspective regarding unconscious processing by the nervous system in your definition of "mind", when the discussion is centred around the question of how the first- and third-person perspectives are related. I do not necessarily disagree with your spinal cord-basis of mind, but let's keep the first- and third-person perspectives separate. Using my definition, the "mind" is restricted only to that of which we are conscious.

In response to your question, I would ask: Do you think that you are in control of your mind, or do you think that your mind is in control of you? If the former, I would be interested to hear how your interactionist conception works. If the latter, I think it refutes your line of questioning here (i.e., then your mind is a "point of view").
Why do I get the sense you are trying to convert me to dualism? Doesn't this comment of yours suggest serious problems for your 'brain is divisible therefore mind is divisible' theory?
Firstly, I don't think that extending the definition of mind to include unconscious processes solves anything regarding the relationship of mind and brain, since 'brain' is usually taken to be inclusive of the workings of the physical body.
Secondly, if there are differences between things, doesn't this suggest that they are not identical? If so, you are back to dualism.
So, now you are saying that the brain is not divisible, for if you divide it it is no longer a brain? What, then, of your adopting the case of split-brain patients to support your argument? They don't have a brain if it's in two halves, do they?

Now, you might say it is a matter of degree; that you can divide the brain a certain amount and still retain a mind. At what point do you draw the line, though? It would seem rather convenient for you to make the claim that we can divide the brain up until the point where the mind disappears, and then it is no longer a brain. Either the mind (and its concepts) is as divisible as the brain, or it is not.

Despite all this, my strongest objection to your 'mind is divisible' argument rests on this logical argument of which you have yet to repond:
If we extend this to the corresponding physical processes...
I think you misread me. I said, "it does mean that the two are not identical."

starling

:gets big worried eyes: Me? o.o

Maybe you can't place a thought slightly to your left and over your shoulder, I never had a problem doing that. Seriously, just because we're not aware of the location of a thought doesn't mean that location does not exist. Thoughts are not properties of the mind: they are pieces of the mind. The word 'thought' is an noun, whereas the word 'red' is an adjective. Totally different things.

Attack? He?? Please, I may nip occasionally, but I don't attack. That was a counter argument. I never meant any harm to Mr. Decartes. Now, "Decartes was an insane, probably drugged up fool who had visions of demons coming into his dreams and teaching him mathematics" is an attack!

I agree that the mind is not a substance, and is not made out of anything. I'd call it a very complex shape. A single thought might be distributed in many places all over the brain, maybe not even continuously connected. So yes it is possible to cut a thought out of the brain, but it might not be located in only one place. People lose thoughts all the time with brain damage: it's just usually too crude to catch only one thought or thinking process.

I have nothing wrong with dualism. It's a neat idea, to tell the truth. All my arguments are on the assumption that the mind is fully contained and sustained by the brain, which may or may not be true. I hope it's not true, my brain has way too short a shelf life for my liking.

If the mind is separate from the brain, it is still possible to divide the mind, if you agree that the "location" of a thought is where the thinker imagines it. Some people build mnemonic "temples" in their head to organize thoughts, and some people can associate thoughts with physical reminders, which could be like moving the thoughts to those places. And some people (:cough: ) have more than one thinker in their head at times.