Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/04/08 1:34 am:
Jim,

We certainly have reason to suspect that the mind is related to activity carried out in the brain. There is no reason to suppose "the mind is an activity carried out by the brain". Interaction does not imply total dependence. If the mind were no more than electrical and biochemical activity there could be no such entity as a person, self or ego but only what Hume described as "a bundle of perceptions". Biochemical reactions do not explain unity, autonomy or consciousness. All physical processes are determined by previous events and lack self-determination or responsibility. The term "supervenience" simply masks the inability to derive the richness of personality from impersonal events and of purpose from that which is purposeless.

Freedom of choice and responsibility are a puzzle only for those who arbitrarily regard matter as the ultimate reality. Where is the source of the discipline you mention (to think rationally)? The brain is not generally regarded as a transcendent agent. It is a physical organ that functions according to causal laws. Every event within the skull is strictly determined by a chain of previous events. There is no room for self-discipline or rationality.

Your honest admission that you know of no adequate explanation of the mind underlines the absurdity of materialism. Bertrand Russell's "neutral monism" at least recognized the futility of attempting to reduce mind to matter...

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/04/08 9:07 am:
frick,

I believe the mind has no physical location. Why must it be somewhere? On what do you base that assumption? Realities like truth and justice and freedom of choice do not occupy space. Concepts cannot be reduced to electrical impulses in the brain nor can moral values be weighed or measured. Where are the past and the future located? Where is the control-centre in the brain and the seat of consciousness? Until all these questions are answered satisfactorily there is no good reason to believe everything has a physical origin and location. The power of the mind and the richness of personality undoubtedly exceeds the limitations of the mass of tissue within the skull...

Clarification/Follow-up by frick on 08/04/08 7:25 pm:
Tony-

If the mind has no physical location, why does my mind seem always to be with me wherever I go? When I leave the barber shop, my mind leaves with me - it doesn't stay in the shop. Is it only MY mind that has this quality of co-location with "me", and others experience THEIR mind differently?

If I cut my arm off, my mind remains. If I cut my head off, my mind is gone. That's a reason I think the mind is a part of the brain. No brain, no mind. That's pretty good evidence, it seems to me, that the mind IS physically located in the brain.

It might be time to define our terms. What precisely do you mean by the word "mind"?

I'll go first. The mind is that conscious, self-aware state that is a result of brain processes. Those brain processes that are autonomic are not part of the mind. Damage to the brain results in damage to the mind. "Truth" (etc.)is a mental construct of the brain/mind.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/05/08 5:54 am:
frick,

The mind is obviously related to the brain but a relationship does not entail dependence. Your mind seems to be always with you (although many people would dispute that) because while you are alive you are a person composed of body and mind. Without a mind you do not exist but it does not follow that without a body you cease to exist. The dominant partner is the mind (for all the reasons I have already given: self-awareness, rationality, autonomy and responsibility). We do not attribute these powers to animals because they are not persons.

You equate damage to the brain with damage to the mind. Yet the brain is simply an instrument that functions according to the laws of nature. It does not know it exists or what it is doing any more than a computer does. If a guitar is damaged it does not follow that the guitarist is damaged. Inability to communicate or control the body is certainly not evidence that the mind consists solely of brain processes.

You have not explained how the brain is capable of all the feats I have listed. If truth, justice, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, friendship and love are only mental constructs we cannot pursue them or value them. They simply do not exist - except as words or symbols. Your materialist hypothesis destroys everything except physical objects - including not only your hypothesis but every hypothesis that has ever been proposed. It implies that we do not exist nor do truth, logic or reasoning but only things. There are no persons, no knowledge, no right to life, no freedom or happiness, no purpose in existence, no meaning or purpose in anything... only blind physical and biochemical processes...

Ironically, to regard everything as a mental construct is the most adequate explanation of reality! Our starting point is indeed the mind...

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/05/08 11:57 pm:
frick,

Any definition of the mind must be tentative because it is such a fundamental, mysterious reality. To define it as a state of awareness is inadequate because the mind is a dynamic entity that makes rational choices and decisions. It is not simply a machine that functions according to its specifications. Unlike material objects the mind is creative, flexible, dynamic and purposeful. It exists on a higher level than anything in the physical world. Its power exceeds all other phenomena in the universe. It is the intangible source of thoughts, emotions, values and ideals. The entire cosmos is unaware that it exists and is incapable of controlling itself whereas the mind is a conscious agent responsible for its own destiny and that of others.

Clarification/Follow-up by Oldstillwild on 08/06/08 6:34 pm:
This is how it is:

The mind is James,the more or less dedicated(thats up to evry individual!) private car-driver as licensee of LIFE itself.

The mind is a tool transcendent connected to LIFE itself.

Its not useful to define mind any further,because its about HOW to use it.
The abilities and goals are clear.(not to evryone,though,but thats what the spiritual philosophical journey of us,being lifeforms, is all about).

"Its power exceeds all other phenomena in the universe." I like this sentence,hwever its not true per se linked to the mind:The power is in the usage of the latent ability to communicate with LIFE itself,because LIFE provides the power to establish things and makes it happen.

LIFE is powerfull,although Id hesitate to state,"exceeding all other phenomena".

Coz,I know,LIFE isnt omnipotent.I dont believe anything is.LIFE is part of the universe and as to earthly understandings, LIFE is part of nature,not ruling it,but focussed on itself.Furthermore,the universe is vaste and I believe in a holistic approach of it,but the true phenomena,the parts, that form this holistic all-total-entity are still mystery.

hi.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/07/08 3:12 am:
Osw,

We agree on the most important fact - that we are on a "spiritual philosophical journey" :)

Clarification/Follow-up by Oldstillwild on 08/07/08 6:12 pm:
well.....,


thats hopeful.....:

The basis for that other most important issue:


achieving the goals......!


Remember that!


Have a nice weekend!

Clarification/Follow-up by frick on 08/09/08 6:09 am:
Tony--

Your enthusiasm is apparent but that's all it is. I don't see you providing any solid evidence of your claims. Statements like, "It's [the mind] power exceeds all other phenomena in the universe" is not proof or evidence - it's just a belief you have.

"The entire cosmos is unaware that it exists..." Since mankind is part of that cosmos, made of star stuff, isn't it reasonable to consider that mankind is (a part of) the cosmos contemplating itself?

You say, "We do not attribute these powers to animals because they are not persons". That is not true. Many human-like qualities are attributed to animals as we learn more and more about our fellow creatures. The chimp is certainly self-aware, uses tools (an attribute once thought to be the deciding difference), and certainly makes rational decisions. Elephants exhibit grief, and show responsibility in many ways - as do many animals.

You say, "...it does not follow that without a body you [a person] cease to exist". Can you provide a single example of a person existing without a body?

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/09/08 9:37 am:
frick,

What evidence is more solid than the astonishing achievements of science - which are the product of the human mind? There is nothing comparable to the power, inventiveness and conscious control we have over ourselves and the physical world.

It is certainly not reasonable to consider that the cosmos is contemplating itself unless you believe - without evidence - that the cosmos has a mind. We inhabit the universe but that does not imply that the universe as a whole is capable of self-contemplation or emotion or rational activity.

There is a radical difference between
"human-like" and human qualities. Chimps and elephants are not persons who possess the power of abstract reasoning, free will, moral responsibility or the same rights as human beings. Otherwise they would be put on trial, imprisoned or executed when they commit an offence. It is not simply a question of ignorance or incomprehension but inability to
transcend their heredity and environment. They simply do not have the power of self-determination.

You persist in asking if I can provide a single example of a person existing without a body even though you cannot explain how a person transcends the body. The absurdity of materialism supports the view that the mind is independent. There is no evidence that a person ceases to exist at death but plenty of evidence of design. If you insist on reducing mind to matter how do you derive intelligence, purpose and personality from that which lacks intelligence, purpose and personality?

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/10/08 1:22 pm:
frick,

It has occurred to me that you are putting the cart before the horse! Can you provide a single example of a person existing without a mind?

We know minds and bodies exist only because we have a mind. The first and surest thing of which we are aware is our stream of consciousness, i.e. our sensations, thoughts and feelings. We then infer there are other minds and bodies from our perceptions and communications from other persons.

You believe minds cannot exist without bodies because you believe (i) conscious minds have emerged from inanimate particles and (ii) there is no physical evidence of bodiless minds. I believe minds exist without bodies because (i) minds have powers lacking in bodies and (ii) there is abundant physical evidence of intangible intelligent design. There is not one good reason to believe personal existence is restricted to human brains or even to organisms on other planets.

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/10/08 7:25 pm:
I see from the following Stanford Philosophy Blog post that there are still dualists in philosophy, though their dualism is perhaps not as strongly divided as Descartes'.

http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/2008/08/dualism-strikes.html

It seems to be considered in the community of philosophers as a view in retreat.

The existence, and even primacy, of a non-material "spiritual" (if you will) realm is still given a lot of weight by some religious believers. I'm afraid I treat all of their arguments with a lot of scepticism.

Clarification/Follow-up by frick on 08/11/08 11:52 pm:
Tony --

I have asked you several times to provide a single example of your position(s). You have not provided one.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/12/08 10:54 am:
frick

You have ignored and failed to refute every point I have made about the mind and then you state that I have not provided a single example of my position!

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/12/08 11:00 am:
Jim

Your scepticism requires some form of justification...

Clarification/Follow-up by frick on 08/13/08 4:22 am:
Tony---

I'll try it one last time.

Your exact words - "I believe minds exist without bodies..."

Please provide an example of a mind existing without a body. Not reasons why you BELIEVE this is so, but an actual example.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/13/08 11:25 am:
frick

Do you know that the mind is "a conscious, self-aware state that is a result of brain processes"? Can you prove it beyond all reasonable doubt? It is >>a belief<< contradicted by the fact that we humans have the power to control our thoughts and actions.

We know our mind directly with our thoughts, feelings and sensations. We believe we have a body but we cannot be absolutely sure. Our power of choice is evidence that our mind does not depend on physical processes. Our thoughts are not restricted to one particular time or place whereas brain processes are. "Out of body" experiences occur constantly.
Why then do you believe the mind cannot exist without the body in the face of these concrete examples? It is a common occurrence!