Is the mind a physical thing? It depends upon how you define ‘mind’ and ‘physical’. Mind and brain are not the same things, but mind is an integral function of brain and might, therefore, be considered inseparable one from the other and only metaphorically similar to hardware/software. In other words, I have no idea if mind and brain are the same.
Seems to me there are multiple aspects to existence. Two of these are matter and movement. Matter has existential status 'concrete' whereas movement has existential status 'abstract'. Seems to me the foundation of brain is matter and the foundation of mind is movement.
The idea that the mind is not a physical thing but an abstract thing seems surprisingly familiar for something touted as a new direction. Yes, you guessed it, I find it hard to believe that my feeling of disappointment is an abstraction.
Most enjoyable, Timothy. But I can't help thinking that most Physicalists would really be quite happy with your picture. Your disagreement with them seems largely terminological. They like the label 'physicalist' and you don't, yet in every important way you seem to agree.
interesting question. whatever we name it, it is preceding us n also part of us in "biophotons". next level: (sun)light is fire. fire permeates all other elements. light also transmits sound.
Particles of light have the same existential status as all the other particles in Physics' standard model. In my philosophy, light participates in what matter is understood to be. (That is the opinion of my self who has only an introductory knowledge of physics).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I agree they "exist" but they are very different. What we call matter is composed of fermions with mass. The particles of light are photons, which are massless bosons. They are extremely different from a physics point of view, both fermions vs bosons and massive vs massless.
@@Danyel615 When a photon leaps into existence as a consequence of an electron falling into a lower 'orbit'... what's going on there? Is there a matter transformation or is it more like an uncoupling, a divorce or a marriage of fields akin to the way a collapsing magnetic field around a wire compresses electrons to a greater voltage?
Body and mind (or matter and spirit) are part of a continuum; therefore, are distinguishable but inseparable. Thus, I prefer the category of *life* - life is more fundamental than the artificial division of "mind/matter", it is a duplicity without real duality Moreover, this is not a new idea at all. For instance, in the East, Buddhism says about the unity of *namarupa* . In the West, Fechner says about the *psychophysical continuity* (according to him, even after death!)
Paintings are able to represent and they're just made of paint and canvas. Since mind is made entirely of representations it's easy to imagine that brains are a rather more sophisticated version of paint and canvas.
Empirical account of consciousness presupposes something unifying experience of different soughts. Like how kant said there should be a transcendental subject which unifies experience into *my consciousness*. Not that i certainly agree with it but i don't buy into transcendental realism as much as other, inpart because either you have theories like rene descartes who posit a soul and god for their believe in similarities between reason and the empirical, or you Berkley who go full on idealisn. I still think the Humean picture is lacking. There is certainly an *I* which gets experience. On other hand spinoza’s double aspect theory imo far better model for science right now
Physical is 3D. Brains are a pile of nerves along with blood vessels. I have a GED so feel free to correct me, but I doubt you can change my mind as I don't have that much to work with. Thank you.
I can't be certain but it seems to me that something is physical if it is able to induce a change in a sense organ or sensing instrument or if it is able to undergo a change in location or if its location or path or weight is affected by gravity (whatever that is). or something I can't think of. I wouldn't be surprised if 'definition' played a role in concepts of the physical.
short: interconnectivity? long: the (collective) "mind" n how somethings perceive other somethings? (nobody can "make" "physical" things or create "matter" as its part of the world, only transform them). sounds like a simple question that an LLM answers easily but we actually never really can be satisfied with.
Res extensa? Not very helpful... A necessary and sufficient condition of a substance is interaction (e.g., physical things interact and produce causes and effects in and of other physical things), but causal closure principle could be agreed to by those who believe in nonphysical substances as well. Perhaps that which is capable of being described by a complete physics is physical. But even then, physics doesn't describe the intrinsic nature of the physical (e.g., whether matter is conscious...). Maybe it can't be defined. You've hit on a pretty tough question, however innocently expressed.
@@Khuno2 "nonphysical substances"? I find the phrase to be incoherent although abstract entities like 'pattern' and 'process' seem to me to come pretty close to a coherent meaning for "nonphysical substance".
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Yeah, that's very awkwardly phrased. Res cogitans? Perhaps I should have just said dualists. I apologize--I'm often quite bad at expressing myself clearly. Basically, the idea that mental events can cause other mental events but not physical events, assuming substance dualism. I don't find that incoherent, though untenable. In fact, regardless of the truth of mind body dualism, it's quite natural to assume that the mind is separate from the body, and I think that tests of children have bolstered this sort of evolved intuition. Dualism is perfectly coherent. In fact, I'd consider myself a very reluctant dualist (epiphenomenalist), given phenomenal character or qualia.
While listening I was thinking about using a co worker's computer at work. At that exact moment the lecturer said Rutherford. That is the last name of the co worker I was thinking about. Omg.
@@superfuzzymomma Well, that's good to hear. The comment sections have definitely improved over time, but I'd say there's a long way to go. I might also have a somewhat distorted view though too, since I see everything, including all the crazy stuff. I can't ignore the fact that there are a few gems there as well. In any case, thanks for being here!
@@Philosophy_Overdose interesting... that on here I go straight for the stimulating, illustrative and ellucidating comments and am largely oblivious to the trolls. Maybe philosophy is somehow an antiidote to the nonsense? Lol
What a great example of common philosophical approach to anything: pose big questions, raise high expectations by promising solutions, walkt hrough the dust of history and arrive at silly trivialities without substantial substance. Awkward for any intellectually armed listener, entertaining for everybody else.
I've listened only once and not paid strict attention (When there's time I will listen again and pay proper attention) so please take that into account in regard to these initial comments... What is the existential status of 'movement'? Movement is obviously not a material object and not a property of an object because movement is relative. Thus materialism does not account for movement. Can physicalism? Movement is obviously an important element in physics. But so is time and we now know that time is a concept only. Physics has imported 'time' from the realm of the abstract. Has physics also imported 'movement' from that realm ?
Exactly! Yours is a wonderfully terse assertion that coincides precisely with mine and many others although I'm sure you'll agree with me that there are plenty of details that demand fleshing out. Since mind consists entirely of representations the interesting thing is how the brain does it. (And I suspect behind the answer there is very simple principle very likely involving language and the concept of analogy).
Some very outdated views expressed in this video, taking no account of the recent, and ongoing advances in the neuroscience...mainly because some philosophers don't understand science, so fill in the gaps with zombies, deities, or animal spirits. I speak as a lifelong scientist and a somewhat more recent philosopher. Can I recommend reading Daniel Dennett on the subject for a more science-friendly philosophical outlook on the mind.
@joshsmith2629 Hi Josh, I'm a philosophical materialist, with a background in science, so fo me consciousness is just the micro-activity of brain tissue. I'm happy to explain further if you wish. Thanks for the question.
@@Doctor.T.46 Micro-activity of brain tissue, hmmm. I'm struggling to see how the above presentation contradicts the claim that consciousness is at least partly a micro-activity of brain tissue. Maybe your point is that consciousness is nothing but a micro-activity of brain tissue, but if it is the point you making , then how do you explain the phenomenon that physically different brain states can express the same idea in two different individual consciousness?
I'm sorry, but this is honestly one of the DUMBEST questions anyone could possibly ask! Does the mind do anything? Does it use energy to do so? And, what do we call it when you study the workings of energy?🤔 Not to mention how clear it is that minds are functions of bodies, specifically brains. No hardware, no processing, no projecting an image on the screen. (Btw, the question would have had validity if you inserted 'material' instead of 'physical'. EVERYTHING that exists is physical...by definition.)
@@-WiseGuy- No point. Exploring. Movement is relative thus not a property of an object so I've long thought that because movement is not material it must be abstract. (Those two (matter and abstractions) accounting for the totality of existents). But now I see that 'the physical', which includes matter, may also include movement. But does the inclusion transform movement from abstract to physical or can movement, within the body of the physical, within the meaning of 'physical', remain abstract? The question is... Is the physical a combination of matter and abstractions? I intuit that it's likely. "Not to mention how clear it is that minds are functions of bodies" It's clear to me. We are not living in different camps. It's the details of the functions that I find to be most interesting. I believe my self to be a very complex thought. This goes a long way towards explaining how thoughts are able to affect my self. Thoughts I take to be neural-discharge-frequency-encoded representations /analogies, the very 'things' transduced by the sense organs in proportion to impinging environmental energies and the very 'things' that move our muscles because nerves innervate them.
Is the mind a physical thing? It depends upon how you define ‘mind’ and ‘physical’.
Mind and brain are not the same things, but mind is an integral function of brain and might, therefore, be considered inseparable one from the other and only metaphorically similar to hardware/software. In other words, I have no idea if mind and brain are the same.
Mind is immaterial it rules the brain like brain rules the organ of body
Seems to me there are multiple aspects to existence.
Two of these are matter and movement.
Matter has existential status 'concrete'
whereas movement has existential status 'abstract'.
Seems to me the foundation of brain is matter and
the foundation of mind is movement.
The idea that the mind is not a physical thing but an abstract thing seems surprisingly familiar for something touted as a new direction. Yes, you guessed it, I find it hard to believe that my feeling of disappointment is an abstraction.
Well it’s not physical. It’s just as absurd if not more
Most enjoyable, Timothy. But I can't help thinking that most Physicalists would really be quite happy with your picture. Your disagreement with them seems largely terminological. They like the label 'physicalist' and you don't, yet in every important way you seem to agree.
In philosophy, is light considered a "substance"? It has no mass and certainly it is not matter, but it does occupy space and have causal powers.
interesting question. whatever we name it, it is preceding us n also part of us in "biophotons". next level: (sun)light is fire. fire permeates all other elements. light also transmits sound.
Particles of light have the same existential status as
all the other particles in Physics' standard model.
In my philosophy, light participates in what matter is understood to be.
(That is the opinion of my self
who has only an introductory knowledge of physics).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I agree they "exist" but they are very different. What we call matter is composed of fermions with mass. The particles of light are photons, which are massless bosons. They are extremely different from a physics point of view, both fermions vs bosons and massive vs massless.
@@Danyel615 When a photon leaps into existence as a consequence of an electron falling into a lower 'orbit'...
what's going on there?
Is there a matter transformation or is it more like an uncoupling, a divorce or
a marriage of fields akin to the way a collapsing magnetic field around a wire compresses electrons to a greater voltage?
Or am I not in possession of sufficient knowledge to ask a coherent question?
Excellent lecture covering a crucial concept in metaphysics.
Body and mind (or matter and spirit) are part of a continuum; therefore, are distinguishable but inseparable. Thus, I prefer the category of *life* - life is more fundamental than the artificial division of "mind/matter", it is a duplicity without real duality
Moreover, this is not a new idea at all. For instance, in the East, Buddhism says about the unity of *namarupa* . In the West, Fechner says about the *psychophysical continuity* (according to him, even after death!)
Paintings are able to represent and they're just made of paint and canvas.
Since mind is made entirely of representations
it's easy to imagine that
brains are a rather more sophisticated version of paint and canvas.
Empirical account of consciousness presupposes something unifying experience of different soughts. Like how kant said there should be a transcendental subject which unifies experience into *my consciousness*. Not that i certainly agree with it but i don't buy into transcendental realism as much as other, inpart because either you have theories like rene descartes who posit a soul and god for their believe in similarities between reason and the empirical, or you Berkley who go full on idealisn.
I still think the Humean picture is lacking. There is certainly an *I* which gets experience.
On other hand spinoza’s double aspect theory imo far better model for science right now
Physical is 3D. Brains are a pile of nerves along with blood vessels. I have a GED so feel free to correct me, but I doubt you can change my mind as I don't have that much to work with. Thank you.
What makes something physical?
I can't be certain but
it seems to me that something is physical
if it is able to induce a change in a sense organ or sensing instrument
or
if it is able to undergo a change in location
or
if its location or path or weight is affected by gravity (whatever that is).
or
something I can't think of.
I wouldn't be surprised
if 'definition' played a role in concepts of the physical.
short: interconnectivity? long: the (collective) "mind" n how somethings perceive other somethings? (nobody can "make" "physical" things or create "matter" as its part of the world, only transform them). sounds like a simple question that an LLM answers easily but we actually never really can be satisfied with.
Res extensa? Not very helpful... A necessary and sufficient condition of a substance is interaction (e.g., physical things interact and produce causes and effects in and of other physical things), but causal closure principle could be agreed to by those who believe in nonphysical substances as well. Perhaps that which is capable of being described by a complete physics is physical. But even then, physics doesn't describe the intrinsic nature of the physical (e.g., whether matter is conscious...). Maybe it can't be defined. You've hit on a pretty tough question, however innocently expressed.
@@Khuno2 "nonphysical substances"?
I find the phrase to be incoherent
although abstract entities like 'pattern' and 'process' seem to me to come pretty close to a coherent meaning for "nonphysical substance".
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Yeah, that's very awkwardly phrased. Res cogitans? Perhaps I should have just said dualists. I apologize--I'm often quite bad at expressing myself clearly. Basically, the idea that mental events can cause other mental events but not physical events, assuming substance dualism. I don't find that incoherent, though untenable. In fact, regardless of the truth of mind body dualism, it's quite natural to assume that the mind is separate from the body, and I think that tests of children have bolstered this sort of evolved intuition. Dualism is perfectly coherent. In fact, I'd consider myself a very reluctant dualist (epiphenomenalist), given phenomenal character or qualia.
While listening I was thinking about using a co worker's computer at work. At that exact moment the lecturer said Rutherford. That is the last name of the co worker I was thinking about. Omg.
Wonderful, thank you. I always look forward to reading the comments on these videos
You actually look forward to reading the comments?
@@Philosophy_Overdose Sure! But only on channels such as this which are not intended for the lowest common denominator. This channel is superb!
@@superfuzzymomma Well, that's good to hear. The comment sections have definitely improved over time, but I'd say there's a long way to go. I might also have a somewhat distorted view though too, since I see everything, including all the crazy stuff. I can't ignore the fact that there are a few gems there as well. In any case, thanks for being here!
@@Philosophy_Overdose interesting... that on here I go straight for the stimulating, illustrative and ellucidating comments and am largely oblivious to the trolls. Maybe philosophy is somehow an antiidote to the nonsense? Lol
@@superfuzzymomma It's the bad philosophy that bothers me more than anything else.
Consciousness is a tough nut to crack.
How much does a thought weigh?
Mind is nothing more or less than a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
What a great example of common philosophical approach to anything: pose big questions, raise high expectations by promising solutions, walkt hrough the dust of history and arrive at silly trivialities without substantial substance. Awkward for any intellectually armed listener, entertaining for everybody else.
I've listened only once and not paid strict attention
(When there's time I will listen again and pay proper attention)
so please take that into account in regard to these initial comments...
What is the existential status of 'movement'?
Movement is obviously not a material object and
not a property of an object because movement is relative.
Thus materialism does not account for movement.
Can physicalism?
Movement is obviously an important element in physics.
But so is time and we now know that time is a concept only.
Physics has imported 'time' from the realm of the abstract.
Has physics also imported 'movement' from that realm ?
These drugs I’m on affecting my mind right now
The mind is what the brain does.
lezzzzgo team chimp
Exactly!
Yours is a wonderfully terse assertion that
coincides precisely with mine and many others
although I'm sure you'll agree with me that
there are plenty of details that demand fleshing out.
Since mind consists entirely of representations
the interesting thing is how the brain does it.
(And I suspect behind the answer there is very simple principle
very likely involving language and the concept of analogy).
No. The mind is mind.
Some very outdated views expressed in this video, taking no account of the recent, and ongoing advances in the neuroscience...mainly because some philosophers don't understand science, so fill in the gaps with zombies, deities, or animal spirits.
I speak as a lifelong scientist and a somewhat more recent philosopher. Can I recommend reading Daniel Dennett on the subject for a more science-friendly philosophical outlook on the mind.
@joshsmith2629 Hi Josh, I'm a philosophical materialist, with a background in science, so fo me consciousness is just the micro-activity of brain tissue. I'm happy to explain further if you wish. Thanks for the question.
@@Doctor.T.46 Micro-activity of brain tissue, hmmm. I'm struggling to see how the above presentation contradicts the claim that consciousness is at least partly a micro-activity of brain tissue. Maybe your point is that consciousness is nothing but a micro-activity of brain tissue, but if it is the point you making , then how do you explain the phenomenon that physically different brain states can express the same idea in two different individual consciousness?
@evinnra2779 Good question. Two brains don't have the same idea. Please, if you think differently tell me how the ideas of two brains are identical.
@@Doctor.T.46 are you 100 percent certain 2 brains dont have the same idea
@seanocalaghan2225 Yes I am certain, but, by all means try to persuade me otherwise.
Wow. This guy takes a long while to say very little.
I'm sorry, but this is honestly one of the DUMBEST questions anyone could possibly ask!
Does the mind do anything?
Does it use energy to do so?
And, what do we call it when you study the workings of energy?🤔
Not to mention how clear it is that minds are functions of bodies, specifically brains. No hardware, no processing, no projecting an image on the screen.
(Btw, the question would have had validity if you inserted 'material' instead of 'physical'. EVERYTHING that exists is physical...by definition.)
Movement exists but is not made of matter.
Is movement physical or
conceptual or
a combo or
something other?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
There's no such thing as movement without some thing doing the moving. Not to mention movement requires energy.
@@-WiseGuy- Yes but you did not answer my question.
Would you think about it and try again?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Movement is 100% physical. What's your point?
@@-WiseGuy- No point. Exploring.
Movement is relative
thus not a property of an object so
I've long thought that
because movement is not material
it must be abstract.
(Those two (matter and abstractions) accounting for the totality of existents).
But now I see that 'the physical',
which includes matter,
may also include movement.
But does the inclusion transform movement from abstract to physical
or can movement, within the body of the physical, within the meaning of 'physical', remain abstract?
The question is...
Is the physical a combination of matter and abstractions?
I intuit that it's likely.
"Not to mention how clear it is that minds are functions of bodies"
It's clear to me.
We are not living in different camps.
It's the details of the functions that I find to be most interesting.
I believe my self to be a very complex thought.
This goes a long way towards explaining how thoughts are able to affect my self.
Thoughts I take to be neural-discharge-frequency-encoded representations /analogies, the very 'things' transduced by the sense organs in proportion to impinging environmental energies and
the very 'things' that move our muscles because nerves innervate them.