Are Mind and Matter interdependent?

CHEERS !

I’d image the subjective and the objective are every bit as interdependent as up and down. We have no proof that anything objective exists independently of subjectivity, and likewise we have no proof that anything subjective exists independently of objectivity. On the other hand, we have evidence every moment of our lives that subjectivity and objectivity exist in relation to one another.

Are mind and matter actually distinct? I think that’s the better question. To ask if they are interdependent is to assume a duality, which is, you know, kind of a big deal in philosophy.

Matter is the water.
Mind is the waves.

Are you high?

Look man, James invented affectance. If it took him to be high to invent such a thing, then maybe being high is a good thing.

I think that the mind might better be compared to the wind, James.
Isn’t it the wind which forms, influences, drives the waves which are a part of the water/ocean? as it is the mind which forms/influences/drives ~ et cetera, the matter.

If you blow a bullet into the brain then the mind will respond sometimes it will even stop or often unless there is god. The mind and the matter (the bullet) are relate.

Also the guy who invent the bullet had probably a mind which allowed him to invent. So many connections between matter and mind! Intelligent topic and great interest.

Thank you Reasonable!

Are Mind and Matter distinct?

All we can know is, matter is a mental concept.

We dunno if it exists out of the mind.

We thinks the mind is the brain and we think the brain is matter. So we think our mind is matter and we know matter from our mind.

We have a word for each of them and these arent interchangeable so they are distinct.

Well that’s one argument, albeit not a very good one. You’re talking about words. I though were talking about objects.

What if you believed that everything adhered to some pattern or another? Then what if you believed that patterns, inasmuch as they are patterns, share some essential component thats necessary for them to be defined as such? Then what if you believed that therefore, any function, movement, attribute, etc, of the mind could be understood as having a 1:1 correlation to some function, movement, or attribute of the brain bevause you know…patterns. Then even if there was a duality, you could ignore it for all intents and purposes and move on with a simpler, less redundant theory of how shit it. What can the mind do without the brain? Nothing. What can the brain do without the mind? Hell man, you can’t even demonstrate that the mind exists independently of the brain. You’re at a real epistemic disadvantage with any argument that attempts to do so, because you can’t observe a mind, only a brain.

You can reduce the minds functions to functions of the brain and speak in clear physical terms and move from observation of a brain to speculations of a mind, but not vice versa.

Mind is dependent upon matter because it is a function of the brain and the brain is physical and with out any there
could not be minds. Matter is not dependent upon mind because it exists in forms other than brains though it would
still not be dependent in brain form. Since whether or not a brain functions is incidental to the fact it is made from
matter. While mind cannot function in a dead brain the brain still exists

I think there’s a better shot at attributing animation to organic compounds and chemical reactions than there is to the soul.

Arguments that, “the mind/soul does this and therefore the matter does this” postulate mind unnecessarily. If there’s no way to determine what the mind is doing without referencing the matter, then how are you even to describe the mind other than to describe the matter? This makes me ask why would one make a description more complex than needed to have an accurate and serviceable theory? Reductionism? Supervenience? Identity theory? Those are some hard hitters man.

Neuro science cannot fully explain how the brain functions. Which allows those who believe in woo to start filling in the gaps. Believing in something does
not make it true though. I reject any supernatural or metaphysical explanations or attempts to equate the mind with soul because there is no evidence to
support any of this whatsoever. Just because some aspects of brain function such as the hard problem of consciousness are not understood does not mean
there is no rational explanation for it. Just that one is not known at this point in time. Supernatural or metaphysical explanations are superfluous because
they do not advance knowledge or understanding of brain function at all

You could say the same thing about DNA. Would you?

And you dont even have to invoke neuroscience, and I didn’t. You could look at it from a functional/behavioral angle and get the same thing I said before.

I only accept scientific explanations for observable phenomena because those are the only ones which can be shown to be true
Non scientific explanations cannot be shown to be true and furthermore there is no rational reason to think that they could be