Are Mind and Matter interdependent?

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

Right. That’s why I reduce mind to matter. There are varying levels of certainty that depend on the methods, the observable concrete facts of a given matter, etc. We have greater certainty about observable physical phenomena than we do speculative, postulated entities. So why insist that there’s something other than what we can see when we can construct serviceable theories and adequate/complete descriptions off physical observations. You wouldn’t look at a tree, see that is functions as a tree, and learn about photosynthesis, and then still insist that the tree must have a soul in order to move, grow, and function as a tree. The increase in complexity of a person over a tree doesn’t negate this either. A watch with more gears and a more accurate movement no more needs a soul than a sundial does.

Now some think human beings are special. That we are more than animals. That we have things called souls. And that metaphysical or supernatural explanations are justified on the grounds that science does not and cannot know everything. I have zero doubt that they believe these things but this is not the basis upon which I try to understand the world. Now mind is obviously a function of the brain but there are still gaps in knowledge. Science slowly adds to this over time but questions will always be asked because such knowledge will never be complete given as science is essentially an inductive discipline not a deductive one. Those with metaphysical or supernatural solutions will therefore always find a reason to fill those gaps. But I think only science can fill them. Where it cannot then they should be left empty

God of the gaps. Religious people do that too.

They will always be doing it as well because they know science cannot explain everything even
though it explains more than metaphysical or supernatural explanations ever have or ever shall

I think explaining everything, amd satisfying every objection is an important distinction to note. You’ve got the principle of sufficient reason going along these lines. A complete and comprehensive description of a thing can in fact exist. Just as well, a person who fails to understand and accept it can exist. Once I tell a guy, “put the peanut butter on one slice of bread, and the jelly on another, the put the 2 slices together with the peanut butter and the jelly touching”, there will be someone in the world who fails to make the sandwich for one or many reasons. This doesn’t mean that everything hasn’t been explained.

Ideas are mental concepts.
Matter is physical reality albeit how we “see” it, how our minds and eyes see it, isn’t necessarily how it is.

Scientists and neurosurgeons touch the brain. It is matter.
I personally do not think of my mind as matter. It is like the scent (mind) of the rose is to the rose I(matter).

Yes, they are distinct.

Dude. A scent is a particle of matter than enters and stimulates your nostrils. A scent is totally matter. Jesus.

If the sound of a tree falling in a forest is not sound until we hear it, then perhaps a scent or what it means, is not the same as the physical scent? :-k

The movement of matter isn’t dependent on an observer. The observation of the movement of matter is.

Mind is a compendium of processes, formed from the flow of physical matter. And as the processes of the mind flow, the matter changes situation which in turn changes the mind.