Are Mind and Matter interdependent?

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.

James, I don’t see why you make the distinction between mind and matter while simultaneously, seemingly, stating that mind is matter.

In a computer the “software” is the processing and made of the flow of physical substance (e-fields, electrons). The software is still material substance even though not the harder molecular substance. The organic mind is similar in that the mind, although still not the “wetware” harder substance, is in fact made of the subtle processing, the softer physical substance flowing throughout the wetware (the bioelectronic neurology).

All physical materials are actually made of one type of processing or another, even those relatively hard molecules. There are no physical “rigid bodies”. It is the changing, the inner subtle motion that forms the hard clusters we call matter. The harder matter is merely harder because it is internally changing so fast that additional changes from outside cannot be easily made, hence inherently resisting against force = “hard”.

The only parts that are not physical are the concepts involved in the designs. The design itself is not physical, material, or matter. Although designs get updated, they are not made of the changing and thus are not physical. The human is materially physical in every respect except for the conceptual designs involved, the “soul”.

By definition, if anything has physical affect, it is physical. As it turns out, as the mind is doing its processing thing, it causes more permanent physical alterations such as memory engrams, the “firmware”. And then because of those changes, the mind functions slightly differently than before, thus it “learns”. Simply because it has physical affect, there is no option but to call the mind physical. And that is all any physical substance is - “that which has physical affect”.

And asking if mind and mater are independent is like asking if the water is independent of the waves and vsvrsa.

Odor is neither matter nor non matter. Odor is a sensation - a physiological response to a chemical stimulus (chemicals being matter), in which volatile chemicals bind to scent receptors inside the nose, leading to the stimulation of specific neurons leading to the brain, giving rise to the sensation of “odor”.

answers.com/Q/Is_odor_matter … r?#slide=2

Not all things that cannot be observed are considered non-matter. Certain objects, such as the air or the scent emanated by perfume, are invisible to the naked eye but are made up of matter as their existence can be verified using either smell or taste. Another example of non-observable matter are atoms, which can only be seen under microscopes by bouncing light off them.

reference.com/science/non-m … 7eddf7cdd2

For some reason, I could not copy and paste the text from the below hyperlink. The last paragraph is a bit ambiguous.
But then again, couldn’t one say that a “sensation” or an emotional experience sans its catylyst could qualify as reality, thereby putting sensation into the realm of “matter” as it is reality in some form. Did that make any sense?
ivyroses.com/Chemistry/GCSE/ … matter.php

I may take the stand that IT IS BOTH.

Do NOT call me dude. You may call me dudette if you wish. :evilfun: