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. 
You’re telling me that answers.com says that because the particles of matter are so small that you can’t observe them, that they’re not matter, because you have to observe them with your nose?
Dude.
No. The dudette is telling you that what we call odor is a sensation, regardless of whatever material/s might or might not be involved.
So we’re back to talking about language instead of objects? I though I said that already like right when I joined this conversation. Someone else did the same thing.
If you scramble the language, you scramble the mind.
“matter” is an idea.
Period.
Right?
or is it not an idea?
Yes, of course, it is.
So: without mind, no matter. Logic.
Mr R - try to smell without being conscious. “particle” “nostrils” “enters”
now think these things existences without using your mind
Yall well underneath level 101.
barbarianhorde
Inventors have “ideas” or thoughts/reflections in their minds. Are their inventions considered to be a part of matter or matter BEFORE they are created in physical form, before they come to fruition?
What you just said, for me, is like putting the cart before the horse.
You became matter at conception. Before that time, you were simply an “idea” or a non-idea. lol
This actually might go back to the scent of the rose ~~ matter or non matter.
Ideas “rise up” from the mind like the scent of the rose rises up. I think that one can even equate an idea to a scent - can one say that an idea is like a sensation or a scent given off by the mind? It is the brain’s or the mind’s achievement before becoming physical reality of some sort.
Yes, what you say is logical BUT you can just as well say: Without mind, sometime in the future without the utilization of mind, there will be no matter.
Michelangelo looked at the block of marble and saw an “idea” within it. That idea later formed the matter or material from which David sprung in a matter of speaking.
But what he saw was the immaterial or idea within the material.
So stop doing it. If smelling something is a result of matter stimulating your nostrils by moving into them, then why make that metaphor in defense of mind body duality?
Perhaps if you start by learning what a metaphor is. Then perhaps one day you’ll discover who was scrambling and who was straightening … and the use and limits of metaphor.
… none of which has to do with the point that odor is not a molecule (over-materialization).
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
There are better arguments for your position than the ones you’re giving. Do you want to swap and you be the one reducing mind to matter and I’ll take the opposite stance?
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
[/quote]
Your ego had already beat me to it.
No there are not. You are simply not following.
What do you think the “opposite stance” is? And what makes you are in opposition to me?
… like I said … just not following.
James, your ego. Please.
If you think that one side or the other in the mind/body debate can defeat the other, then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem or the means by which it must be addressed.
To play this game, you can’t actually believe that the problem can be resolved. It’s an exercise in critical thinking and constructing arguments. Ad homs are evidence of poor arguments.
And if you think that an ingrained drugged up perspective gives you an edge, “then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem”.
I’ll tell you once more, You are not following the conversation.