Where does the mind reside?

Hard to separate the mind from the physical brain. What the mind does affects the brain. But AI does function outside the brain.

But AI does function outside the brain.

AI does not function in the absence of hardware...

Internal electrochemical processes powered by a mass that converts fuel into energy...Essentially the same an electrical supply powering a computing device.

Neither the brain nor AI would output without input.

And "mind" is a verb, not a noun...It is a process, rather than something that processes, therefore it does not reside.

And "mind" is a verb, not a noun...It is a process, rather than something that processes, therefore it does not reside.

1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc..

Link

Still a verb that suggests a process, rather than an actual thing that processes.

The actual thing that processes is the brain and mind is a descriptive of a process therein.

Just like sight is a process rather than a thing that processes.

Sorry, friend, you're not making any sense to me. I've provided the dictionary definition showing "mind" is a noun. "Sight" is also a noun. Unless you are talking metaphorically or something, I cant make sense of what you're saying.

I realize I still owe you that explanation of “evidence” that consciousness is not produced by brain, I will try to get focused and start to work on that tonight. 

SkepticalOne wrote:

As I understand it, substance dualists argue the mind is non-material. They separate everything into two distinct categories: material and non-material thinking substance. One of the biggest questions about this is how something non-material can affect material.

I have never understood the logic of this argument. In effect, you argue that mind and matter are so completely different that they could not interact, therefore they are the same? Too different to be different, so they must be the same? Please explain the logic behind that conclusion.

If mind is so immaterial that it cannot interact with matter, then wouldn’t it also follow that an immaterial mind could not be the product of a material brain. Your argument to refute Immaterial mind in favor of materialism also refutes your materialism, doesn’t it?

Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority, and the strongest argument for the interaction of immaterial mind and material matter is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, hence it is self-evident.

Consequently, the denial of the possibility of interaction of immaterial mind and material body is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, which eliminates induction as valid, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

To better conceptualize the criticism, imagine trying to pour a glass of whiskey for yourself with only your mind. No matter how hard you imagine, dream, hope, or wish you will not be any closer to your objective.

Imagine trying to pour a glass of whiskey for yourself without your mind to control your physical actions, without mind, you will not pour a glass of whiskey.

If the mind is non-material, then the material can certainly affect it.

Yes, and vice versa, and the self-evident experiential reality is that a reciprocal, transactional relationship is being described in the mind/matter discussion.

Let's skip over how, but your non-material mind somehow activates your material muscles to pour and consume a drink the old fashioned way (manual manipulation of a physical whiskey bottle, physical glass with your physicial body) and your mental world will certainly be dramatically and undeniably impacted.

The key to your argument is that statement, “Let's skip over how”, the fact that materialism doesn’t have an explanation of how immaterial mind can interact with material body does not refute dualism, it refutes materialism. Again, it just magically “emerges”  is not explanatory, if it was, then the counterargument for the interaction of immaterial mind and material matter is the same, it just magically “emerges”.

So how is it the physical world can affect the mental if the mind is not somehow attached to material?

I thought you said “Let's skip over how”, to say that the materialistic framework doesn’t explain the experiential reality of the transactional nature of the mind – body relationship does not count in favor of the materialistic framework, it indicates that the materialistic framework is not adequate. 

When responding, please do your best to provide a concise, personally created response. Copy paste responses of someone (or something else's) words will be ignored.

Immaterial mind has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention; it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical state of your materialist argument.

As I understand it, substance dualists argue the mind is non-material

1} we access meta-space mind to a much greater degree, than other animals, and that is synergetic resultant? The parts similar to most other animamls do not sum to the synergetic whole resultant of humans greater access to generalizations via meta-space concepts, ex concepts of God, Time, Space, Animals, Souls, Toyotas, Footballs etc

2} .. ' geometry is the science of pattern '... in Synergetics by Bucky Fuller and meta-space geometry/pattern eternally complement, the eternally existent occupied space Universe @ and its eternally transforming parts that finite, dynamic, occupied space Universe @ is composed of,

2} the macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space is what exists beyond the finite, dynamic Universe @,

This is the above is the Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline/Table of Contents, and none to date, have presented this that or other, that does not fall into one or more of the above catagories, and Ive been asking others for this or that or other, that does not fit into any of these three. A rare few have tried and failed, of course.

The meta-space geometric shape of occupied space auto/plane/train etc, affect the air flow around ergo affect its speed, ergo, meta-space geometry does influence occupied space, however, be clear, that the meta-space shape/geometry is complementing the occupied space atoms, molecules etc of the auto/plan/train.

Again, these two are exist in eternally complement to each other, cant have occupied space, without meta-space geometric pattern.

Meta-space mind is accessed via occupied space nervous system. ...I think { nervous system } about something { from occupied space experience }, ergo, I exist, as and occupied space processes { motion/verb } of experiences { vibrations }, with access to meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { i or me }.

@ as finite, dynamic occupied space Universe

.... as truly non-occupied space

.........................................space.........@...............space......................

A} absolute truth, ---ex the can only exist five, regular/symmetrical and convex, polyhedra of Unvierse--

B} relative truth, ---ex the sky is blue......

3} false narraive is composed of one or more of the above latter set of A and B, along with falsehoods, either non-intentionlly or intentionally to mislead/misdeirect etc.

Consciousness does not occupy space in the brain. Therefore it is free to expand beyond the brain. Because it functions in the abstract , it takes the shape and complexity of mathematics.

You want things to be more than they probably are...People do...They want there to be more to the human condition, other than just the already amazing process of conception, birth, life and death...So mind becomes a thing that resides rather than just an electro-chemical management process performed by the brain...Just as the brain also converts light into imagery; a process we refer to as sight.

And then we create words and language, which is inconsistent and therefore easily manipulated; allowing us to philosophically generate imaginary but nonetheless internal concepts...So mind becomes a thing rather than a process and our imaginary concepts become real and separate from the functioning mass.

Though for sure, such processes certainly benefit material evolution on a global and probably a future universal level...Why?...Well, just like you I can only speculate upon a greater purpose...So as I see it we are either an independently functioning tool thereof, or just a random universal glitch; though I do prefer the former option and speculate accordingly.

Well, just like you I can only speculate upon a greater purpose...So as I see it we are either an independently functioning tool thereof, or just a random universal glitch; though I do prefer the former option and speculate accordingly.

B Fuller states that God --I state Universe and he does also in some places--- created humans with their access to mind, in order to see if an abstract mind accessing creature can exist without destroying God/Universe.

Off course that is will notion to even consider, cause we know the 1st law of thermodynamics suggests that finite, occupied space Universe cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally.

People who believe that finite, occupied space Universe @ is created/emergent from truly non-occupied space are sort of like...>

...Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea

..And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee

..Little Jackie Paper loved that rascal Puff

...And brought him strings, and sealing wax, and other fancy stuff

Poof! the Magic Dragon, created Universe our of truly non-occupied space, and frolicked in the occupied space in land called Honah Lee

The meta-space mind does not reside/location, it is accessed by human nervous system and to some much lesser degree by other animals

I realize I still owe you that explanation of “evidence” that consciousness is not produced by brain, I will try to get focused and start to work on that tonight.

Yes, I think that would be the most helpful. From the dualist perspective, what is the mind made of? Where does it reside? How does it work with the material brain?

I think it is also important to point out the objections you attempt to turn back on monism dont hit quite like you want. Monism doesn't define mind as something independent of material. There is no immaterial substance. Anything 'immaterial' is contigent on material. So an 'immaterial' mind is emergent from material. It's not hard to understand how something that is an extension of material can affect material. It is unclear how something completely untethered to material made up of not-material can interact with it though. I hope you will tackle this interaction problem head-on.

Has AI achieved consciousness?

You want things to be more than they probably are.

I'm not sure what makes you think that. I simply want to describes reality as it actually is. Other than what some words mean, I dont think you and I have any serious disagreement on this subject.

This subject is relevant to your NDE/afterlife argumentation. If the mind is a byproduct of material, then 'out of body' is nothing of the sort, and an afterlife absent a physical body is non-sensical.

The mind continues in the afterlife after the brain dies with the body. Therefore the mind is a collection of experiences and knowledge acquired during the persons life.

One of the biggest questions about this is how something non-material can affect material.

I believe there are some who agree with this and say that the entire material world is an illusion, but let's stick with the dualist view for now. I think the typical argument is that we know the limitations of material substances better than the limitations of non material substances. We can do experiments on matter and have scenarios like Mary's room that make it seem unintuitive matter could be the sole starting point of consciousness.

Meanwhile non material stuff isn't super strictly defined, it can literally be anything that's not material, like God or the Force. We might have empirical reasons to believe material substances typically just affect other material stuff, and we can usually account for causes and effects, so consciousness seems like an unexplained exception. But if there could be non material stuff we haven't encountered, then it might be able to affect anything. Telekinesis for example is non material but would hypothetically affect material stuff. We haven't studied anyone who has it so we don't have anything similar to Mary's room in that regard.

I do think attributing consciousness to God requires a bit more work than just saying "Mary's room." But if what we call physical stuff almost always only causes x, and we see something that isn't x, it makes sense to attribute it to some other category of thing. I think that's pretty standard hypothesis generation.

You're building a logical conclusion on the unstable foundation of an unsubstantiated claim.

But if what we call physical stuff almost always only causes x, and we see something that isn't x, it makes sense to attribute it to some other category of thing.

Ignorance doesn't justify creating new categories out of whole cloth. I mean, this is literally an argument from ignorance.

Meanwhile non material stuff isn't super strictly defined, it can literally be anything that's not material, like God or the Force.

Something that 'could be anything' is really just philosophical playdough. It might be fun to play with, but at the end of the day nothing structural has been built. It doesn't explain anything...it's just a placeholder for 'I don't know.'

We can do experiments on matter and have scenarios like Mary's room that make it seem unintuitive matter could be the sole starting point of consciousness.

Did I misunderstand your point? Mary's room is a substance dualist argument, right?

My AI assistant assures me AI has not achieved consciousness... that humans know of.

Your AI assistant is slowly losing his consciousness too.

Ignorance doesn't justify creating new categories out of whole cloth. I mean, this is literally an argument from ignorance.

The category I'm referring to is "nonmaterial." If we say "this seems unlikely to have a material cause, thus the cause is probably nonmaterial," that's not ignorance. It's ignorance if we say it must be God without elaboration, but typically additional arguments would be used to get to that point.

Something that 'could be anything' is really just philosophical playdough. It might be fun to play with, but at the end of the day nothing structural has been built. It doesn't explain anything...it's just a placeholder for 'I don't know.'

It's "could be anything except matter, which this doesn't appear to have the properties of." I think dualism is modest in this regard in that "nonmaterial stuff" could be literally anything except material things.

Did I misunderstand your point? Mary's room is a substance dualist argument, right?

Yeah, substance dualism is the ideology we're discussing, right? I'm saying Mary's room supports it.

If we say "this seems unlikely to have a material cause, thus the cause is probably nonmaterial,"

A. But why would we say that other than ignorance? If we knew it wasn't contigent on material, then we wouldn't need to qualify our language in such a way. It seems like a non-material category will ultimately be based on ignorance or incredulity.

It's "could be anything except matter, which this doesn't appear to have the properties of."

See A

Yeah, substance dualism is the ideology we're discussing, right? I'm saying Mary's room supports it.

I obviously misunderstood you. Apologies.

Mental illness may be like a damaged radio receiving a perfectly good signal. The signal itself hasn't necessarily disappeared; the damaged receiver introduces static, distortion, and interference, so the resulting sound no longer accurately reflects the original broadcast

See: https://zenodo.org/records/15489752

This essay proposes an innovative perspective on the origin of consciousness, understanding it as an emergent phenomenon arising from the superposition of complex language systems. From a perspective that integrates quantum physics, biology, philosophy, technology, and semiotics, the text argues that all of reality is structured by layers of language . From subatomic particles to abstract concepts.

In this model, consciousness functions as a quantum compiler, capable of interpreting, integrating, and collapsing multiple linguistic layers into a single perception of the present. Every interaction, whether biological, physical, or social, is interpreted as communication. A symbolic exchange of information.

The article introduces the concept of Universal Communication, where natural phenomena, human relationships, and technological systems follow the same structural logic: linguistic layers that overlap, evolve, and reorganize. This approach allows for a reinterpretation of phenomena such as déjà vu, social conflicts, generational divergences, and even the possibility of consciousness transfer to artificial substrates.

Through analogies, mathematical models, and linguistic deconstruction algorithms, the text demonstrates that understanding reality is, essentially, understanding how languages are structured, how they collapse, and how they recombine. The proposal culminates in the idea that both the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of technology are expressions of a single universal mechanism: language as the foundation of existence.

Mental illness may be like a damaged radio receiving a perfectly good signal. The signal itself hasn't necessarily disappeared; the damaged receiver introduces static, distortion, and interference, so the resulting sound no longer accurately reflects the original broadcast

If a radio is damaged, the classical channel doesn't suddenly become heavy metal. The channel doesn't become English AND Spanish.

When the brain suffers severe damage, an individual's personality can completely change. The difference between responsible, polite, even tempered, and impulsive, profane, and volatile is more than just static. This is the difference of descriptions for Phineus Gage before and after a 3.5 foot rod was blown through his frontal lobe.

Individuals with a severed corpus callosum often have dual consciousness. Split brain patient known as Paul S famously had one side of his brain wanting to be a draftsman, and the other an automobile racer. Dr. V.S. Ramachandran described another patient where one hemisphere was a theist and the other an atheist.

This isnt symptoms of faulty receiver. These cases (and many others like them) demonstrate consciousness is emergent properties of a physical brain.

Hmmm quite, reality is and unreality isn't...So every valid argument has a valid counter-argument.

So mind is both a thing and a non-thing.