Are Mind and Matter interdependent?

Thanks gentlemen, your participation has so far been a great pleasure !

A tickle for the matter-enthusiasts:

Einstein showed us that matter is just an emergent form of energy and energy itself is massless. Ergo: matter and mind (which is apparently an energy too) are interrelated. Attempts to separate them, cannot solidify matter, but can confuse/fragment mind.

They are in a kind of symbiotic relationship.
What can mind actually do without matter? without first observing the “real” world?
The potter needs its material to form ideas, to create, to shape.
What purpose would the senses have in total silent darkness?

The cheese really doesn’t stand alone. The mouse is in perfect harmony with it. …ready to grasp it.lol

I don’t think mind and matter are separate and if they were, what connects them? Something which is half matter and half mind?

In my schemata you have the simplest one thing of which reality primarily is, and that is the philosophers stone. Then you get information form in it, and that tells it what to be ~ informs it.
so your mind is a bunch of informations acting upon the primal fabric, the result is a thing which exists, but that existence is universally made with the same material [philosophers stone]. like the sandman we are raised from nothing and return to nothing, except that there is something else making information occur. So a process or something which processes, which makes things manifest from nothing. When we return to nothing that same eternal process is still there and remember, it is the thing which brought you into being such that you now exist.

Mind exists because all its qualities already exists in the original stone, you just need to tell it [info] to think and it will or not and it wont ~ like brains or rocks.

Einstein was a quack as well as quantum physics.

The rigid-body newtonian model is also pure quackery, we know now due to high framerate cameras and archer’s paradox. All is fluid.

I know nothing about metaphysics and quantum physics, but I know cows exist . . . . and strongly suspect you understanding of Zen and Daoist thought is crazy shallow.

My dog sees a large rock. He knows there is something there that he cannot walk though. It’s a real physical entity. So he sniffs it and pees on it to mark that he has been there. The same goes for us humans. We know there are things out there which we cannot move or change. What is important to humans and dogs is not that there are objects that are in themselves unknowable, but the pragmatic understanding of how we can use these objects. Our distant ancestors realized that rocks can be used as tools and weapons. And rocks can make neat jewelry.

Would you please enlighten us with your understanding of the attitude of Zen and Taoism regarding the relationship of mind and matter. Thank you.

Let me take a shot at it … and later Xunzian can clobber me over the head with his bat too. :slight_smile:

  1. Zen stems from Taoist thought.

  2. Taoist thought stems from the Tao De Jing.

  3. The Tao De Jing talks about mind and matter in Chapter 47

[b]

[/b].

This is why quantum physics should never be taught to followers of pop culture.

There are multiple (competing) interpretations of quantum mechanics–and by interpretations, I mean unprovable–and the idea that observation is required to determine the state of anything comes out of radical logical positivism, which was pretty popular in philosophy around the time when quantum physics was born; but now-a-days, physicists are a lot more comfortable defining “observation” as pretty much any particle interaction whatsoever–if a particle affects another particles, that’s an “observation” according to them–but old interpretations are clung to like hearsay.

^ I think this interpretation of quantum physics is a lot more reasonable. Things still exist in quantum states, but the fact that every particle in existence exerts some effect on every other particle means that these quantum states aren’t nearly as uncertain/undetermined as the original “observation” account would have it–everything more or less keeps everything else in a state of relative certainty/determination.

EDIT: and my answer to the thread question is: yes, mind and matter are interdependent.

I’ll allow it.

Safe!

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.