Existing and not existing in states of mind.

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If you say "To be in a particular state of mind", what exactly are you saying? To be in a particular state of mind is to say that you exist in a particular state of mind, so it follows from that surely that at each moment in time you exist in a state of mind, and you do not exist in a state of mind, because you can only be in one state of mind at any one time.

So from this it seems that we can take existence one step further, not only do you and I exist, but our very existence, exists in one state of mind or another, we exist, and our existence exists in a state of mind.

To me that sounds slightly strange.

But like I said when you say "To be in a particular state of mind", you are saying that you exist in a particular state of mind, and not another. If you are in a happy state of mind, you cannot at the same time be in, an unhappy state of mind, so you exist in a state of mind, and you do not exist in a state of mind.

"To be" and "To exist", mean the same thing, if they do not then this argument is flawed, but even if they do mean the same thing, the whole argument stills sounds slightly odd, but what exactley is wrong with it, if anything.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,391 • Replies: 21

No top replies

Quote:

surely that at each moment in time you exist in a state of mind, and you do not exist in a state of mind

That doesn't make sense.

0 Replies

Maybe I should have said "that at each moment in time you exist in a particular state of mind, and you do not exist in another particular state of mind." For instance you may be in a happy state of mind, and if you are you cannot at precisely the same time be in a unhappy state of mind, so therefore you exist in one state of mind and do not exist in another, and many people would say that there are a number of different states of mind, and you cannot be in all of them at the same time.

0 Replies

Gilbey wrote:

Maybe I should have said "that at each moment in time you exist in a particular state of mind, and you do not exist in another particular state of mind." For instance you may be in a happy state of mind, and if you are you cannot at precisely the same time be in a unhappy state of mind, so therefore you exist in one state of mind and do not exist in another, and many people would say that there are a number of different states of mind, and you cannot be in all of them at the same time.

Yes because "being in a state of mind" is a defined thing. That seems to me to be a somewhat trivial observation, rather like saying "If I am in Edinburgh I cannot be in Barcelona".

0 Replies

To quote the Firesign Theater:

How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?

0 Replies

So what contrex is saying is that contrex believes that the mind exists. Because when I say that you exist in a particular state of mind and you do not exist in another particular state of mind, that is a different thing than saying "If I am in Edinburgh I cannot be in Barcelona", because when you say that you are referring to something physical, whereas a particular state of mind does not appear to be physical at all, it is "mental".

What I am trying to focus on is the way in which we refer to being in a particular state of mind, and say being in Barcelona,. We refer to both things as if they are physical, clearly one is, but clearly one isn't, but yet we still refer to both of them as the same sort of thing. What I am also getting at is the way in which we refer to "being in a particular state of mind". I could say that "I am in Barcelona" but I could also say " I am in Barcelona, in a particular state of mind", and that makes sense.

So not only do I exist in Barcelona, I also exist in a particular state of mind, as well as simultaneously existing in Barcelona. It makes sense, but it still sounds strange.

0 Replies

My brain is physical, and my mental states are (I assert) products of neurological chemical and electrical activities in my brain.

0 Replies

So in saying that contrex, you believe the mind does not exist, and that when we say "To be in particular state of mind" which is to say that "you exist in a particular state of mind", you believe that to be a false statement. You have to, if you believe that mental states are just products of neurological and electrical activities in the brain, you cannot believe that the mind exists.

0 Replies

Where did I say that mental states are "just" products of brain activity? Anyway, you're the one who says there's a ghost in the machine. Evidence, please.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

To quote the Firesign Theater:

How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?

I'm not going to say that I came here to say that, but I'll say that I should have come here to say that.

0 Replies

When you say that I said "there's a ghost in the machine", I have not said once that I believe the mind to exist. But I do not want to start some pathetic blame game here, I want to discuss what I said in the first place. I was wrong to imply that you used the word "just", but I was just going on what you believed mental states to be the result of, which is neurological and electrical activities in the brain.

So do you believe the mind to exist, because I just find it strange how we refer to "mental activity", in the same way we refer to physical activity, "To be in a state of mind" and "To be in barcelona". To me that is like saying that the mind defiantly exists, but on what grounds do we have to say that?

0 Replies

I don't think that you can argue very much from the many different ways English usage employs the verb "to be".

The "mind" is a useful concept, like the square root of minus one in electrical engineering. It need not have any verifiable existence.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Setanta wrote:
To quote the Firesign Theater:

How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?

I'm not going to say that I came here to say that, but I'll say that I should have come here to say that.

I'm saying that I defintely should have said that, but wasn't in the state of mind at the time to come here and actually say it.

0 Replies

But in how many ways exactley do we use the verb "to be". You only ever use it to describe what something or someone is, like when you say "to be over there", " to be here". But people also use it to describe other peoples mentality, "to be nice", "to be angry". The latter only goes by what we observe, we see someones actions, then we assume that person to be "nice", or "anrgy", but only that person would truely know what they are. And for someone to believe that someone is in a particular state of mind, the only thing they could base their belief on is observation and what that person says, they could never know.

0 Replies

I can be happy about something while at the same time experiencing underlying sadness about something else. A particular "state of mind" is not a fixed condition but an average of all of the things going on at once in your brain.

We can guess at another's state of mind by the behaviors and emotions they express but can never be certain of it.

0 Replies

What I am trying to get at is the way in which we refer to our states of mind. "to be in a particular state of mind", what does that mean? Does that mean you are currently actually existing in a particular state of mind, is it referring to your feelings and emotions, or is that phrase deceiving in that because the way our language is structured, it is just a convenient way of describing something else?

0 Replies

I think it refers to emotions, usually, which reflect particular levels of biochemicals as well as current activity in various neural networks. The English language is imprecise and easily misinterpreted as well. What do you really want to know about states of mind? A legal definition?

0 Replies

Hey Terry! Long time no see.

0 Replies

I don't know if you have read anything on the philosophy of mind, but when you read about the philosophical problems surrounding the notion of the mind, like where do emotions, feelings and desires come from, and does the mind actually exist, or can the mind be explained scientifically, because for instance, when you have a thought, or a feeling, an emotion, you cannot really define these things physically, a thought does not appear to have an obvious location, and you can only describe a feeling in words, and if not words it is something even more abstract, like art, and then it comes down to interpretation.

So the mind itself doesn't appear to physically exist, and yet when we describe a state of mind we sometimes say"to be in a particular state of mind", so its like saying that you exist in a particular state of mind, and you would describe that as if you were to describe something that physically exists, because you use the phrase "to be", which can be said to mean "to exist" but as I have said the mind does not appear to exist, physically, so that is my problem.

0 Replies

Gilbey, we know that the brain exists physically and that measurable electrical and chemical activity in the brain corresponds with reported thoughts and states of mind. But the existence of the mind itself is more problematical. We cannot currently explain it through science, but that doesn't mean we will never be able to.

0 Replies

Existing and not existing in states of mind.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know