TED Conversations

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay


This conversation is closed.

Mind exists outside of physical world - will you agree?

Mind exists outside of physical world and can influence the physical states of brain altering behaviour in a way not fully understood by cognitive sciences that tend to avoid the idea of existence of qualia. Will you agree to such a claim?

Is there any way one can argue 'scientifically' in favor of an individual (human) mind, a group mind or mind of living systems other than organisms?

If one cannot, Andrew Soloman's brilliant experience will be no more than an art.


Closing Statement from Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

Sorry, it took me awhile to write a closing statement.
It had been a great debate and I thank all who contributed for and against the OP. Despite strong and forceful arguments against the idea, I conclude that there IS a strong possibility that mind does exist outside of physical world. I would clarify my position by defining 'Mind', 'existence' as widely as possible and 'physical world' as objectively as possible.
In passing I will mention that Carlos's assertion that brain functions do not fall within quantum scale just as a figure of measurements is not possibly correct. I shall also thank Brenden Maloney for pointing out the recent success of Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT) on quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' in brain neurons upholding Hammeroff-Penrose Orch OR hypothesis.
Mind, in its most social meaning is acquired from environment. It's functional manifestation in brain does not prove its residency there.
Unless otherwise convinced in future, this debate made me accept the OP as true, at least for now.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 22 2014: Hi Vera,
    I didn't get any answer yet.
    I't basically an idea, that I'm having since many year and now found a platform to discuss it. It would require a change in society. The basic behind it is to communicate in 'definitions' instead of 'words' and I hope it's provocative and that many people join in. I'm looking forward to see you there too.
    Thanks as well!
    • Jan 22 2014: ... In the beginning ... was the definition
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2014: Tobias, Just make sure that Ted editors do not change the Meaning of your post - they have this tendency to do so.

      Best Luck!
      • Jan 23 2014: Vera,
        I think you and Tobias ziged when you should have zaged. Your on the wrong forum.
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: Sorry if I have interfered… just wanted to follow Tobias's post.

          Thank you :)
      • Jan 24 2014: No problem Vera. You should stick around here though. It's a vera interesting discussion!
        • thumb
          Jan 24 2014: Hope you'll stick around too :) Cheers, Daniel.
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2014: Hi Vera,
        it's up in the original form : http://www.ted.com/conversations/22742/language_barrier_free_society.html

        Sorry Daniel for the interference,
        do you know which forum I should post this to inform other members?
        • Jan 24 2014: Hi Tobias,
          No I don't. But you can help us here with the definition of dualism. Jim needs to understand the difference between dualism and monism. As definitions are most inconveniently put together of just more and more words ... we never seem to get to the bottom of the real meaning of things.
          Semantics are just not to get away from.
          ... I mean, what is the Being-ness of a cat ...?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.