PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real

[CIN]

I think we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case'

'A feature of reality' means the same as '[what] is or was [or will be] the case'. You don't need both.

[Peter Holmes]

The expression objective reality seems to make a distinction. Do you think there's such a thing as subjective reality? And if so, can you say what that is, and how it's different from objective reality - and what objective reality is in the first place?

Don't you think it's a little strange that half of philosophy had been investigating the possibility of non-objective reality for centuries or for millennia, and you don't seem to have heard of this?

Of course I have. I also know that well over 90% of the world's people still believe in supernatural things and causes. But so what? Are you arguing from the popularity of a belief?

I don't know what the expression objective reality means. Happy to be enlightened.

[Atla]

The expression objective reality seems to make a distinction. Do you think there's such a thing as subjective reality? And if so, can you say what that is, and how it's different from objective reality - and what objective reality is in the first place?

Don't you think it's a little strange that half of philosophy had been investigating the possibility of non-objective reality for centuries or for millennia, and you don't seem to have heard of this?

Of course I have. I also know that well over 90% of the world's people still believe in supernatural things and causes. But so what? Are you arguing from the popularity of a belief?

I don't know what the expression objective reality means. Happy to be enlightened.

But if you don't know what "objective reality" is contrasted with, then how can you know what half of philosophy had been investigating?

[CIN]

I don't know what the expression objective reality means. Happy to be enlightened.

It's a redundancy. And 'subjective reality' is an oxymoron.

[Atla]

I don't know what the expression objective reality means. Happy to be enlightened.

It's a redundancy. And 'subjective reality' is an oxymoron.

How can you prove that there's objective reality?

[CIN]

I don't know what the expression objective reality means. Happy to be enlightened.

It's a redundancy. And 'subjective reality' is an oxymoron.

How can you prove that there's objective reality?

You want me to prove a redundancy?

Get rid of the redundancy and then we can talk.

[Atla]

It's a redundancy. And 'subjective reality' is an oxymoron.

How can you prove that there's objective reality?

You want me to prove a redundancy?

Get rid of the redundancy and then we can talk.

Well prove that it's redundant and reality can't be mind-dependent.

[Peter Holmes]

I think we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case'

'A feature of reality' means the same as '[what] is or was [or will be] the case'. You don't need both.

I disagree. The Concise Oxford has: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.'

My 'feature of reality' is a gloss on 'thing'. Perhaps both could be left out, but i suspect that would cause unnecessary problems. (I disagree with 'is known'. That we talk about discovering the facts demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition.)

And I don't think it makes sense to talk about future facts. Can of worms, I know - but again, an unnecessary complication.

[CIN]

How can you prove that there's objective reality?

You want me to prove a redundancy?

Get rid of the redundancy and then we can talk.

Well prove that it's redundant and reality can't be mind-dependent.

If reality was mind-dependent, there would have to be a mind on which it was dependent that wasn't part of reality. But reality is the sum of all that is, so the idea of something that is, but isn't part of reality, is a contradiction. So the idea that reality is mind-dependent leads to a contradiction.

[Skepdick]

If reality was mind-dependent, there would have to be a mind on which it was dependent that wasn't part of reality. But reality is the sum of all that is, so the idea of something that is, but isn't part of reality, is a contradiction. So the idea that reality is mind-dependent leads to a contradiction.

So what? "Proofs" by contradiction are not constructively valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof

In any logic without excluded middle you can't assume that if X is not false then it's true or vice versa.

[CIN]

I think we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case'

'A feature of reality' means the same as '[what] is or was [or will be] the case'. You don't need both.

I disagree. The Concise Oxford has: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.'

My 'feature of reality' is a gloss on 'thing'. Perhaps both could be left out, but i suspect that would cause unnecessary problems. (I disagree with 'is known'. That we talk about discovering the facts demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition.)

And I don't think it makes sense to talk about future facts. Can of worms, I know - but again, an unnecessary complication.

'Thing' is itself a can of worms. Is a fact a thing? The COD seems to think so, but Wittgenstein evidently didn't ("The world is the totality of facts, not of things.")

I have no problem with future facts. But maybe this is all angels on a pinhead stuff. I think we agree that reality can only be objective, so there's no such thing as subjective reality.

[CIN]

If reality was mind-dependent, there would have to be a mind on which it was dependent that wasn't part of reality. But reality is the sum of all that is, so the idea of something that is, but isn't part of reality, is a contradiction. So the idea that reality is mind-dependent leads to a contradiction.

So what? "Proofs" by contradiction are not constructively valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof

In any logic without excluded middle you can't assume that if X is not false then it's true or vice versa.

Would you be happier if I simply pointed out that minds dependent on other minds dependent on other minds.... is an infinite regress? And that the only way to end the regress is to have something that isn't dependent on minds?

[Atla]

You want me to prove a redundancy?

Get rid of the redundancy and then we can talk.

Well prove that it's redundant and reality can't be mind-dependent.

If reality was mind-dependent, there would have to be a mind on which it was dependent that wasn't part of reality. But reality is the sum of all that is, so the idea of something that is, but isn't part of reality, is a contradiction. So the idea that reality is mind-dependent leads to a contradiction.

That's just a word game. Mind-dependent reality does mean an "overall" reality where the part outside/other than/inside/etc. the mind is dependent on the mind.

[CIN]

Well prove that it's redundant and reality can't be mind-dependent.

If reality was mind-dependent, there would have to be a mind on which it was dependent that wasn't part of reality. But reality is the sum of all that is, so the idea of something that is, but isn't part of reality, is a contradiction. So the idea that reality is mind-dependent leads to a contradiction.

That's just a word game. Mind-dependent reality does mean an "overall" reality where the part outside/other than/inside/etc. the mind is dependent on the mind.

So the mind that it's dependent on is not mind-dependent?

Well, that is at least coherent. At this point I could ask you what evidence you have that real things can be created by the mind, but I suspect we may end up talking about quantum physics, and I have neither knowledge of that nor any interest in it. (And it has nothing at all to do with ethics.)

[Atla]

If reality was mind-dependent, there would have to be a mind on which it was dependent that wasn't part of reality. But reality is the sum of all that is, so the idea of something that is, but isn't part of reality, is a contradiction. So the idea that reality is mind-dependent leads to a contradiction.

That's just a word game. Mind-dependent reality does mean an "overall" reality where the part outside/other than/inside/etc. the mind is dependent on the mind.

So the mind that it's dependent on is not mind-dependent?

Well, that is at least coherent. At this point I could ask you what evidence you have that real things can be created by the mind, but I suspect we may end up talking about quantum physics, and I have neither knowledge of that nor any interest in it. (And it has nothing at all to do with ethics.)

I'm mostly in the objective reality camp. Just pointing out that it's good to know that that "other" half of Western philosophy has existed too for centuries/millennia, when one is arguing against one of its proponents for years, against VA for example.

And some will go as far as to deny that the mind exists at all. Maybe Anglo-American philosophy is in desperate need of a Kant too.