Mind has no location

[Sculptor]

I mean. I don't know what is wrong with my argument. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

What is the mind in your opinion? Where is its location in your opinion?

Why don't you ask yourself what you do with your mind?

You are not making any sense!

HAHA.

[Harbal]

In here we discuss that the reality is made of two things, minds and ideas. Minds are not due to/subjected to ideas. Therefore, they have no location.

I don't know if minds have no location. All I can say is that my mind never seems to be very far away from the rest of me.

[bahman]

In here we discuss that the reality is made of two things, minds and ideas. Minds are not due to/subjected to ideas. Therefore, they have no location.

I don't know if minds have no location. All I can say is that my mind never seems to be very far away from the rest of me.

That, where you are, is the position of experience.

[Greylorn Ell]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

[Skepdick]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

In one thread you insist upon solving Metaphysical problems with modern tools, and then you go and make exactly the same mistake as every philosopher ever.

Indeed, the occasional, wise and thoughtful philosopher would define exactly what mind is.

You are playing the "define it...!" game. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Without paying any attention to the metaphysical problem: What is a definition, exactly?

[Greylorn Ell]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

In one thread you insist upon solving Metaphysical problems with modern tools, and then you go and make exactly the same mistake as every philosopher ever.

Indeed, the occasional, wise and thoughtful philosopher would define exactly what mind is.

You are playing the "define it...!" game. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Without paying any attention to the metaphysical problem: What is a definition, exactly?

A good definition should be a function of the thing being defined.

I propose that a worthy definition of mind would be much like the definition of an automobile engine, and would include

• A description of function.
• Working principles, e.g. basic thermodynamics in the case of an engine
• A list of essential components
• At least some notion of how those components might be integrated,
• Purpose, if applicable.

There's no point trying to get a useful definition of mind from either a psychologist or neurosurgeon.
GL

[Skepdick]

A good definition should be a function of the thing being defined.

So, is it, or is not a function of the mind to synthesise definitions?

[bahman]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

[Greylorn Ell]

A good definition should be a function of the thing being defined.

So, is it, or is not a function of the mind to synthesise definitions?

Yes! Unless you know of some other mechanism capable of doing so. The human mind is the only mechanism on the planet (except for whatever ancient aliens one believes in) capable of studying itself.

However, I do not think that "synthesizing" is likely to yield a useful conclusion. Old ideas about the nature of mind should be discarded, so we can start from scratch.

GL

[Greylorn Ell]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

And that substance is....???

[Greylorn Ell]

A good definition should be a function of the thing being defined.

So, is it, or is not a function of the mind to synthesise definitions?

It is. However, minds have yet to effectively define the nature of a mind.
GL

[Greylorn Ell]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

And that substance is....???

Why ask me? The sentence you quoted is not mine, unless I was horribly drunk and stupid one night.

[bahman]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

And that substance is....???

Foundation of any reality.

[bahman]

Before attempting to address such a subject, would not the occasional wise and thoughtful philosopher first define exactly what a mind is?

GL

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

And that substance is....???

Foundation of any reality.

[Skepdick]

It is. However, minds have yet to effectively define the nature of a mind.
GL

How about minds are computers?

Pick your favourite model of computation...