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

[Skepdick]

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?

Who says you have to end the infinite regress? That's a normative/prescriptive requirement.

Another way to deal with inifinities is to take them at face value and simply subsume them into even greater infinities.

[Iwannaplato]

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,

There could always be mind where there is anything. An interdependence between the facet of experiencing we call mind and the facet we call objects, things, etc. So, it need not be that minds create things. Or they are facets of any phenomenon.

(And it has nothing at all to do with ethics.)

I think there way into all this, including qm, though perhaps in other threads, has been to get at, redefine objectivity. And then on to morals, armed with the new defnition or take on the big O.

[Skepdick]

There could always be mind where there is anything. An interdependence between the facet of experiencing we call mind and the facet we call objects, things, etc. So, it need not be that minds create things. Or they are facets of any phenomenon.

You are speaking about whatever it is that you are speaking about, whereas you could've remained silent.

Speech acts are always mind-dependent and they are performed for a reason.

To pretend enquiry happens in a vacuum devoid of vested human interest is a sick delusion.

[Peter Holmes]

Why should the claim that talk about minds containing mental things and events is metaphorical entail denial of the existence of minds? What is the thing, 'mind', that does or doesn't exist?

VA calls me stupid for denying that 'the mind exists as real. But what do 'real' and 'exists' mean here? I certainly, pending evidence, reject the claim that anything non-physical or abstract exists. And that's an ontological issue.

VA says that the word 'mind' is a portmanteau term for the various experiences caused by neurological states and events in our brains and, arguably, bodies - states and events that do, indeed, exist. And that's fine.

But the expression 'losing your mind' is a metaphor. No one would claim that you can literally lose your mind. So why should we think the mind is a real thing we can have, change or lose? What's at stake for those who indignantly say 'Of course we have minds. Only an idiot would deny that''?

[Skepdick]

VA calls me stupid for denying that 'the mind exists as real. But what do 'real' and 'exists' mean here? I certainly, pending evidence, reject the claim that anything non-physical or abstract exists. And that's an ontological issue.

So you accept that physical things exist? Please prove that you are "physical"

Whatever the hell that means.

[Atla]

Why should the claim that talk about minds containing mental things and events is metaphorical entail denial of the existence of minds? What is the thing, 'mind', that does or doesn't exist?

VA calls me stupid for denying that 'the mind exists as real. But what do 'real' and 'exists' mean here? I certainly, pending evidence, reject the claim that anything non-physical or abstract exists. And that's an ontological issue.

VA says that the word 'mind' is a portmanteau term for the various experiences caused by neurological states and events in our brains and, arguably, bodies - states and events that do, indeed, exist. And that's fine.

But the expression 'losing your mind' is a metaphor. No one would claim that you can literally lose your mind. So why should we think the mind is a real thing we can have, change or lose? What's at stake for those who indignantly say 'Of course we have minds. Only an idiot would deny that''?

This experience you are having now. You are experiencing reading this sentence on a monitor. You are having this sight. Does this experience exist, where is this experience?

[Peter Holmes]

Why should the claim that talk about minds containing mental things and events is metaphorical entail denial of the existence of minds? What is the thing, 'mind', that does or doesn't exist?

VA calls me stupid for denying that 'the mind exists as real. But what do 'real' and 'exists' mean here? I certainly, pending evidence, reject the claim that anything non-physical or abstract exists. And that's an ontological issue.

VA says that the word 'mind' is a portmanteau term for the various experiences caused by neurological states and events in our brains and, arguably, bodies - states and events that do, indeed, exist. And that's fine.

But the expression 'losing your mind' is a metaphor. No one would claim that you can literally lose your mind. So why should we think the mind is a real thing we can have, change or lose? What's at stake for those who indignantly say 'Of course we have minds. Only an idiot would deny that''?

This experience you are having now. You are experiencing reading this sentence on a monitor. You are having this sight. Does this experience exist, where is this experience?

In my brain. Where's yours?

[Atla]

Why should the claim that talk about minds containing mental things and events is metaphorical entail denial of the existence of minds? What is the thing, 'mind', that does or doesn't exist?

VA calls me stupid for denying that 'the mind exists as real. But what do 'real' and 'exists' mean here? I certainly, pending evidence, reject the claim that anything non-physical or abstract exists. And that's an ontological issue.

VA says that the word 'mind' is a portmanteau term for the various experiences caused by neurological states and events in our brains and, arguably, bodies - states and events that do, indeed, exist. And that's fine.

But the expression 'losing your mind' is a metaphor. No one would claim that you can literally lose your mind. So why should we think the mind is a real thing we can have, change or lose? What's at stake for those who indignantly say 'Of course we have minds. Only an idiot would deny that''?

This experience you are having now. You are experiencing reading this sentence on a monitor. You are having this sight. Does this experience exist, where is this experience?

In my brain. Where's yours?

Well probably in my brain. The problem is that science can't find the experiences themselves, only correlations that explain such experiences in terms of how matter behaves.

[Skepdick]

In my brain. Where's yours?

So why are you using the expresion "experience" and not "my synapses just fired" ?

[Peter Holmes]

This experience you are having now. You are experiencing reading this sentence on a monitor. You are having this sight. Does this experience exist, where is this experience?

In my brain. Where's yours?

Well probably in my brain. The problem is that science can't find the experiences themselves, only correlations that explain such experiences in terms of how matter behaves.

'Science can't find the experiences themselves'. Or thoughts, feelings, intentions, decisions, memories, dreams, ideas, concepts, perceptions, knowledge, understanding - and on and on. And it can't find the mind.

Possible conclusions? The mind and mental things and events must be non-physical or abstract things, empirically undetectable? The mind and mental things and events don't actually exist at all? To look for the mind and mental things and events somewhere, such as in the brain, is to make a category error? To realise that the mentalist language we've learned is 'out in the open' - that it allows us to express our experiences in ways we can share?

Stuff, innit?

[Skepdick]

'Science can't find the experiences themselves'. Or thoughts, feelings, intentions, decisions, memories, dreams, ideas, concepts, perceptions, knowledge, understanding - and on and on. And it can't find the mind.

Possible conclusions? The mind and mental things and events must be non-physical or abstract things, empirically undetectable? The mind and mental things and events don't actually exist at all? To look for the mind and mental things and events somewhere, such as in the brain, is to make a category error? To realise that the mentalist language we've learned is 'out in the open' - that it allows us to express our experiences in ways we can share?

Stuff, innit?

How could we possibly share or express our experiences if they don't even exist?

What is it that you are expressing or sharing?

[Peter Holmes]

In my brain. Where's yours?

Well probably in my brain. The problem is that science can't find the experiences themselves, only correlations that explain such experiences in terms of how matter behaves.

'Science can't find the experiences themselves'. Or thoughts, feelings, intentions, decisions, memories, dreams, ideas, concepts, perceptions, knowledge, understanding - and on and on. And it can't find the mind.

Possible conclusions? The mind and mental things and events must be non-physical or abstract things, empirically undetectable? The mind and mental things and events don't actually exist at all? To look for the mind and mental things and events somewhere, such as in the brain, is to make a category error? To realise that the mentalist language we've learned is 'out in the open' - that it allows us to express our experiences in ways we can share?

Stuff, innit?

Imo, talk about minds and metal things and events is as much a shared language game as talk about our bodies and other features of reality outside our bodies. Any mysteries about it are of our own making.

[Skepdick]

Imo, talk about minds and metal things and events is as much a shared language game as talk about our bodies and other features of reality outside our bodies. Any mysteries about it are of our own making.

There's zero mystery about it. Right up to the point where you insist that the experiences (thoughts, feelings, intentions, decisions, memories, dreams, ideas, concepts, perceptions, knowledge) we are expressing and sharing don't exist.

Wanna share some non-existing milk and biscuits with me?

Here's a non-existing memory of London bridge.

[Atla]

In my brain. Where's yours?

Well probably in my brain. The problem is that science can't find the experiences themselves, only correlations that explain such experiences in terms of how matter behaves.

'Science can't find the experiences themselves'. Or thoughts, feelings, intentions, decisions, memories, dreams, ideas, concepts, perceptions, knowledge, understanding - and on and on. And it can't find the mind.

Possible conclusions? The mind and mental things and events must be non-physical or abstract things, empirically undetectable? The mind and mental things and events don't actually exist at all? To look for the mind and mental things and events somewhere, such as in the brain, is to make a category error? To realise that the mentalist language we've learned is 'out in the open' - that it allows us to express our experiences in ways we can share?

Stuff, innit?

So then you agree that you are not actually having this experience? You are not actually seeing this sentence, as in you're not actually having this sight?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well probably in my brain. The problem is that science can't find the experiences themselves, only correlations that explain such experiences in terms of how matter behaves.

'Science can't find the experiences themselves'. Or thoughts, feelings, intentions, decisions, memories, dreams, ideas, concepts, perceptions, knowledge, understanding - and on and on. And it can't find the mind.

Possible conclusions? The mind and mental things and events must be non-physical or abstract things, empirically undetectable? The mind and mental things and events don't actually exist at all? To look for the mind and mental things and events somewhere, such as in the brain, is to make a category error? To realise that the mentalist language we've learned is 'out in the open' - that it allows us to express our experiences in ways we can share?

Stuff, innit?

Imo, talk about minds and metal things and events is as much a shared language game as talk about our bodies and other features of reality outside our bodies. Any mysteries about it are of our own making.

Seriously, I am curious what are your references to support your above claims?