How there could be more than one Mind?

[bahman]

Lets define Mind and Mental state first. Mind is the essence of every beings with the abilities which allow experiences, decides and acts. Mental state is what Mind can experience and act upon. We know by fact that the experience decision and act are local phenomena. Mind however does not have any location since it is not mental state.

Now lets consider many beings and one Mind. One Mind allows that experiences to happen locally, where we are. The acts also happen locally after decisions are made. Now lets consider two Minds and many beings. Two Minds allows that the experiences as previous case. The decisions and acts are made in two different Minds hence we could have the conflict in decisions. Therefore we could only have one Mind.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Does "a mind" know what it thinks?

[Terrapin Station]

Mind however does not have any location since it is not mental state.

???

"Mind" is a collective term for an individual's various mental states. Minds have locations (as is the case for every other existent, too).

Now lets consider many beings and one Mind.

There is no such thing.

The decisions and acts are made in two different Minds hence we could have the conflict in decisions.

As indeed they quite frequently do.

[bahman]

Does "a mind" know what it thinks?

We think and Mind allows it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Does "a mind" know what it thinks?

We think and Mind allows it.

Is that a yes or a no?

How do we think without a mind?

[bahman]

Mind however does not have any location since it is not mental state.

???

"Mind" is a collective term for an individual's various mental states. Minds have locations (as is the case for every other existent, too).

We already discussed materialism/monism and showed that it is problematic. Here we are discussing dualism, the only alternative option.

Now lets consider many beings and one Mind.

There is no such thing.

There is under dualism.

The decisions and acts are made in two different Minds hence we could have the conflict in decisions.

As indeed they quite frequently do.

What do you mean?

[bahman]

Does "a mind" know what it thinks?

We think and Mind allows it.

Is that a yes or a no?

We experience our thoughts using Mind.

How do we think without a mind?

We cannot experience without Mind hence we cannot think without Mind.

[HexHammer]

Therefore we could only have one Mind.

If you actually knew anything about the mind, and not just speak out of your ass as always, then you would know skitzo people indeed can have multiple minds.

[Terrapin Station]

We already discussed materialism/monism and showed that it is problematic. Here we are discussing dualism, the only alternative option.

Aside from that for a moment, it's a semantic issue. I don't mean that as a (negative) criticism. I'm referring simply to what "mind" conventionally refers to. In conventional usage, "mind" is simply an umbrella term for all variety of mental states.

Re "We already discussed materialism/monism and showed that it is problematic"--no you didn't, as you're wrong that it's problematic.

There is under dualism.

Actually, that doesn't follow at all. Dualism in no way implies that there are many beings and one mind. And logically, "many beings and one mind" doesn't at all imply that we're not talking about materialism/physicalism. It's just that contingently, there's no such thing, whatever our ontological stance re materialism/dualism. You keep making very rudimentary logical mistakes, but it's as if you're inable to learn that you're doing so.

What do you mean?

Persons' decisions and acts are often in conflict.

[bahman]

We already discussed materialism/monism and showed that it is problematic. Here we are discussing dualism, the only alternative option.

Aside from that for a moment, it's a semantic issue. I don't mean that as a (negative) criticism. I'm referring simply to what "mind" conventionally refers to. In conventional usage, "mind" is simply an umbrella term for all variety of mental states.

Mind is simply useless under materials then all you have are variety of mental state. The problem which is left is that how a set of mental states could be experienced? What does decide? And what does Act?

Re "We already discussed materialism/monism and showed that it is problematic"--no you didn't, as you're wrong that it's problematic.

Yes, we discuss the materialism several times. It seems that you don't believe that laws of nature are realistic. Do you believe in laws of nature at all?

Actually, that doesn't follow at all. Dualism in no way implies that there are many beings and one mind. And logically, "many beings and one mind" doesn't at all imply that we're not talking about materialism/physicalism. It's just that contingently, there's no such thing, whatever our ontological stance re materialism/dualism. You keep making very rudimentary logical mistakes, but it's as if you're inable to learn that you're doing so.

Actually, the scenario where there is one mind and many beings is possible. This doesn't answer that why experience for example is local when Mind has no location, but that is a general problem in dualism.

[Terrapin Station]

Mind is simply useless under materials then all you have are variety of mental state.

As I noted a couple times, yes, "Mind" is a catch-all term for all the mental states we have. I don't think there's anything useless about that either semantically--it's useful to have a catch-all term like that, or existentially, as those varieties of mental states are allowing me to reason and type this, for example. I find that quite handy.

The problem which is left is that how a set of mental states could be experienced?

It's not that "mental states are experienced (by something else)." Rather, they ARE experience. That's what experience IS.

What does decide? And what does Act?

You do. Your brain, which controls many of the functions of the rest of your body (with respect to actions, especially).

Yes, we discuss the materialism several times. It seems that you don't believe that laws of nature are realistic. Do you believe in laws of nature at all?

I do not believe that there are laws as such, no. "Laws of nature" are how we think about/interpret what we observe/experience. That doesn't imply that I believe that nature is "completely random" or anything like that, but there aren't anything like literal laws in my view, either. I believe the truth is in between the two. There are statistical regularities, but that's all they are. In any event, as I keep saying over and over, and as I'm sure I'll have to say over and over in the future, there's no logical connection between stances on the ontological status of physical laws and materialism.

Actually, the scenario where there is one mind and many beings is possible.

Yes. My comment in no way implied that it's not possible. It's that there's no logical connection between that idea and dualism versus materialism. In other words, all of the following are logically possible (well, ignoring potential coherency problems with dualism, ignoring that we'd be using "mind" in a novel way, etc., at least):

* Dualism is true and there are many beings and only one mind.
* Dualism is true and there are many beings and many minds, one for each being.
* Physicalism is true and there are many beings and only one mind.
* Physicalism is true and there are many beings and many minds, one for each being.

Many other variations are possibly, too, by the way. (For example, "there are many beings and exactly five minds.")

At any rate, it's possible, but it in fact, it doesn't obtain that there is only one mind. So it's contingently false.

This doesn't answer that why experience for example is local when Mind has no location,

"Mind has no location" is false, by the way.

but that is a general problem in dualism.

Again, this is not necessarily the case. One can be a dualist and believe that mind DOES have a location--it's just that mind isn't physical. There's nothing that says that nonphysical things can not logically/possibly have locations. Of course, one can believe that nonphysical things do not have locations, too. There are different options for belief.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We think and Mind allows it.

Is that a yes or a no?

We experience our thoughts using Mind.

How do we think without a mind?

We cannot experience without Mind hence we cannot think without Mind.

You've not answered my question.

Does a mind know what it thinks yes or no.

[henry quirk]

Mind is what a brain of peculiar and particular complexity, embedded in a body of peculiar and particular complexity, embedded in the world, does (and that's all mind is, and ain't that enough?) So there's gonna be as many minds as there are brains/bodies.

[Impenitent]

if there was only one mind, it couldn't be lost and that's just crazy...

-Imp

[bahman]

Mind is simply useless under materials then all you have are variety of mental state.

As I noted a couple times, yes, "Mind" is a catch-all term for all the mental states we have. I don't think there's anything useless about that either semantically--it's useful to have a catch-all term like that, or existentially, as those varieties of mental states are allowing me to reason and type this, for example. I find that quite handy.

The problem is that you don't believe in laws of nature.

The problem which is left is that how a set of mental states could be experienced?

It's not that "mental states are experienced (by something else)." Rather, they ARE experience. That's what experience IS.

What is the use of experience under materialism?

What does decide? And what does Act?

You do. Your brain, which controls many of the functions of the rest of your body (with respect to actions, especially).

You defined mind as a set mental states. We however have ability to experience, decide and act. Why we should experience mental state at all?

Yes, we discuss the materialism several times. It seems that you don't believe that laws of nature are realistic. Do you believe in laws of nature at all?

I do not believe that there are laws as such, no. "Laws of nature" are how we think about/interpret what we observe/experience. That doesn't imply that I believe that nature is "completely random" or anything like that, but there aren't anything like literal laws in my view, either. I believe the truth is in between the two. There are statistical regularities, but that's all they are. In any event, as I keep saying over and over, and as I'm sure I'll have to say over and over in the future, there's no logical connection between stances on the ontological status of physical laws and materialism.

Do you believe in causality?

Actually, the scenario where there is one mind and many beings is possible.

Yes. My comment in no way implied that it's not possible. It's that there's no logical connection between that idea and dualism versus materialism. In other words, all of the following are logically possible (well, ignoring potential coherency problems with dualism, ignoring that we'd be using "mind" in a novel way, etc., at least):

* Dualism is true and there are many beings and only one mind.
* Dualism is true and there are many beings and many minds, one for each being.
* Physicalism is true and there are many beings and only one mind.
* Physicalism is true and there are many beings and many minds, one for each being.

Many other variations are possibly, too, by the way. (For example, "there are many beings and exactly five minds.")

At any rate, it's possible, but it in fact, it doesn't obtain that there is only one mind. So it's contingently false.

Well, we cannot have one mind and different beings under materialism.

This doesn't answer that why experience for example is local when Mind has no location,

"Mind has no location" is false, by the way.

That is correct under dualism since mind is not physical.

If what you say is true then what is the difference between mind and matter? Mind simply a form of matter.