Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

How do you define mind?

It's a term for the set of phenomena including thinking (reasoning), perceptions, formulating concepts, assigning meaning, etc.

I have another definition in my mind. The mind is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide and cause.

The substance is the brain.

You need a mind for any change

No. That's ridiculous. We went over this already.

[bahman]

It's a term for the set of phenomena including thinking (reasoning), perceptions, formulating concepts, assigning meaning, etc.

I have another definition in my mind. The mind is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide and cause.

The substance is the brain.

The brain is a substance that carries information. Information is only a formation in a substance. You cannot have consciousness because of the flows of information.

You need a mind for any change.

No. That's ridiculous. We went over this already.

When?

[Terrapin Station]

You cannot have consciousness because of the flows of information.

That's a completely random claim that follows from nothing.

No. That's ridiculous. We went over this already.

When?

In the thread you had started about it.

[bahman]

You cannot have consciousness because of the flows of information.

That's a completely random claim that follows from nothing.

It is very related.

[Peter Holmes]

What if I provide an argument for the mind?

I assume you mean an argument for the existence of minds.

Yes.

My standing question is: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'.

These are off-topic unless you show their relevance to the topic of the existence of the mind.

Cards on the table. I think the founding philosophical delusion is that abstract nouns, such as 'mind', are names of things of some kind that may or may not exist.

That is alright. Here is my argument: I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) There is a change therefore there is a mind.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y otherwise there cannot be any change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

1 My standing question is on-topic. I've never come across the claim that a mind is a real thing like a brain. So people seem to think the mind is an abstract thing - call it an unreal thing, if you wish. So: what and where is an unreal thing, such as a mind, and in what way does it exist? (I ask the same question of supernaturalists, such as theists, equally fruitlessly.) And if talk of minds and mental things is merely metaphorical, to understand it non-metaphorically is absurd.

2 Your argument for the necessary existence of 'mind' relies on metaphysical uses of the words 'change', 'nothing', 'cause' and 'experience', as though they're the names of transcendent things of some kind. And this is classic philosophical delusion - collapsing into mysticism.

3 Your argument for the necessary existence of mind doesn't answer my question: what and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist? Can you answer that question?

[Skepdick]

1 My standing question is on-topic. I've never come across the claim that a mind is a real thing like a brain. So people seem to think the mind is an abstract thing - call it an unreal thing, if you wish. So: what and where is an unreal thing, such as a mind, and in what way does it exist? (I ask the same question of supernaturalists, such as theists, equally fruitlessly.) And if talk of minds and mental things is merely metaphorical, to understand it non-metaphorically is absurd.

You don't have to ask if of other people. Ask it of yourself.

In what way do "you", Peter Holmes, "exist"? Do "you" exist?

Which part of your brain is necessary for "you"?
Which part of your brain can be taken away for "you" to disappear?

Also, what's the difference between metaphorical and non-metaphorical understanding?

[Terrapin Station]

You cannot have consciousness because of the flows of information.

That's a completely random claim that follows from nothing.

It is very related.

Then you'd need to flesh it out so that it follows from a set of premises.

[bahman]

I assume you mean an argument for the existence of minds.

Yes.

My standing question is: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'.

These are off-topic unless you show their relevance to the topic of the existence of the mind.

Cards on the table. I think the founding philosophical delusion is that abstract nouns, such as 'mind', are names of things of some kind that may or may not exist.

That is alright. Here is my argument: I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) There is a change therefore there is a mind.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y otherwise there cannot be any change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

1 My standing question is on-topic. I've never come across the claim that a mind is a real thing like a brain. So people seem to think the mind is an abstract thing - call it an unreal thing, if you wish. So: what and where is an unreal thing, such as a mind, and in what way does it exist? (I ask the same question of supernaturalists, such as theists, equally fruitlessly.) And if talk of minds and mental things is merely metaphorical, to understand it non-metaphorically is absurd.

What is the mind? The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. Where is it? The mind is not due to the matter therefore it does not have a location.

2 Your argument for the necessary existence of 'mind' relies on metaphysical uses of the words 'change', 'nothing', 'cause' and 'experience', as though they're the names of transcendent things of some kind. And this is classic philosophical delusion - collapsing into mysticism.

Change, cause, and experience are not transcendent things given the definition of transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience). We experience obviously. We experience change and causation too.

3 Your argument for the necessary existence of mind doesn't answer my question: what and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist? Can you answer that question?

I already answered these questions.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes.


These are off-topic unless you show their relevance to the topic of the existence of the mind.


That is alright. Here is my argument: I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) There is a change therefore there is a mind.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y otherwise there cannot be any change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

1 My standing question is on-topic. I've never come across the claim that a mind is a real thing like a brain. So people seem to think the mind is an abstract thing - call it an unreal thing, if you wish. So: what and where is an unreal thing, such as a mind, and in what way does it exist? (I ask the same question of supernaturalists, such as theists, equally fruitlessly.) And if talk of minds and mental things is merely metaphorical, to understand it non-metaphorically is absurd.

What is the mind? The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. Where is it? The mind is not due to the matter therefore it does not have a location.

Bodies - including the bodies of single-cell organisms - are substances with the ability to experience and cause. So your description doesn't distinguish minds from bodies. And, as usual, 'the mind ... does not have a location'. A bit like a god? Pure, unevidenced, mystical twaddle.

2 Your argument for the necessary existence of 'mind' relies on metaphysical uses of the words 'change', 'nothing', 'cause' and 'experience', as though they're the names of transcendent things of some kind. And this is classic philosophical delusion - collapsing into mysticism.

Change, cause, and experience are not transcendent things given the definition of transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience). We experience obviously. We experience change and causation too.

3 Your argument for the necessary existence of mind doesn't answer my question: what and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist? Can you answer that question?

I already answered these questions.

And your answers are incoherent.

[bahman]

That's a completely random claim that follows from nothing.

It is very related.

Then you'd need to flesh it out so that it follows from a set of premises.

So I repeat myself. I was basically trying to say that the brain cannot be conscious: "The brain is a substance that carries information. Information is only a formation in a substance. You cannot therefore have consciousness because of the flows of information.".

[bahman]

1 My standing question is on-topic. I've never come across the claim that a mind is a real thing like a brain. So people seem to think the mind is an abstract thing - call it an unreal thing, if you wish. So: what and where is an unreal thing, such as a mind, and in what way does it exist? (I ask the same question of supernaturalists, such as theists, equally fruitlessly.) And if talk of minds and mental things is merely metaphorical, to understand it non-metaphorically is absurd.

What is the mind? The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. Where is it? The mind is not due to the matter therefore it does not have a location.

Bodies - including the bodies of single-cell organisms - are substances with the ability to experience and cause.

If any single cell experiences then why do you have a single coherent experience?

So your description doesn't distinguish minds from bodies.

The body is physical and subject to change therefore there is a mind involved in this change.

And, as usual, 'the mind ... does not have a location'. A bit like a god? Pure, unevidenced, mystical twaddle.

There is a fact for it, the mind is not due to the body.

2 Your argument for the necessary existence of 'mind' relies on metaphysical uses of the words 'change', 'nothing', 'cause' and 'experience', as though they're the names of transcendent things of some kind. And this is classic philosophical delusion - collapsing into mysticism.

Change, cause, and experience are not transcendent things given the definition of transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience). We experience obviously. We experience change and causation too.

3 Your argument for the necessary existence of mind doesn't answer my question: what and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist? Can you answer that question?

I already answered these questions.

And your answers are incoherent.

Did you change your mind? Now you say that each cell, experiences, and causes. So change, experience and causation are not transcendent?

[Peter Holmes]

The so-called mind-body problem is a problem only if we take talk about minds and mental things and events seriously, reifying minds as separate, different, non-physical, locationless substances - if we think of them in the way we used to think of souls and other supposed non-natural things. This 'mind' is the soul secularised. Misleading metaphysical fictions. Chin-scratching upshot: brains can't be conscious.

[bahman]

The so-called mind-body problem is a problem only if we take talk about minds and mental things and events seriously, reifying minds as separate, different, non-physical, locationless substances - if we think of them in the way we used to think of souls and other supposed non-natural things. This 'mind' is the soul secularised. Misleading metaphysical fictions. Chin-scratching upshot: brains can't be conscious.

Could you please answer my questions?

[Skepdick]

The so-called mind-body problem is a problem only if we take talk about minds and mental things and events seriously, reifying minds as separate, different, non-physical, locationless substances

Then don't reify them as such things.

Reify "minds" as part-of, same as, physicaly-located in the brain things.

- if we think of them in the way we used to think of souls and other supposed non-natural things. This 'mind' is the soul secularised. Misleading metaphysical fictions.

Then don't think of them that way.

Brain is hardware. Mind is software.

[Peter Holmes]

What is the mind? The mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause. Where is it? The mind is not due to the matter therefore it does not have a location.

Bodies - including the bodies of single-cell organisms - are substances with the ability to experience and cause.

If any single cell experiences then why do you have a single coherent experience?

So your description doesn't distinguish minds from bodies.

The body is physical and subject to change therefore there is a mind involved in this change.

And, as usual, 'the mind ... does not have a location'. A bit like a god? Pure, unevidenced, mystical twaddle.

There is a fact for it, the mind is not due to the body.

Change, cause, and experience are not transcendent things given the definition of transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience). We experience obviously. We experience change and causation too.


I already answered these questions.

And your answers are incoherent.

Did you change your mind? Now you say that each cell, experiences, and causes. So change, experience and causation are not transcendent?

No, I'm saying your syllogism supposedly demonstrating the necessity of 'mind' uses those words in a metaphysical way. And I said even single-cell organisms experience and cause, so your description of mind fails to differentiate mind from body. Please read carefully.