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

[Iwannaplato]

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.

That does explain why there is experiencing at all. It only explains the shifting around of what gets called matter. They can correlate some kinds of shifting around with some kinds of experiencing. But they have no idea where the experiencing is coming from. This doesn't prove dualism, but it should lead to a holding off on pronouncements about what consciousness is or experiencing really is merely. Further the word 'physical' just has no meaning. So to assume that minds must be non-physical is really at a level of gibberish. Physical sounds like a substance claim, but the category keeps expanding to include anything, regardless of qualities. So a physicalist can say that nothing has been found that is non-physical, but this is like saying that nothing has been found that we in our group don't consider real. Because we call whatever we consider real 'physical' or 'material'.

Until this all gets resolved, if it can be, I can't see any reason not to leave it all open, and continue with mind and physical speak, since these are very useful ways to talk about different facets of our experiences.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

That does explain why there is experiencing at all. It only explains the shifting around of what gets called matter. They can correlate some kinds of shifting around with some kinds of experiencing. But they have no idea where the experiencing is coming from. This doesn't prove dualism, but it should lead to a holding off on pronouncements about what consciousness is or experiencing really is merely. Further the word 'physical' just has no meaning. So to assume that minds must be non-physical is really at a level of gibberish. Physical sounds like a substance claim, but the category keeps expanding to include anything, regardless of qualities. So a physicalist can say that nothing has been found that is non-physical, but this is like saying that nothing has been found that we in our group don't consider real. Because we call whatever we consider real 'physical' or 'material'.

Until this all gets resolved, if it can be, I can't see any reason not to leave it all open, and continue with mind and physical speak, since these are very useful ways to talk about different facets of our experiences.

Okay, but 'the word 'physical' just has no meaning' is false. It has several different but related uses. And in this context, I go with 'consisting of energy and the form of energy we call matter'. It's the stuff that natural scientists investigate. The fact that we're learning more about what constitutes 'being physical' is irrelevant.

And '[we] have no idea where the experiencing is coming from' is false. We increasingly understand the organic, physical basis for what we call consciousness or experience - or 'having a mind'.

I agree that it's important to keep an open mind - but not, as has been said, so open that your brains fall out. Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that believe it's true is irrational. So 'pending evidence' is the right proviso.

[Atla]

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.

That does explain why there is experiencing at all. It only explains the shifting around of what gets called matter. They can correlate some kinds of shifting around with some kinds of experiencing. But they have no idea where the experiencing is coming from. This doesn't prove dualism, but it should lead to a holding off on pronouncements about what consciousness is or experiencing really is merely. Further the word 'physical' just has no meaning. So to assume that minds must be non-physical is really at a level of gibberish. Physical sounds like a substance claim, but the category keeps expanding to include anything, regardless of qualities. So a physicalist can say that nothing has been found that is non-physical, but this is like saying that nothing has been found that we in our group don't consider real. Because we call whatever we consider real 'physical' or 'material'.

Until this all gets resolved, if it can be, I can't see any reason not to leave it all open, and continue with mind and physical speak, since these are very useful ways to talk about different facets of our experiences.

Well upon closer investigation we find that the whole thing is actually inverted. Experiencing is a given, everything we know are experiences. Everything we know about what science has and hasn't found, comes in the form of experiences (thoughts, perceptions, visuals etc.)

Experiences are the only things we can tell for sure exist, people know this deep down, and PH seems to be denying them, in other words he seems to be denying that the mind exists as real.

In other words, he is mistaking some abstractions (which are technically also some experiences, but are very limited) for reality.

To me, denying the mind seems to be some kind of weird form of escapism/aggression/malignance/passive-agressiveness. I admit I have no respect for it, unless the person was abused and had to "escape" reality.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, but 'the word 'physical' just has no meaning' is false.

What I am focusing on is that the category changes over time to cover anything considered real (by those in science, in this case). While 'has no meaning' is polemical, the center of that I keep is that it is an expanding set. .

TIt has several different but related uses. And in this context, I go with 'consisting of energy and the form of energy we call matter'. It's the stuff that natural scientists investigate. The fact that we're learning more about what constitutes 'being physical' is irrelevant.

Not if the categorical boundaries of what is being studied change over time to fit what is confirmed. And matter is a word that is an expanding set just as 'the physical' is an expanding set. More inclusive not just in the sense that more things are found that fit it, but expanding in what, given its traits or lack of them, can qualify for inclusion. It looks like a claim about substance (matter not some other substance) but it's not a claim about substance.

And '[we] have no idea where the experiencing is coming from' is false. We increasingly understand the organic, physical basis for what we call consciousness or experience - or 'having a mind'.

So where it is coming from? Why does some matter experience and some matter not? Not why does this matter have these cognitive functions, but what does matter X experience and matter Y not experience?

I agree that it's important to keep an open mind - but not, as has been said, so open that your brains fall out. Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that believe it's true is irrational. So 'pending evidence' is the right proviso.

What have I claimed the existence of that there is no evidence of?

And if I have, my brains still seem to be in their place.

[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.

That does explain why there is experiencing at all. It only explains the shifting around of what gets called matter. They can correlate some kinds of shifting around with some kinds of experiencing. But they have no idea where the experiencing is coming from. This doesn't prove dualism, but it should lead to a holding off on pronouncements about what consciousness is or experiencing really is merely. Further the word 'physical' just has no meaning. So to assume that minds must be non-physical is really at a level of gibberish. Physical sounds like a substance claim, but the category keeps expanding to include anything, regardless of qualities. So a physicalist can say that nothing has been found that is non-physical, but this is like saying that nothing has been found that we in our group don't consider real. Because we call whatever we consider real 'physical' or 'material'.

Until this all gets resolved, if it can be, I can't see any reason not to leave it all open, and continue with mind and physical speak, since these are very useful ways to talk about different facets of our experiences.

Okay, but 'the word 'physical' just has no meaning' is false. It has several different but related uses. And in this context, I go with 'consisting of energy and the form of energy we call matter'. It's the stuff that natural scientists investigate. The fact that we're learning more about what constitutes 'being physical' is irrelevant.

You need to understand the contrasting views between your philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism.

Your basic fundamental underlying principle of your philosophy related to 'what is physical' is grounded on philosophical realism, whatever physical [matter of fact] must be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions.
Your definition of what is fact is that feature of reality which is just-is or being so, that is the case, states of affairs.

In the case of natural science, you adopt scientific realism grounded on philosophical realism, as such what science is discovering things that are physical and mind-independent.

But philosophical realism as I had argued is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
You have not counter this claim which you are not capable of doing.

Thus whatever is physical and scientifically physical is grounded on illusion, thus nonsensical.

On the other hand, re
There areTwo Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
my reality grounded on a specific human-based FSK which the scientific FSK [scientific anti-realism] is the most credible, realistic and objective.

In a way, Physicalism is a sort of "Error Theory" re ontology that lead to all sorts of confusion and a never ending story. It is a sort of circle jerk by analytic philosophers.

What is realistic is based on a FSR-FSK approach to what is real and factual as conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific-anti-realism FSK is the most credible.

And '[we] have no idea where the experiencing is coming from' is false. We increasingly understand the organic, physical basis for what we call consciousness or experience - or 'having a mind'.

I agree that it's important to keep an open mind - but not, as has been said, so open that your brains fall out. Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that believe it's true is irrational. So 'pending evidence' is the right proviso.

On the other hand, you are keeping a very closed mind that no knowledge could go in to enlighten you.

The realistic approach is to start with 'experiences' [conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of history] from which we generate hypothesis and continuously polished it with critical and rational thinking via a credible human-based FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note what is "physical" is even extended to 'morality'.

From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure. Nevertheless, they are still considered physical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum ... ysicalism/

[Iwannaplato]

Well upon closer investigation we find that the whole thing is actually inverted. Experiencing is a given, everything we know are experiences. Everything we know about what science has and hasn't found, comes in the form of experiences (thoughts, perceptions, visuals etc.)

Yes, experiencing is fundamental. Everything else we deduce, induce and abduct our way to assuming is real.

Experiences are the only things we can tell for sure exist, people know this deep down, and PH seems to be denying them, in other words he seems to be denying that the mind exists as real.

I doubt he's denying experiences, though I haven't read all the posts.

In other words, he is mistaking some abstractions (which are technically also some experiences, but are very limited) for reality.

To me, denying the mind seems to be some kind of weird form of escapism/aggression/malignance/passive-agressiveness. I admit I have no respect for it, unless the person was abused and had to "escape" reality.

I'm not sure he's denying the mind, he just wants us to call it the brain. But to me that doesn't work very well, not in my day to day life, nor even when discussing things in philosophical or even scientific contexts.

I come at it pragmatically and I see no reason to drop that language. I think he sees this as accruing the onus to prove there is something non-physical. But I think that word has no real meaning yet and it also assumes I must take a dualist stance to talk about mind.

I think any one making any general substance claim gets some kind of onus. I mean, I think that's a decent idea. Oh, everything is physical and you're a monist. OK how do you know everything fits in that box and mind in particular? Likewise with other substance claimers.

[Atla]

Well upon closer investigation we find that the whole thing is actually inverted. Experiencing is a given, everything we know are experiences. Everything we know about what science has and hasn't found, comes in the form of experiences (thoughts, perceptions, visuals etc.)

Yes, experiencing is fundamental. Everything else we deduce, induce and abduct our way to assuming is real.

Experiences are the only things we can tell for sure exist, people know this deep down, and PH seems to be denying them, in other words he seems to be denying that the mind exists as real.

I doubt he's denying experiences, though I haven't read all the posts.

In other words, he is mistaking some abstractions (which are technically also some experiences, but are very limited) for reality.

To me, denying the mind seems to be some kind of weird form of escapism/aggression/malignance/passive-agressiveness. I admit I have no respect for it, unless the person was abused and had to "escape" reality.

I'm not sure he's denying the mind, he just wants us to call it the brain. But to me that doesn't work very well, not in my day to day life, nor even when discussing things in philosophical or even scientific contexts.

I come at it pragmatically and I see no reason to drop that language. I think he sees this as accruing the onus to prove there is something non-physical. But I think that word has no real meaning yet and it also assumes I must take a dualist stance to talk about mind.

He's denying having any experiences, having a mind. This is actually fairly common.

[Iwannaplato]

He's denying having any experiences, having a mind. This is actually fairly common.

Could you link me to the post?

[Atla]

He's denying having any experiences, having a mind. This is actually fairly common.

Could you link me to the post?

All his comments.

[Iwannaplato]

He's denying having any experiences, having a mind. This is actually fairly common.

Could you link me to the post?

All his comments.

OK, I'll keep my eye out, since then it will return.

[Skepdick]

Could you link me to the post?

All his comments.

OK, I'll keep my eye out, since then it will return.

You keep missing the part where he denies the existence of the mind and all its content?

[Atla]

Could you link me to the post?

All his comments.

OK, I'll keep my eye out, since then it will return.

For example almost everyone who identifies as an "eliminative materialist skeptic", and keeps a little portrait of Daniel Dennett on top of his bedside table, will deny having experiences, deny having a mind. But they will continue to use the words for them, and be convinced that they aren't denying anything. This can be especially obvious when one performs the hilarious/horrific experiment of commenting in a skeptic forum's philosophy section.

PH doesn't come across to me as an "eliminative materialist skeptic" though, maybe there are others reasons there.

[Iwannaplato]

PH doesn't come across to me as an "eliminative materialist skeptic" though, maybe there are others reasons there.

yes, I was going to say that.

I suppose everyone is running around trying to find who is making the most assumptions or who is being the most parsimonious. And it's not easy to find some neutral starting point from which to judge these things. (or perhaps it's as easy as can be)

[Skepdick]

yes, I was going to say that.

I suppose everyone is running around trying to find who is making the most assumptions or who is being the most parsimonious. And it's not easy to find some neutral starting point from which to judge these things. (or perhaps it's as easy as can be)

The neutral standpoint is trivial to locate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_judgment

But if you insist on being judgmental - I will insist on asking why.

Intent (your vision for the future) is necessary context.