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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sack the fiction of the mind, and the silly question of reality's dependence on or independence from the mind evaporates, as does Kant's silly fake answer, along with the silly argument against philosophical realism. Simples.

Don't be silly. Pending evidence, belief in the existence of abstract or non-physical things is irrational. So if 'the mind' is physical - and of course it is - talk of reality's dependence on or independence from 'the mind' is absurd. And your 'indirect realism' dodge is pointless.

It is obvious the mind [as defined] exists as physical and is contingent on the human-based scientific framework.

The mind is not independent of the brain and body.
There is a feature of human nature that is 'mental' and it is not represented by the brain only but include the rest of the nervous system in interaction with the whole body.
This necessary feature of human nature is defined as the mind.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

The evolutionary history of the mind is tied to the development of the nervous system, which led to the formation of brains.
As brains became more complex, the number and capacity of mental functions increased with particular brain areas dedicated to specific mental functions. Individual human minds also develop as they learn from experience and pass through psychological stages in the process of aging. Some people are affected by mental disorders, for which certain mental capacities do not function as they should.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

You defined 'what is fact' as a feature of reality, that is case, state of affair or just is and it is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinions, beliefs and judgment] i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
It is so obvious, 'what is fact' to you is absolutely independent of the human conditions or mind, i.e. which is philosophical realism as defined.

Philosophical realism - is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind*-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

* or human

[Peter Holmes]

Here is something points from ChatGpt with reference to mind-skeptics people like PH.

ChatGpt [with reservation] [changed]
Expecting someone that the mind exists as a physical entity can be challenging, as it delves into complex philosophical and scientific discussions.
Here are some points you can use to support the idea that the mind has a physical basis and is empirically studied within various disciplines:

Brain-Body Connection: One of the most fundamental pieces of evidence for the physical basis of the mind is the close connection between brain and mind. Studies in neuroscience consistently demonstrate that changes in brain activity correlate with changes in mental states, emotions, and cognitive functions. Brain damage, diseases, or injuries can lead to significant alterations in mental processes and behaviors.

Neuroimaging and Brain Mapping: Advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and PET (positron emission tomography), allow scientists to observe the brain in action while individuals perform various mental tasks or experience emotions. These experiments have shown that specific brain regions are consistently associated with particular mental processes, providing concrete evidence of the physical basis of the mind.

Neural Correlates of Consciousness: The study of neural correlates of consciousness aims to identify the brain mechanisms responsible for subjective experiences. Researchers have identified brain activity patterns associated with conscious experiences, which further support the notion that consciousness and the mind have a physical basis.

Effect of Drugs and Chemicals: Various psychoactive drugs and substances can significantly alter mental states, mood, and cognition by affecting brain chemistry and neural activity. The fact that external chemicals can impact the mind demonstrates the intimate relationship between the physical brain and mental processes.

Behavioral Genetics: Studies on identical twins and family genetics provide evidence that certain mental traits and conditions have a heritable component. This suggests that specific mental characteristics are influenced by genetic factors, which, in turn, interact with the physical structure of the brain.

Developmental Psychology: Research in developmental psychology shows how the mind evolves and develops from infancy to adulthood. The progression of cognitive abilities and the formation of various mental processes coincide with the maturation of the brain.

Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: The field of artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science has made significant progress in simulating mental processes through computer models and algorithms. While AI is not identical to human minds, these simulations demonstrate that complex mental processes can be reduced to physical computations.

Philosophical Arguments: There are several philosophical arguments, such as the mind-brain identity theory and materialism, which propose that mental phenomena are identical to physical brain processes. These philosophical positions are supported by empirical evidence and align with scientific findings in neuroscience and related disciplines.

When discussing such a complex topic, it's essential to be patient and open to engaging in a constructive conversation.
Present the evidence from neuroscience, cognitive science, and related fields as objectively as possible.
Acknowledge that the mind is a multifaceted concept, and different philosophical perspectives exist.
Encourage your [opponent] to explore reputable scientific literature and engage with experts in the field to gain a deeper understanding of the topic. Ultimately, individual beliefs and perspectives may not change overnight, but respectful dialogue and exposure to evidence-based information can lead to a more informed view.
....................

In any case I am not expecting PH to grasp the above due to his being delusional and grounding on illusory ideas.

Erm. All of the above confirms my argument - that what we call the mind and mental phenomena are nothing more than physical things - so that mentalist talk, about minds containing mental things and events - is metaphorical - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences.

And this means that the supposedly complex philosophical issue of the relationship between mind and matter or body - and therefore of the supposed dependence of reality on the mind - or its independence from the mind - is, and has always been, so much hogwash.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is something points from ChatGpt with reference to mind-skeptics people like PH.

ChatGpt [with reservation] [changed]
Expecting someone that the mind exists as a physical entity can be challenging, as it delves into complex philosophical and scientific discussions.
Here are some points you can use to support the idea that the mind has a physical basis and is empirically studied within various disciplines:

Brain-Body Connection: One of the most fundamental pieces of evidence for the physical basis of the mind is the close connection between brain and mind. Studies in neuroscience consistently demonstrate that changes in brain activity correlate with changes in mental states, emotions, and cognitive functions. Brain damage, diseases, or injuries can lead to significant alterations in mental processes and behaviors.

Neuroimaging and Brain Mapping: Advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and PET (positron emission tomography), allow scientists to observe the brain in action while individuals perform various mental tasks or experience emotions. These experiments have shown that specific brain regions are consistently associated with particular mental processes, providing concrete evidence of the physical basis of the mind.

Neural Correlates of Consciousness: The study of neural correlates of consciousness aims to identify the brain mechanisms responsible for subjective experiences. Researchers have identified brain activity patterns associated with conscious experiences, which further support the notion that consciousness and the mind have a physical basis.

Effect of Drugs and Chemicals: Various psychoactive drugs and substances can significantly alter mental states, mood, and cognition by affecting brain chemistry and neural activity. The fact that external chemicals can impact the mind demonstrates the intimate relationship between the physical brain and mental processes.

Behavioral Genetics: Studies on identical twins and family genetics provide evidence that certain mental traits and conditions have a heritable component. This suggests that specific mental characteristics are influenced by genetic factors, which, in turn, interact with the physical structure of the brain.

Developmental Psychology: Research in developmental psychology shows how the mind evolves and develops from infancy to adulthood. The progression of cognitive abilities and the formation of various mental processes coincide with the maturation of the brain.

Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: The field of artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science has made significant progress in simulating mental processes through computer models and algorithms. While AI is not identical to human minds, these simulations demonstrate that complex mental processes can be reduced to physical computations.

Philosophical Arguments: There are several philosophical arguments, such as the mind-brain identity theory and materialism, which propose that mental phenomena are identical to physical brain processes. These philosophical positions are supported by empirical evidence and align with scientific findings in neuroscience and related disciplines.

When discussing such a complex topic, it's essential to be patient and open to engaging in a constructive conversation.
Present the evidence from neuroscience, cognitive science, and related fields as objectively as possible.
Acknowledge that the mind is a multifaceted concept, and different philosophical perspectives exist.
Encourage your [opponent] to explore reputable scientific literature and engage with experts in the field to gain a deeper understanding of the topic. Ultimately, individual beliefs and perspectives may not change overnight, but respectful dialogue and exposure to evidence-based information can lead to a more informed view.
....................

In any case I am not expecting PH to grasp the above due to his being delusional and grounding on illusory ideas.

Erm. All of the above confirms my argument - that what we call the mind and mental phenomena are nothing more than physical things - so that mentalist talk, about minds containing mental things and events - is metaphorical - a way of talking about our selves and our experiences.

And this means that the supposedly complex philosophical issue of the relationship between mind and matter or body - and therefore of the supposed dependence of reality on the mind - or its independence from the mind - is, and has always been, so much hogwash.

What is hogwash is your belief 'what is fact' is a feature of reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions or mind, i.e. what is fact exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Within common and conventional sense, the human mind and/or human conditions are independent from the external world.
'The table in the room' is independent [relative not absolutely] from its owner.

What you are claiming is the table in the room is absolutely independent from its owner and everthing else that is non-that-table, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not. This is the ideology of philosophical realism.

On the other hand, the philosophical antirealists oppose and reject philosophical realism and deny that things exist absolutely independent of the human conditions/mind.
Philosophical realists [Kantian] accept only that things can exist relatively independent of the human conditions/mind.

So, what is hogwash is your belief 'what is fact' is a feature of reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions or mind, i.e. what is fact exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The problem with your thinking is you are too dogmatic and stuck to merely one paradigm without the ability to switch paradigms to optimize to the relevant conditions.
It is like you are suffering from the problem like the inability to perceive two cubes below as in the Necker Cube Illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

It is like you are suffering from the problem like the inability to perceive two cubes below as in the Necker Cube Illusion.

You just criticized him using philosophical realist assumptions
An antirealist, in using the Necker Cube as an example, is actually assuming a realist stance by implying that there is a "correct" perception that some people are missing. In doing so, the antirealist is presupposing the cube has a mind-independent nature that allows for two distinct interpretations—thus contradicting the antirealist position.

For the antirealist to claim that someone who doesn't see both interpretations is "missing" something suggests that the two possible perceptions are not merely subjective or dependent on individual minds, but rather grounded in some aspect of the cube itself, independent of perception. If an antirealist acknowledges that one can fail to see the full reality of the cube, it implies there is something objectively real about the cube that transcends individual and even intersubjective perception.

You're critique in the analogy backfires: by insisting that someone "should" perceive both possibilities, you are implicitly conceding that there is a right or wrong way to perceive the cube—suggesting that there is a mind-independent feature of the cube that exists regardless of how it is perceived. This undermines the antirealist position,since you are claiming to know what perceptions the cube, given its nature should elicit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is like you are suffering from the problem like the inability to perceive two cubes below as in the Necker Cube Illusion.

You just criticized him using philosophical realist assumptions
An antirealist, in using the Necker Cube as an example, is actually assuming a realist stance by implying that there is a "correct" perception that some people are missing. In doing so, the antirealist is presupposing the cube has a mind-independent nature that allows for two distinct interpretations—thus contradicting the antirealist position.

For the antirealist to claim that someone who doesn't see both interpretations is "missing" something suggests that the two possible perceptions are not merely subjective or dependent on individual minds, but rather grounded in some aspect of the cube itself, independent of perception. If an antirealist acknowledges that one can fail to see the full reality of the cube, it implies there is something objectively real about the cube that transcends individual and even intersubjective perception.

You're critique in the analogy backfires: by insisting that someone "should" perceive both possibilities, you are implicitly conceding that there is a right or wrong way to perceive the cube—suggesting that there is a mind-independent feature of the cube that exists regardless of how it is perceived. This undermines the antirealist position, since you are claiming to know what perceptions the cube, given its nature should elicit.

What??
Strawman, the Necker Cube Illusion is merely an analogy.

I did not assert there is a "correct" or "should" perception in the Necker Cube illusion.
As I had implied, this example [as designed and intended] is NOT to argue about ontology but is used as an analogy to demonstrate the person's inability to shift paradigm or perspective in perception in respect to two cubes from different perspective.
There are many other similar illusions, e.g. old-young-woman, duck-rabbit, illusions.

Whether it is cube1 or cube2 that is perceived, both are not absolutely mind-independent at all; the perception of whether it is cube1 or cube2, they are somehow related to the human conditions; non-human animals do not have the human mental conditions to conceptualize a cube at all.
At a more refined level, the image comprised of merely lines' whatever is perceived as cubes[1 or 2] is related to the mind.
Even the perception of lines are related to the mind, since at more refined level, they are merely pixels of black dots.
So, this is not the point I am referring to.

There are many perspectives to the cognition and perspective of reality.
In the case of the philosophical realists, they are stuck dogmatically to one perspective of reality [absolute mind-independence] while unable to perceive the higher and more refined perspective of reality [relative mind-independence].
I am merely using the Necker Cube Illusion as analogy to demonstrate my point.

[Iwannaplato]

It is like you are suffering from the problem like the inability to perceive two cubes below as in the Necker Cube Illusion.

You just criticized him using philosophical realist assumptions
An antirealist, in using the Necker Cube as an example, is actually assuming a realist stance by implying that there is a "correct" perception that some people are missing. In doing so, the antirealist is presupposing the cube has a mind-independent nature that allows for two distinct interpretations—thus contradicting the antirealist position.

For the antirealist to claim that someone who doesn't see both interpretations is "missing" something suggests that the two possible perceptions are not merely subjective or dependent on individual minds, but rather grounded in some aspect of the cube itself, independent of perception. If an antirealist acknowledges that one can fail to see the full reality of the cube, it implies there is something objectively real about the cube that transcends individual and even intersubjective perception.

You're critique in the analogy backfires: by insisting that someone "should" perceive both possibilities, you are implicitly conceding that there is a right or wrong way to perceive the cube—suggesting that there is a mind-independent feature of the cube that exists regardless of how it is perceived. This undermines the antirealist position, since you are claiming to know what perceptions the cube, given its nature should elicit.

What??
Strawman, the Necker Cube Illusion is merely an analogy.

Yup, I understood that. It's realist analogy. It is putting PH in the position of someone who is failing to meet a realist's standards about the objective mind independent nature of the cube. You'd be the person, in the analogy, judging someone from a realist stance.

I did not assert there is a "correct" or "should" perception in the Necker Cube illusion.

The analogy does.

As I had implied, this example [as designed and intended] is NOT to argue about ontology but is used as an analogy to demonstrate the person's inability to shift paradigm or perspective in perception in respect to two cubes from different perspective.
There are many other similar illusions, e.g. old-young-woman, duck-rabbit, illusions.

Whether it is cube1 or cube2 that is perceived, both are not absolutely mind-independent at all; the perception of whether it is cube1 or cube2, they are somehow related to the human conditions; non-human animals do not have the human mental conditions to conceptualize a cube at all.

And in your analogy someone fails to see the cube in the full range of ways. A perseon who really perceived the cube in the best manner would notice both possible perceptions. Cause that's what the cube really offers, given its nature.

Of course it was an analogy, it was a realist analogy criticing the falied perceiver in a realist way. If you spend some time you'll realize who you would be in the analogy - you'd be the realist saying that person failed to fully perceive the cube.

You still don't understand what a strawman argument is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You just criticized him using philosophical realist assumptions
An antirealist, in using the Necker Cube as an example, is actually assuming a realist stance by implying that there is a "correct" perception that some people are missing. In doing so, the antirealist is presupposing the cube has a mind-independent nature that allows for two distinct interpretations—thus contradicting the antirealist position.

For the antirealist to claim that someone who doesn't see both interpretations is "missing" something suggests that the two possible perceptions are not merely subjective or dependent on individual minds, but rather grounded in some aspect of the cube itself, independent of perception. If an antirealist acknowledges that one can fail to see the full reality of the cube, it implies there is something objectively real about the cube that transcends individual and even intersubjective perception.

You're critique in the analogy backfires: by insisting that someone "should" perceive both possibilities, you are implicitly conceding that there is a right or wrong way to perceive the cube—suggesting that there is a mind-independent feature of the cube that exists regardless of how it is perceived. This undermines the antirealist position, since you are claiming to know what perceptions the cube, given its nature should elicit.

What??
Strawman, the Necker Cube Illusion is merely an analogy.

Yup, I understood that. It's realist analogy. It is putting PH in the position of someone who is failing to meet a realist's standards about the objective mind independent nature of the cube. You'd be the person, in the analogy, judging someone from a realist stance.

I did not assert there is a "correct" or "should" perception in the Necker Cube illusion.

The analogy does.

As I had implied, this example [as designed and intended] is NOT to argue about ontology but is used as an analogy to demonstrate the person's inability to shift paradigm or perspective in perception in respect to two cubes from different perspective.
There are many other similar illusions, e.g. old-young-woman, duck-rabbit, illusions.

Whether it is cube1 or cube2 that is perceived, both are not absolutely mind-independent at all; the perception of whether it is cube1 or cube2, they are somehow related to the human conditions; non-human animals do not have the human mental conditions to conceptualize a cube at all.

And in your analogy someone fails to see the cube in the full range of ways. A person who really perceived the cube in the best manner would notice both possible perceptions. Cause that's what the cube really offers, given its nature.

Of course it was an analogy, it was a realist analogy criticing the falied perceiver in a realist way. If you spend some time you'll realize who you would be in the analogy - you'd be the realist saying that person failed to fully perceive the cube.

That is a very bad strawman.

It is an analogy used by a philosophical antirealist to demonstrate the philosophical realist's inability to shift paradigm [from absolute mind-independence] to understand [not necessary agree with] the philosophical antirealists' [relative mind-independent] view.

It is not a philosophical realist analogy.
If it is a philosophical realist analogy, he would insists there are only lines crossing each other and they are mind-independent and exist regardless of whether there are humans or not. In any case, this would be a bad analogy for the philosophical realist to argue his philosophical realism.

This is also a bad posture, i.e. instead of debating the main point of the OP, you resort to wasting time debating the analogy; worst, with a wrong interpretation of it.