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

[Iwannaplato]

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 7:34 am
viewtopic.php?p=642147#p642147

Do you ever say to someone that you had a dream or memory?
What do you mean when you say this?

When you say morals are not objective, I am assuming this means you think they are subjective.
What does 'subjective' mean there?

Yes, I talk about having dreams and memories - and about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. But so what? Are you suggesting that such talk is or must be about non-physical things? And if so, why?

Wow, back to May. Well, I don't remember my exact thoughts or direction. But I wasn't asserting things yet, though I might have been planning to, but I think really trying to get at what you mean. So, I asked those questions. Once I get the answers, then the next step happens. I don't always have plan laid out.

[Peter Holmes]

Do you ever say to someone that you had a dream or memory?
What do you mean when you say this?

When you say morals are not objective, I am assuming this means you think they are subjective.
What does 'subjective' mean there?

Yes, I talk about having dreams and memories - and about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. But so what? Are you suggesting that such talk is or must be about non-physical things? And if so, why?

Wow, back to May. Well, I don't remember my exact thoughts or direction. But I wasn't asserting things yet, though I might have been planning to, but I think really trying to get at what you mean. So, I asked those questions. Once I get the answers, then the next step happens. I don't always have plan laid out.

Sorry. Didn't mean to jump on you. My answer is that I've learned to use words such as dreams and memories - and 'having' them - to talk about experiences - along with words like pain and hunger and anger and so on.

And I think to be objective is to rely on facts, whereas to be subjective is to work from beliefs, judgements or opinions. I don't think the nouns objectivity and subjectivity are names of things that exist somewhere, somehow.

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry. Didn't mean to jump on you. My answer is that I've learned to use words such as dreams and memories - and 'having' them - to talk about experiences - along with words like pain and hunger and anger and so on.

And I think to be objective is to rely on facts, whereas to be subjective is to work from beliefs, judgements or opinions. I don't think the nouns objectivity and subjectivity are names of things that exist somewhere, somehow.

So, I followed our responses back in this thread and it seems like I was actually responding here to something you said in another thread. I went there...and I've lost the thread. I'm sure I had a kind of direction, and given my quetions perhaps it had to do with what we mean with certain words related to mind body issues, and likely through my own pragmatism which happily allows me to use mind words....

But I don't know what I was up to.

[Atla]

Literal mind-denial is often due to depesonalization imo

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

[Belinda]

You experience what most English speakers call "mind" therefore it is real to most English speakers.

[Skepdick]

Sorry. Didn't mean to jump on you. My answer is that I've learned to use words such as dreams and memories - and 'having' them - to talk about experiences - along with words like pain and hunger and anger and so on.

And I think to be objective is to rely on facts, whereas to be subjective is to work from beliefs, judgements or opinions. I don't think the nouns objectivity and subjectivity are names of things that exist somewhere, somehow.

So you think that when you use the words "pain", "hunger", "anger" "dreams" and "memories" you aren't talking about anything objective?!?

You think your pain, hunger, anger, dreams and memories don't exist ?!?

[Belinda]

Yes, I talk about having dreams and memories - and about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. But so what? Are you suggesting that such talk is or must be about non-physical things? And if so, why?

Wow, back to May. Well, I don't remember my exact thoughts or direction. But I wasn't asserting things yet, though I might have been planning to, but I think really trying to get at what you mean. So, I asked those questions. Once I get the answers, then the next step happens. I don't always have plan laid out.

Sorry. Didn't mean to jump on you. My answer is that I've learned to use words such as dreams and memories - and 'having' them - to talk about experiences - along with words like pain and hunger and anger and so on.

And I think to be objective is to rely on facts, whereas to be subjective is to work from beliefs, judgements or opinions. I don't think the nouns objectivity and subjectivity are names of things that exist somewhere, somehow.

There are no totally objective facts; this is because there is no totally objective interpretation of incoming data or of memories.

'Objectivity' and 'subjectivity' are ideas that we abstract from memories and incoming experiences, and exist as abstract ideas. Abstract ideas are not totally objective ideas as there is no totally objective idea.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I think to be objective is to rely on facts,
whereas to be subjective is to work from beliefs, judgements or opinions.
I don't think the nouns objectivity and subjectivity are names of things that exist somewhere, somehow.

The fact is your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion via the ideology of philosophical realism.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not counter my charge.

Your what is fact, a feature of reality, that is "just-is" "being so" is merely a belief without solid sound proofs.

What is objectivity [a state of confidence] is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most reliable.
As such, your absolutely mind-independent 'what is fact' is subjective with a degree of objectivity [when assigned] that is less than 10%.

[Skepdick]

There are no totally objective facts; this is because there is no totally objective interpretation of incoming data or of memories.

'Objectivity' and 'subjectivity' are ideas that we abstract from memories and incoming experiences, and exist as abstract ideas. Abstract ideas are not totally objective ideas as there is no totally objective idea.

It seems PH has difficulty navigating around the fact that objectivity is an abstract social construct which is rendered meaningless outside of a social context.

[Peter Holmes]

You experience what most English speakers call "mind" therefore it is real to most English speakers.

Like you, I've learnt how to use the word mind - along with the other mentalist terms that saturate ordinary language. And I'm pointing out that, pending evidence, belief in the existence of a non-physical mind is irrational, as is the related belief in supernatural things and causes. That's all.

Would denial that there are feelings in the heart be 'literal feeling denial'? These metaphors run deep.

[Atla]

You experience what most English speakers call "mind" therefore it is real to most English speakers.

Like you, I've learnt how to use the word mind - along with the other mentalist terms that saturate ordinary language. And I'm pointing out that, pending evidence, belief in the existence of a non-physical mind is irrational, as is the related belief in supernatural things and causes. That's all.

Would denial that there are feelings in the heart be 'literal feeling denial'? These metaphors run deep.

I think at this point you realize that even VA has you beaten on this issue. That's why you keep constantly returning to your non-physical/supernatural strawman.

[Peter Holmes]

You experience what most English speakers call "mind" therefore it is real to most English speakers.

Like you, I've learnt how to use the word mind - along with the other mentalist terms that saturate ordinary language. And I'm pointing out that, pending evidence, belief in the existence of a non-physical mind is irrational, as is the related belief in supernatural things and causes. That's all.

Would denial that there are feelings in the heart be 'literal feeling denial'? These metaphors run deep.

I think at this point you realize that even VA has you beaten on this issue. That's why you keep constantly returning to your non-physical/supernatural strawman.

Not at all. Since there's no non-physical mind, what we call the mind and mental things and events cannot be non-physical things - which VA agrees. And it follows that talk of not being mind-independent is incoherent. It amounts to saying that reality/the universe is not independent from human brains. Do you think that's true?

[Atla]

Like you, I've learnt how to use the word mind - along with the other mentalist terms that saturate ordinary language. And I'm pointing out that, pending evidence, belief in the existence of a non-physical mind is irrational, as is the related belief in supernatural things and causes. That's all.

Would denial that there are feelings in the heart be 'literal feeling denial'? These metaphors run deep.

I think at this point you realize that even VA has you beaten on this issue. That's why you keep constantly returning to your non-physical/supernatural strawman.

Not at all. Since there's no non-physical mind, what we call the mind and mental things and events cannot be non-physical things - which VA agrees. And it follows that talk of not being mind-independent is incoherent. It amounts to saying that reality/the universe is not independent from human brains. Do you think that's true?

Err.. in all your comments, you seem to presuppose an objective reality (what VA is accusing you of).

If there's no objective reality, then for example it's also possible that the mind is "physical", but the rest of reality is somehow dependent on that mind.

[Peter Holmes]

I think at this point you realize that even VA has you beaten on this issue. That's why you keep constantly returning to your non-physical/supernatural strawman.

Not at all. Since there's no non-physical mind, what we call the mind and mental things and events cannot be non-physical things - which VA agrees. And it follows that talk of not being mind-independent is incoherent. It amounts to saying that reality/the universe is not independent from human brains. Do you think that's true?

Err.. in all your comments, you seem to presuppose an objective reality (what VA is accusing you of).

If there's no objective reality, then for example it's also possible that the mind is "physical", but the rest of reality is somehow dependent on that mind.

The expression objective reality seems to make a distinction. Do you think there's such a thing as subjective reality? And if so, can you say what that is, and how it's different from objective reality - and what objective reality is in the first place?

Is there a difference between objective facts and subjective facts? And what exactly is a subjective fact?

I think we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case' - and that what we call objectivity is dependence on those facts.

VA denies that there are any such things as (these) facts - which is to deny the existence of the brains, neurons and synaptic firing which constitute the 'mind' from which he claims reality is 'not independent'.

Perhaps you don't think this is a hot mess of an argument - but I think its stupidity is patently obvious.

[Atla]

The expression objective reality seems to make a distinction. Do you think there's such a thing as subjective reality? And if so, can you say what that is, and how it's different from objective reality - and what objective reality is in the first place?

Don't you think it's a little strange that half of philosophy had been investigating the possibility of non-objective reality for centuries or for millennia, and you don't seem to have heard of this?