You want me to list names? What would that add? So, shall we start with Parmenides and then Zeno of Elea. How many more do you want? What'll do the trick, Isaac?

Or do you want to know why they thought that any region of space can be infinitely divided?

Our reason represents our minds to be indivisible things. — Bartricks

As far as I can tell, you are leaping from 'mind' being a singular noun to some dusty ontological thesis. Do you think boats have ovaries? Can rivers smoke cigars ?

That's prima facie evidence that's precisely what they are. — Bartricks

This is depressingly sloppy reasoning.

<< 'Mind' is a singular noun and various philosophers have speculated or argued that the mind is indivisible. Case closed. Mind is indivisible. >>

As if philosophy hasn't made progress. As if this quasi-theological confusion is still somehow state of the art. As if 'mind is indivisible' has a usefully determinate meaning or relevance in the first place. If neither Ryle nor Austin can save you from compulsive circle squaring, I doubt I'll make a dent.

just answer the question. Fuck according to whom. Are we dependent on the authority of authorities? Maybe so, what does the pope say?

As far as I can tell, you are leaping from 'mind' being a singular noun to some dusty ontological thesis. Do you think boats have ovaries? Can rivers smoke cigars ? — Pie

But badger's pickle yellow numbers by night.

This is depressingly sloppy reasoning. ' — Pie

No it isn't. I mean, it may depress you. But it is not sloppy.

just answer the question. Fuck according to whom. Are we dependent on the authority of authorities? Maybe so, what does the pope say? — Merkwurdichliebe

Your question betokens insanity on your part. Can you ask me a sane one please.

You are a wikipedia paraphrasing bot. — Bartricks

:chin: :up:

i am @Merkwurdichliebe. Im just saying that if we are going to invoke authority over our own reason, easter bunny is as good as any.

If mind is indivisible, how come I am one, you, the reader, are one, so on and so forth?

But badger's pickle yellow numbers by night. — Bartricks

What's the end game, if we were to grant you the indivisibility of mind ? Do you turn the crank on your logic machine until God pops out?

it is quite simple. From mind perspective it is divisible. From sense perspective it is indivisible. The two perspectives impose upon each other within a singular organism, causing major confusion amongst philosophers on TPF. :chin:

Are the walls talking to you again?

Are the walls talking to you again? — Bartricks

My walls always speak to me, my sister. :kiss:

What's the end game, if we were to grant you the indivisibility of mind ? Do you turn the crank on your logic machine until God pops out? — Pie

I don't see how that's relevant to my point about the badger. Have you read the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius? I haven't. I really enjoyed it.

it is quite simple. From mind perspective it is divisible. From sense perspective it is indivisible. The two perspectives impose upon each other within a singular organism, causing major confusion amongst philosophers on TPF. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm not sure if I follow. Speaking for myself, if the mind is divisible in any way at all, and you claim it is from a "mind perspective", then that's it, the debate comes to an end then and there.

What's the end game, if we were to grant you the indivisibility of mind ? Do you turn the crank on your logic machine until God pops out? — Pie

You seem like a very nice interlocutor, would you be so kind as to recapitulate the debate for us late comers? Pretty please. :pray:

I'm not sure if I follow. Speaking for myself, if the mind is divisible in any way at all, and you claim it is from a "mind perspective", then that's it, the debate comes to an end then and there. — Agent Smith

I think you follow fine. I'm not trying to be clever. If I get you, you are saying that mind trumps sense in all cases. Correct?

What's the end game, if we were to grant you the indivisibility of mind ? Do you turn the crank on your logic machine until God pops out? — Pie

Good question! I'm all ears...

I think you follow fine. I'm not trying to be clever. If I get you, you are saying that mind trumps sense in all cases. Correct? — Merkwurdichliebe

What exactly do you mean when you say the mind is divisible and also indivisible? I get that in one way it is and in another way it isn't. How exactly? Danke in advance.

My contention is quite simple: My mind is distinct from yours but that means there are at least 2 minds which shouldn't be possible if mind is indivisible.

What exactly do you mean when you say the mind is divisible and also indivisible? I get that in one way it is and in another way it isn't. How exactly? Danke in advance. — Agent Smith

I am only saying that from one point of view it appears indivisible, and from another it appears divisible. I am only saying that this is how it appears from differing perspectives, and I suspect that where they intersect, we may find a better depiction of the truth of it all Perhaps, if we could adquately define a third perspective, we could triangulate the reality of the mind's singularity. Any thoughts, you're very intelligent?

My contention is quite simple: My mind is distinct from yours but that means there are at least 2 minds which shouldn't be possible if mind is indivisible. — Agent Smith

I missed this, one sec to respond

You seem like a very nice interlocutor, would you be so kind as to recapitulate the debate for us late comers? Pretty please. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure. Since I've been here, it's pretty much @Bartricks insisting the mind is indivisible and ignoring all criticisms of his arguments, all the while insisting that others don't actually read books, etc. It's a sit-com where watching any episode prepares you for all the others. Variations on a theme.

My contention is quite simple: My mind is distinct from yours but that means there are at least 2 minds which shouldn't be possible if mind is indivisible. — Agent Smith

But how do you know it is not identical? We cannot use spatiotemporal relations to define the demarcations of mind, unless you are willing to reduce mind to physical explanations. Im not.

Sure. Since I've been here, it's pretty much Bartricks insisting the mind is indivisible and ignoring all criticisms of his arguments, all the while insisting that others don't actually read books, etc. It's a sit-com where watching any episode prepares you for all the others. Variations on a theme. — Pie

Lol. Let me take up the mantle and argue on behalf of an indivisible mind.

I am only saying that from one point of view it appears indivisible, and from another it appears divisible. I am only saying that this is how it appears from differing perspectives, and I suspect that where they intersect, we may find a better depiction of the truth of it all Perhaps, if we could adquately define a third perspective, we could triangulate the reality of the mind's singularity. Any thoughts, you're very intelligent? — Merkwurdichliebe

:snicker:

True, take a line for example: It is divisible lengthwise but not breadthwise. Perhaps this is what you mean. Mine is (only) an analogy. Can you kindly edify me as to what the length and breadth of a line correspond to vis-à-vis mind?

But how do you know it is not identical. — Merkwurdichliebe

We're thinking different things at the same time and some of these thoughts may be contradictory.

Lol. Let me take up the mantle and argue on behalf of an indivisible mind. — Merkwurdichliebe

I should add that I even leaned in earlier in the thread and suggested that the minds are indivisible in the sense that persons are unified targets for praise and blame. It's also a norm of rationality that our beliefs are consistent. A good trained body no talky talky doublethink, in other words. In fact, we sometimes contradict ourselves, but (ideally) we adjust our beliefs when we are made aware of such contradictions. It's also our duty to adjust our beliefs if their logical consequences conflict with other, prior beliefs. In practical terms, we want to know who is making a claim in order to weight that claim properly. This is Brandom's 'scorekeeping' notion of rationality. There are fouls in the game of rationality that reduce credibility, etc. The big picture is that minds/persons strive toward cohesion and unity. From the outside they are already unified by a proper name and a reputation for sense or nonsense.

To me the following is good approach to the unity or continuity of the mind/self.

“The practical activity one is obliging oneself to engage in by judging and acting is integrating those new commitments into a unified whole comprising all the other commitments one acknowledges…. Engaging in those integrative activities is synthesizing a self or subject, which shows up as what is responsible for the component commitments” (ibid).

A self or subject in this usage is not something that just exists. It is a guiding aim that is itself subject to development. “[T]he synthetic-integrative process, with its aspects of critical and ampliative activity [rejecting incompatibilities and developing consequences] provides the basis for understanding both the subjective and the objective poles of the intentional nexus. Subjects are what repel incompatible commitments in that they ought not to endorse them, and objects are what repel incompatible properties in that they cannot exhibit them” (p. 53).
...
Upstream from all of this, according to Brandom, is “Kant’s normative understanding of mental activity” (ibid). This is closely bound up with what he calls Kant’s “radically original conception of freedom” (ibid). In the Latin medieval and early modern traditions, questions about freedom were considered to be in a broad sense questions of fact about our power. For Kant, all such questions of fact apply only to the domain of represented objects. On the other hand, “Practical freedom is an aspect of the spontaneity of discursive activity on the subjective side” (pp. 58-59).

“The positive freedom exhibited by exercises of our spontaneity is just this normative ability: the ability to commit ourselves, to become responsible. It can be thought of as a kind of authority: the authority to bind oneself by conceptual norms” (p. 59). Brandom recalls Kant’s example of a young person reaching legal adulthood. “Suddenly, she has the authority to bind herself legally, for instance by entering into contracts. That gives her a host of new abilities: to borrow money, take out a mortgage, start a business. The new authority to bind oneself normatively… involves a huge increase in positive freedom” (ibid).

Rationality for Kant does not consist in having good reasons. “It consists rather just in being in the space of reasons” (p. 60), in being liable to specific kinds of normative assessment.

https://brinkley.blog/2020/10/19/autonomy-normativity/

So, shall we start with Parmenides and then Zeno of Elea. How many more do you want? What'll do the trick, Isaac?

Or do you want to know why they thought that any region of space can be infinitely divided? — Bartricks

Well yes, I suppose. I was leaving open the possibility that you'd supply the names of anyone who has actually studied space...

But let's look at what some other people reckoned. So two ancient Greeks from way before even the beginnings of physics had s bit of a think about it and reckoned that space is infinitely divisible, and that tells us what...? A good historical insight into the cultural beliefs of ancient Greece, perhaps.

As usual, you're supporting a premise of the form "Bartricks reckons...", by appealing to something else you reckon.

1. Leprechauns exist
2. If leprechauns exist then they're the only tiny creatures who wear pointy red hats
3. The tiny creature I just saw with a pointy red hat must have been a leprechaun.

All valid and sound.

Premise 1 is undeniable because I also believe leprechauns take the milk I put out for them and they couldn't do that if they didn't exist.

Premise 2 is undeniable because I also believe that the book I have on leprechauns is the gospel truth and it says they're the only tiny creatures who wear pointy red hats.

So the conclusion is undeniable.

Er, what?

Do explain to me, isaac, how it could be that an extended thing might not be divisible.

And don't be predictable and say 'physics' and then lament that philosophers don't study physics. It's very tiresome.

Do explain to me, isaac, how it could be that an extended thing might not be divisible. — Bartricks

Easy. It seems to me that extended things are sometimes indivisible. It's what reason tells me. And, as you're so fond of reminding us, we have no other ground for knowing anything. It's you who have the burden of proof to show this self-evident fact of reason is not true.

And don't be predictable and say 'philosophers' and then lament that physicists don't study philosophy. It's very tiresome.