Yep

And do you believe that only minds exist?

Nope

Do you believe that minds do not have a location (even if the location is complex, fuzzy or messy)?

I believe I have a location and I don't separate me from my body.

That's fine. What I asked you, though is yes or no, whether you believe that minds have a location. It's a simple question.

And I answered it to the best of my ability, my concept of mind is inclusive, with my body

Sure. So isn't there a location of your mind in that case? For example, it's on the planet Earth and not the planet Jupiter.

No, as I said, it can't be distinguishable from my body, which is in Florida

Do you believe minds exist?

Right, so subjective/objective are just terms distinguishing whether something is occurring in a mind location or a location devoid of mind.

Do you believe minds exist? — Cavacava

Yes, obviously. Otherwise a "mind location term" wouldn't be very useful.

As I stated in my reply to you

So no, I don't think there is an ontological locational component in the subject/object relationship. We are entities in a world, and we make this shit up.

So you think thought determines existence?

As I stated in my reply to you
So no, I don't think there is an ontological locational component in the subject/object relationship. We are entities in a world, and we make this shit up. — Cavacava

That's why I just went through that whole rigamarole with you. You believe minds exist, that not only minds exist, and that minds have a location. Hence it's possible to have a term for mind locations versus non-mind locations.

So you think thought determines existence? — Cavacava

No (except for the existence of thought)

Then we should be on the same page. I was not sure since some people want to entirely reduce mind to brain processes, and I don't agree with that.

I was not sure since some people want to entirely reduce mind to brain processes, and I don't agree with that. — Cavacava

That is my view. You would just be extending it to other body parts too, maybe, or maybe other things in one's environment.

Then as I said it is an impoverished concept.

Then as I said it is an impoverished concept. — Cavacava

Well, it's separate from what subjective and objective refer to, but obviously I don't believe that it's an "impoverished concept"

Well I really can't see how you can say it's not impoverished. If the concept were 'rich', insightful or even pragmatic then it could fully explain how we can communicate at the level we are communicating :) without going beyond itself, you could point to the specifics exactly how it works, but to the best of my knowledge that is not possible, and I think, perhaps in principle it cannot explain thought.

What are the criteria for explanations for you?

As I intimated I don't think any full explanation is possible, therefore any such criteria would in principle be otiose.

No--I don't mean an explanation of mind. I mean what are your criteria for something to count as an explanation? It's no good formulating arguments around whether explanations are possible if we can't say exactly what counts as an explanation in general, why that counts as an explanation in general, and why explanations are a mark of whether something is correct, is an "impoverished concept" or not, etc.

But TS I don't think any explanation of a brain impulses, nerve impulses, or electro-chemical signals can even potentially encompass the significance of what we perceive, think or communicate...our consciousness. The reflexive character of our thought, I think, will always be beyond our ability to explain because we have to be conscious to explain it, to use it to explain it, and we cannot escape this circularity.