But if you consideranger as a specific configuration of physical stuff, "He stormed out because he was angry" makes sense. — khaled

Anger is a configuration of physical stuff? That makes sense??? So how does that work? You take matter and arrange it in just the right way, run some electricity through it, and...anger?

To me it's proposed obviousness is a hint that it's just 'grammar' (the way we tend to use the word 'mind'). What I object to is taking a vague, casual way of talking ('what's on your mind, buddy?') and trying to be scientific or serious about this 'mind' thing. In math, one really can just make up definitions and crank out theorems, but I don't think metaphysics gets anywhere.

'I am a mind.' Is this something I can check? Or is too obvious to be checkable? If so, it might be a hop-on. Or to quote another wag: when does a child discover that there are physical objects? When he gets the nipple that first time? Or as a freshman in Philosophy 101? — Zugzwang

I don't think you need to overthink this. I don't think blind people have lesser minds than sighted.

Maybe 'mind' is just a noise/mark that we use in innumerable ways. It doesn't have to correspond to some definite entity. The temptation is to understand mere arguing about appropriate usage for some kind of science of obscure entities like The Mind. — Zugzwang

you are not less of a mind when you're not smelling anything or seeing anything.
Are you disputing this? Isn't the answer obvious?

If you're lying in bed asleep, where are you? Aren't you in bed? If you're lying in bed dreaming, aren't you in bed? If you're lying in bed dreaming you're crossing the street..."

You can't answer that last one? You think there's a word game going on? Aren't you still in bed?

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? — Srap Tasmaner

You can't answer my question?

There’s no point to disputing poetry. — praxis

Are you less of a mind if you're not smelling or seeing anything? That seems easy to answer: no. Do you think the answer is yes?

That which sees is the mind; that which smells is the mind; that which tastes is the mind. You recognize this at some level, for you are not less of a mind when you're not smelling anything or seeing anything. — Bartricks

This seems indisputable.

Your body is in the study, but your mind isn't. And you are your mind. So you are not in the study but your body is. Then you have died. We'll miss you. — Srap Tasmaner

If you're lying in bed dreaming of crossing the street, where are you?

Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers...Materialists

Can you defend that? — Mark Nyquist

What? That you can be wrong your brain exists? That's trivially easy to demonstrate. Do you think you can doubt whether your mind exists? That requires having a mind.

Focus! The issue here is whether the mind is the brain, right? Well, do you have any evidence that it is? — Bartricks

The brain appears to exist outside the mind. Injuries to the brain appear to affect thinking.

You brought up mind. You defend it. Pretty sure that's how it works. — Mark Nyquist

The mind needs no defense. You can't be wrong about whether it exists or not. You can be wrong about whether your brain exists.

The experience of seeing is impossible to describe to someone who's never been able to see.

Fair enough.

Suppose a hundred years from now, science still hasn't explained how brains produce consciousness. Would you still be convinced that brain states cause mental states? What about a thousand years and still no explanation?

I know it doesn't. At this point in time, it should. The lack of explanation should give one pause about being certain about the primacy of brain states.

If you're going to argue that brain states are primary, you should have a coherent causal explanation for how brain states produce mental states.

Before we can determine whether thinking takes place in the brain, we have to first establish the brain exists outside the mind.

Argument From Incredulity — TheMadFool

No, the problem comes from asserting minds are brains. If minds are brains, then when I imagine a red sunset (or see a green afterimage), there's nothing red or green in my brain.
https://iep.utm.edu/identity/#H2

"A more serious objection to Mind-Brain Type Identity, one that to this day has not been satisfactorily resolved, concerns various non-intensional properties of mental states (on the one hand), and physical states (on the other). After-images, for example, may be green or purple in color, but nobody could reasonably claim that states of the brain are green or purple. And conversely, while brain states may be spatially located with a fair degree of accuracy, it has traditionally been assumed that mental states are non-spatial. The problem generated by examples such as these is that they appear to constitute violations of Leibniz’s Law, which states that if A is identical with B, then A and B must be indiscernible in the sense of having in common all of their (non-intensional) properties."

I agree with your claim about metaphysical status, but I think mind and consciousness are in a different epistemological category than anything else. I think we know for certain that at least one conscious mind exists. We don't have that kind of certainty about the existence of anything else.

The thing is, physics doesn't make any metaphysical claims about what matter ultimately is. "Particle" could refer to some mind-independent stuff or some dream stuff. Physics is equally compatible with materialism and idealism.

That's a good point. When I mediate and still my mind, I don't become unconscious so thinking and consciousness are not the same thing.

If you think like that then you mean to say that the information accessible to us is insufficient to conclude the presence of consciousness. So, here I am, talking to my friend and his conduct is identical in important respects to mine - he talks, acts just like me - and I, from that, make the following analogical inference:

1. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
2. My friend also does talk, act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
Ergo,
3. My friend is conscious. — TheMadFool

I don't think we're justified in making that inference. Two things are going on. One, we assume that we're all biological beings that are pretty much built the same way, so that if I have a body and I'm conscious, and you have a similar body, then you should also be conscious. But I'm not justified in assuming that matter even exists, let alone that you or I are made of it. The belief in the existence of some external non-conscious stuff is just that: a belief. It's equally likely, for all I can tell, that this is all a dream and your (and my) body is just part of a dream. If that's the case, then I should no more assume other people are conscious than I should assume people in my dreams are conscious.

The assumption that materialism is the case is also contradicted by the Hard Problem of Consciousness. At this point in time, we should have some scientific theory, if only a very primitive one, about how consciousness arises from non-conscious stuff, but of course, the theories are all over the place, from panpsychism to mysterianism to computationalism to outright denial of consciousness itself. This, I think, is evidence that materialism (and substance dualism) is not the case. That means that everyone I meet are probably dream figures who may or may not be conscious.

The other reason we assume other people are conscious is we don't want solipsism to be true.

Now, if I'm to doubt my argument from analogy above, there must be a relevant dissimilarity between my friend and me. If none can be found, the argument is cogent and I, perforce, must accept that my friend, like me, is too conscious.

Coming to AI, we seem reluctant to follow the same logic i.e. the following intriguing scenario is the case for AI:

4. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
5. An AI does act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
BUT...
6. I hesitate to conclude the AI is conscious.

We're trying to eat the cake and have it too. If you have doubts about the AI being conscious, this uncertainty automatically extends to your friend too and, conversely, if you believe your friend's conscious, the AI must also be conscious!

That doesn't necessarily follow. If I believe consciousness is only produced by organic brains, I could be sure my friend (who I believe has an organic brain) is conscious, yet doubt whether any machines are conscious.

Something about the evidence for consciousness is problematic. Either we believe it can be mimicked perfectly in which case there's no difference between your friend and a p-zombie and nonphysicalism is true or it can't be and AI that pass the Turing test are truly conscious.

The thing that's problematic about it is everything is filtered through our own minds, so it's impossible to verify whether any other minds exist. Solipsism will always be a viable option.

However, is the brain sufficient for thinking? Can AI think? Can silicon-based life-forms think? — TheMadFool

There's the rub. Will we ever be able to verify whether A.I. is actually thinking/is conscious? No. Even if someone's entire brain was replaced with a functionally identical mechanical brain, and they reported they were conscious, we would still wonder: are you really conscious? We would always wonder that. Science can never answer that question. That suggests science is not the tool for this particular job.

Badgering other people to answer leading questions is juvenile. — Valentinus

"Do you think it's possible you're not conscious when you're replying to people?" is a "leading question"? Lol.

My thesis couldn't be simpler: it's silly, nonsensical, and counterproductive to doubt one's own consciousness. Do you think you might not be conscious, Valentinus? Are you a P-zombie???
(no)

I can see you're having trouble with a very simple question. You are a conscious being. Doubting that you're conscious is silly and nonsensical and just serves to illustrate the absurdity of physicalism/materialism. It's like that one materialist I was talking to here who couldn't grok "what is it like to be me?" Seriously? Maybe focus less on mockery and more on shoring up your core beliefs.

Why are you having trouble answering a very simple question? Either you're sure you're conscious when you're typing replies to people or you're not. I'll answer it: I'm sure I'm conscious.

Do you think it's possible you're not conscious when you're replying to people? Yes/no

As for whether it's "possible" I'm not conscious, clearly I am not conscious most of the time, or continuously, just like everyone else. — 180 Proof

Do you think it's possible you're not conscious when you're typing your reply to me?

I'm not questioning your mockery, I'm wondering if you doubt whether you're conscious or not. Do you?

Because you said this

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' too. :roll:

In response to this:

What does it mean to say consciohsness is an illusion? Im pretty sure that Im conscious.

It sounded like you were mocking Prishon's surety about being conscious.

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' too. — 180 Proof

Do you have doubts about whether you're conscious or not? Do you think it's possible you might not be conscious?

Maybe our guns do stave off tyranny, or would if they had to. — Srap Tasmaner

There's no maybe about it- they don't.

It depends on the gun. Civilians should be allowed to own and carry shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers. Anything else, only the military and police should own and carry.

I wouldn't have a problem with anti-vaxxers if they were anti-hospitalers as well.

Do you really believe that a tremendous amount of death, suffering, and economic loss would not be prevented if everyone was vaccinated? — hypericin

I was wondering this too. Also the converse: how much worse would it be right now if we had no vaccines at all? All the evidence points to: a lot worse.

So? Computer simulations are real things, you can buy them in the shops. Why would they present some problem for what to call them? — Isaac

Are simulations observer dependent? That is to say, is it possible for a simulation to exist in a universe with no minds?

I'm not being mean. I'm just floored that someone can think the question "what is it like to be me?" doesn't make sense. I suspect there's no argument in the world that can get you to change your mind, so I'll stop at this point.

It's not that I know or don't know. — Isaac

Are you seriously claiming you don't know what it's like to be you? You can't see the absurdity of that?

You don't know what it's like to be you? You can't grok that?