[soledades]

"Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.

Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

There is some dogmatic insistence in GP, but equally dogmatic throwdowns on the other side of the argument are often passed over as trivially obvious.

I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight.

Onuses are on whomever says they exist ;)

[Timwi]

> "Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.

> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

Did you mean to say “matter” where you said “mind” and vice versa? It’s obviously the reverse of what you said; everything consists of matter, but what specific arrangements of matter you want to call a “mind” is obviously the abstraction.

Ockam’s razor is not really applicable here. Unless, that is, you want to ascribe something mythical to the mind that exists beyond matter — then it’ll trigger.

[altruios]

> "Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.

...wat?

> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

No: you have that reversed. Matter can be reasoned about, matter is a useful abstraction, e=mc^2. energy = matter*speed of light^2. No such formula exists for the mind.

> I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight.

Why is insistence a useful counter weight to factual arguments?