Extreme empiricism claims we shouldn’t believe in what we can’t observe. If the mind is unobservable, should we disbelieve it exists? What if we could see the mind? What would that be like?
NOTES
- A1: From Extreme Empiricism
- 1. We should only believe in what is observable (in principle, by our equipment, etc.)
- 2. The mind is in no way observable
- ∴3. We shouldn’t believe in the mind
- Support for premise 2
- A1: observation requires physicality
- 1. Perception requires sense organs, a thing to be sensed, and possibly a medium
- 2. All of these are physical
- ∴3. No non-physical thing can be observed
- O1: begs the question that all observation must be like ours
- A2: the mind is first person
- O1: mind-vision
- Camera that can capture 100% of your brain structure and activity in real time
- Interprets it into what that person is seeing
- Then projects it onto a screen
- R1: the mind is never observed; this is just an interpretation of the brain
- O1: mind-vision
- O2: you directly observe your own mind
- R1: this isn’t shared with others, so we can’t check the veracity
- O1: content of perception is dubitable, not the existence of the perception
- O2: in order to get agreement from others, we must rely on our experience of them
- O3: verification assumes others are having perceptual experience
- R2: Illusion objection
- O1: illusion is nothing but psychological state
- R1: this isn’t shared with others, so we can’t check the veracity
- A1: observation requires physicality
- Corollary: The only thing we can be sure exists is the mind
- The existence of the brain and body assumes the reliability (and therefore existence) of sense perception (i.e., the mind)