I'm not sure what use it is to have any belief or disbelief over whether or not someone else has a "Mind." Personally I see no value in having a belief or disbelief even in my own Mind.
Sure, we can say I have evidence to believe such a thing exists, but if belief itself is a product of this Mind, or just of thinking itself and what I'm capable of reasoning, then I run the risk of completely detaching myself from reality based on any belief regarding this whatsoever.
I have flirted with Solipsist philosophy when I was younger, but I came to the conclusion that this not only makes my personal philosophising less significant and substantial, but it might just be an overbearing conceptual manifestation of the ridiculously unavoidable ego-trip that I was on at the time.
I might be stubborn on this one, but I don't even accept that there is such a thing as Mind in and of itself. When I use this word, it's usually casual and referring to the totality of the brain's conscious and unconscious functions. But I'm determined not to get lost in the grand abstractions of things.
The map is not the territory.
You and me may bump heads on this one, but I see things like this as a problem FOR philosophy. What I mean by that is... I have a keen interest on making philosophy appealing for people. That doesn't mean 'easily digestible' or just convenient for them, and I'm not suggesting that all philosophers need to fall in line with this, but at least to remain grounded wherever possible.
After your overview, you have an Introduction to The Problem. What problem? Where's the problem? Where's the solution? What insights are, or can be, gained? And are you prepared to pay a huge social cost when you bring this up to others?
Have you ever turned someone off from philosophy? Because I have, and I did this by getting lost in and pushing those grand abstractions that were no longer rooted in reality. Thinking defined by yet more thinking, no feedback from nature, no practical application, etc.
Thanks for the food for thought. Followed.
