> Saying mind and thinking can exist without any physical basis doesn't make it possible either It doesn’t need to be made possible because it logically is. (B

> Saying mind and thinking can exist without any physical basis doesn't make it possible either It doesn’t need to be made possible because it logically is. (Both approaches are possible, that is not even an argument.) But not only is it possible, I’d argue that in fact it is less contrived because there is one less construct (that “physical basis”) to will into being from nothingness. > in a very real sense we clearly know quite a lot about the world around us This is a good illustration of how everything looks like a nail to the hammer of STEM. I am a little sleepy to continue this argument properly, but while we (with our minds) have created some models that enabled us to do some things (which things, notably, effect our minds in every instance) there is no knowing of even the basic fundamentals about the world around us. Physics cannot be a sole tool for achieving such knowledge because questions such as “what actually exists” are outside of its purview—e.g., the idea of mind as the territory and perceived time-space as a map/interface is not at odds with physics (which in this scenario, while not under spotlight anymore, would along with other natural sciences still be recognized as a tool for effecting desired changes in the territory). Sadly, core philosophy, which purview these questions do fall under, is currently on the sidelines.