Notable Brights like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett actively deny the existence of the mind,
I think it's a little strong to say that. I think they'll concede that when people talk about the mind they're talking about something. That is, "the mind is whatever we mean when we say 'mind'." I'd say their view is that the mind is due to nothing more than physical brain activity -- electrical signals along neurons, neurotransmitters, etc. -- and nothing additional is involved.
Perhaps it would be fair to say they deny the existence of any additional "mind substance"; that is, their metaphysics contains only the accepted entities of ordinary physics (known particles, known fields) and they think it is not necessary to enlarge it in any way to be able to explain, in principle, whatever is going on that people call the "mind".
no subject
I think it's a little strong to say that. I think they'll concede that when people talk about the mind they're talking about something. That is, "the mind is whatever we mean when we say 'mind'." I'd say their view is that the mind is due to nothing more than physical brain activity -- electrical signals along neurons, neurotransmitters, etc. -- and nothing additional is involved.
Perhaps it would be fair to say they deny the existence of any additional "mind substance"; that is, their metaphysics contains only the accepted entities of ordinary physics (known particles, known fields) and they think it is not necessary to enlarge it in any way to be able to explain, in principle, whatever is going on that people call the "mind".