The mind is the immaterial sentience that separates us from the animals. God and humans have this.
That's quite a different definition to the two definitions you gave me earlier. Before, you had said that the mind is:
1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.
(1) is restricted to humans, contingent upon a physical brain, and therefore inconsistent with your later definition.
(2) is restricted to sentient organisms
(therefore, it doesn't explicitly separate us from animals), and does not cover entities that aren't organisms (which explicitly excludes God).
Later, you state that
Hallucinations prove the point that we see things only in minds.
Given your assorted definitions of "mind" that contradict one another, this statement will not compile. From a materialist perspective, all hallucinations establish is that there are things the brain experiences where in a certain state it interprets certain electrical signals as auditory, visual and other stimuli, and attempts to respond accordingly - however, that does not establish that those signals are representative of an objective reality.
This is where inductive reasoning comes in. The ability to continually cross-check against past experiences (which, incidentally, also provides a sanity-check against faulty memory) and sanity-check one's environment for consistency is one of the things that helps to determine reality from fantasy. In reality, I know that if I drop a heavy object on my foot, it hurts. If I place a cold cup of coffee in a microwave oven for a minute, I'll get a hot (if not ideal) cup of coffee. If I drop a rubber ball on the tiled floor, it will bounce. In reality, I do not possess the power to fly around the room by telekenesis no matter how hard I might "think" it.
These are the things that help to define that objective reality. It's essentially consistent in that it works according to a set of principles that are independent of any individual's perception of how it works. If you drop a ball 50 times, and it bounces, you do not expect that on the 51st occasion that when you drop it it will simply fall to the floor with a thud - or disappear through
the floor, turn into a swarm of butterflies, spontaneously combust, or spontaneously collapse upon itself to create a micro-black hole that takes you with it.
Using inductive reasoning we are able to make generalisations based upon those observations, but by that same token, our knowledge is thereby provisional
and subject to error-correction in the light of new data, should such arise.
And methodological naturalism - science - takes it to the next level, in determining by observation, experimentation, calculation, inference and most especially sanity-checking with other observations. And it has proven to be extremely powerful: the only reason you're able to share your idealistic notions with me, who am half a world away, is because of the science that has enabled us to communicate. Not to mention the science-based medicine that, in all probability, has enabled at least one of us to be born and live to an age where we'd be able to communicate with one another at all.
Everything else that we see is part of God's mind, that's why everyone else can see the same things.java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError
. Your "mind" class doesn't compile, "God" remains undefined, so all you have is an ill-defined and confused assertion as a purported explanation for objective experiences.
Hallucinations are a problem for materialism because someone is seeing something and it's very real to them. How can you objectively say their hallucination is wrong? It's all based on their own perception. Your own perception didn't see the same thing they saw, so reality would be subjective.
The statement "Your own perception didn't see the same thing they saw, so reality would be subjective" is an idealistic one. However, this is incompatible with the materialistic axiom that an objective reality exists: as such, within the context of materialism, it is a nonsensical statement. Rather than playing by materialism's rules, you're trying to insert an idealistic rule into a materialistic framework. This is like applying the rules of golf to soccer; it does not work, and is not valid.
If you want to poke holes in materialism, you have to address it on its own terms
by showing a logical contradiction or a tension between conclusions that arise from it. "Reality is subjective" is not a conclusion that arises from it, and given that it conflicts with the axiom that an objective reality exists, can be readily and summarily rejected.
Further, perception is not the end of the story anyway. Quite apart from the fact that we see, hear and feel only that which our senses are capable of picking up - for instance, sound waves only up to a few kHz, electromagnetic waves only within certain bands - what we do
perceive goes through a host of filters in order that our brains can interpret it. The consequence of this is that what we experience is much, much less than the full gamut of data that reality has to offer.