Mind is the brain?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a strange view.  There is mind in my bedroom (mine) but you wouldn't say my bedroom "has" a mind.  That would be a strange composition fallacy, and I've specifically dealt with it already, and very recently.  Also, stop the metacommentary-- what I am or am not uncomfortable with aren't known by you, and are irrelevant to the philosophical positions we're talking about.

Now you're just tossing out fallacies hoping one sticks.  

There are no physics which fit the definition of a comp system.  There are collections of physical systems which you choose to call a "comp system," but you haven't established the mechanism by which they would allow for subjective experience.

You are arguing, again, against the existence of computers.  The proposed mechanism is computation of representations based upon sense data.  The experience of an isolated system (connected to it's own sensory, rather than that of another) would be necessarily subjective, though we could probably engineer that out in a machine mind.  At least, it would be easier to give it some other type of experience than it would be to alter our own, at present.  

I object because you are clearly talking about a supervenient property, but have zero ideas or interest about why/how that property would supervene.

I'd point to material interaction and computation, both known and demonstrable, as to the possible why/how (ignoring that I don't think the term applies).   I have zero interest in the why and how, as I attempt to explain to you a theory concerned with nothing -other- than the why or how?   What sort of objection is that?

The difference is that a table owes its existence to us: it is made by us, for us, and it is whatever we say it is.  Mind is not such a thing.  Well, I say it's not such a thing, but you seem to be pretty happy to define it in your own terms.  However, no matter how much you beg the question in this way, there's still the problem of subjective experience in a physical world, and how the universe "knows" when one system needs to be experienced but another does not.

-Everything- is what we say it is Benny.  We're the only ones coming up with words.   We use the word table to describe things we didn't make as well. What's the problem of subjective experience in context, and why -would- the universe know anything?  

Your position is that matter configured in a way to perform particular functions is mind.  However, your view of mind requires a composite physical system, and you have absolutely no idea how a composite physical system is unified as a single flow of experience.  Where/what is that individual mind, physically speaking?  Is it a kind of field?

Fields....lol.  Benny, why on earth would you state, from a computer...to a person advocating comp mind, that we have no idea how a composite physical system is unified?  We obviously do have -some- idea as to how to accomplish that. Personally, I think that our mind is our brain, as I've repeatedly stated, so the question of where/what seems odd.