(September 15, 2015 at 3:40 am)robvalue Wrote: Defining "mind' and "consciousness" is a big problem, really.I didn't define mind as consciousness. I defined mind as 'that which produces consciousness.' you can also think of mind as the ontological equivalent to what you call 'self.' now the nature of that existence is debated, you can refer to that as a 'theory of mind.' if you think your mind is your body or the processes of it, then you are a materialist. if you think mind is an entity apart from your body and its processes, then you are either a dualist or an idealist. the argument aspires to refute both materialism and dualism leaving only monistic idealism.
It's conceivable that this whole reality is in fact a manifestation of another mind, representing an emergent property within it. Another unfalsifiable premise, but one which shows you can't come to definite conclusions about the nature of reality.
Bottom line is everything goes through at least one filter, and the integrity of that filter can never be fully tested. We don't ever actually experience "reality", we receive images and feelings generated by our brains.
however, it is important that the intent of the definition of mind is that it is compatible with any metaphysical view you have of mind, be it materialism, dualism, or idealism. thus it doesn't beg the question by siding with one of those from the start since it's trying to conclude one of those is true.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo