RE: Seeing red
January 22, 2016 at 10:31 pm
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2016 at 10:34 pm by Angrboda.)
(January 22, 2016 at 10:18 pm)bennyboy Wrote:I wasn't quoting the dictionary as an authority, so it's perfectly appropriate as a starting point.(January 22, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
mind
noun
1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
In this instance, the robot drivers would have intentionality, but not mind. For the universe to have mind, it would have to be able to have intentionality about its own existence; this is unlikely. The same for molecules and atoms as they lack a means of representing their environment internally.
Dictionaries mean nothing in philosophical discussion. You should know that.
(January 22, 2016 at 10:18 pm)bennyboy Wrote: What's the difference in intentionality, in your opinion, between a human brain and a galaxy?A galaxy appears to lack a means of representing things. It's possible that it is forming a representational system that I simply do not comprehend, but then the onus of supporting that notion would be on the person suggesting that it does. You've suggested that mind is endemic to matter. To date you don't appear to have supported that with anything but speculation. Speculation is fine, but it doesn't establish anything. Regardless, that form of representing things would be entirely separate from the type of material representational systems which I suggest are essential to mind.