RE: Mind is the brain?
March 12, 2016 at 10:07 pm
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2016 at 10:07 pm by bennyboy.)
*Someone called my name?*
The problem for a material monism is this: it completely disregards, and has no capacity for discussing or explaining, qualia. Qualia are the "what it's like" of experience-- what it's like to taste pineapple, for example, cannot be explained by any observations outside the direct experience of tasting pineapple.
When we talk about mind, 99% of people are talking about what it's like to think and feel. Materialists are more likely to frame this in terms of information input, processing and output, and will define mind without regard to what it's like to think and feel. The reason for this is obvious: we cannot see qualia, touch them, measure them, or even demonstrate that they exist. In fact, I can only assume that other sentient beings exist at all-- I cannot really know whether my wife experiences qualia.
In other words, all so-called "evidence" depends on assumptions which beg the question. First, that what seems to be must be: my desk seems to be solid, so it must be. However, the current state of science is NOT, in fact, consistent with that idea. Science itself demonstrates that there is a massive disconnect between how we experience things and what they "really" are. In other words, we have evidence that evidence is unreliable in establishing an accurate view of reality.
It's fine to shout (literally, in little_monkey's case) that mind is the functioning of the brain. However, I'd like to see any method for establishing whether any physical system does or does not experience qualia. Does a robot, for example, know "what it's like" to encounter an orange cone? What, EXACTLY, is it about the brain that makes it capable of experiencing qualia? Other than the assumption that things basically are what they seem (which is obviously busted thanks to Science), what reason do I have to think that ANY physical system, including people's brains, experience qualia?
And if I can't even establish that others even HAVE minds, then what, exactly, is all the evidence about? Nothing real-- just philosophical assumptions.
The problem for a material monism is this: it completely disregards, and has no capacity for discussing or explaining, qualia. Qualia are the "what it's like" of experience-- what it's like to taste pineapple, for example, cannot be explained by any observations outside the direct experience of tasting pineapple.
When we talk about mind, 99% of people are talking about what it's like to think and feel. Materialists are more likely to frame this in terms of information input, processing and output, and will define mind without regard to what it's like to think and feel. The reason for this is obvious: we cannot see qualia, touch them, measure them, or even demonstrate that they exist. In fact, I can only assume that other sentient beings exist at all-- I cannot really know whether my wife experiences qualia.
In other words, all so-called "evidence" depends on assumptions which beg the question. First, that what seems to be must be: my desk seems to be solid, so it must be. However, the current state of science is NOT, in fact, consistent with that idea. Science itself demonstrates that there is a massive disconnect between how we experience things and what they "really" are. In other words, we have evidence that evidence is unreliable in establishing an accurate view of reality.
It's fine to shout (literally, in little_monkey's case) that mind is the functioning of the brain. However, I'd like to see any method for establishing whether any physical system does or does not experience qualia. Does a robot, for example, know "what it's like" to encounter an orange cone? What, EXACTLY, is it about the brain that makes it capable of experiencing qualia? Other than the assumption that things basically are what they seem (which is obviously busted thanks to Science), what reason do I have to think that ANY physical system, including people's brains, experience qualia?
And if I can't even establish that others even HAVE minds, then what, exactly, is all the evidence about? Nothing real-- just philosophical assumptions.