(March 16, 2016 at 11:07 am)bennyboy Wrote:My point is:(March 16, 2016 at 9:52 am)little_monkey Wrote: Regardless, it doesn't change the argument.It totally changes it, because you end up with (3) brain activities = assumed to be mindful. This is not a very satisfying conclusion.
Quote:Qualia is not part of my vocabulary, as it is subjective, and many philosophers have different definitions. You'll end up in one of those perpetual semantic war. I'm talking science, I'll leave the philosophy to those who like to indulge in speculation that are never verifiable.Mind includes qualia. If you want to leave it out, then why are you studying mind at all?
(1) observable (smiling, breathing... etc) → mindful
(2) observable (smiling, breathing... etc) → brain activities
Therefore I have to conclude that,
(3) mindful = brain activities
That correlation does not depend on someone defining "qualia". My point is that the mind IS brain activities. I'm taken that you are saying that there is more to mind than just brain activities, or am I mistaken about your position?
Quote:Are those androids capable of self reflection? Can they dream? Can they create new thoughts not stored in their programs? These are "mindful" stuff, and when humans perform them in their mind- one can see observable results and correlation in brain activities.
Quote:Do androids dream of electric sheep? I don't know the answer. However, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they would.
So your point about android doesn't hold. You said, "But what happens when androids smile and breath? Now (1) is out the window."
If android don't dream, let alone they are incapable of creating new ideas, which was another thing I mentioned, then (1) proves my point, androids don't have a mind, even though they can mimic certain human activities.