(March 19, 2016 at 6:55 am)bennyboy Wrote:(March 18, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Your problem is that mental activity -- i.e., mind -- has been observed, via MRI experiments which, uh, correlate areas of the brain with specific cognitive processes.
As to value of answering "philosophical" questions about things which aren't objectively observable, if you want to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, go right ahead. You will still need to convince me, and no doubt others, of the value of your obscure musings.
This is a view typical of material monism, but there's a problem. Mind is subjective, and you are talking about objective measurements.
You asked for material metrics, and when they're provided, you complain that I'm providing them?
(March 19, 2016 at 6:55 am)bennyboy Wrote: You insist that those objective measurements ARE the same as the subjective experiences, but this is the exact definition of begging the question. There's no point finding out if mind is brain function if you are defining mind in terms of brain function-- blood flow, neural activity, brain waves, or otherwise.
You're ignoring the point that we can correlate those physical expressions of activity with both brain-mapping and reported subjective experiences ("I'm think of that day back in 67 when...")
Do you think that the data found in fMRI processing is random and unconnected with thinking?
(March 19, 2016 at 6:55 am)bennyboy Wrote: This thread will just be your position and mine restated a hundred times, with no forward progress. That's because we are operating on different assumptions-- specifically, you are operating on a greater body of assumptions than I am, and thus you have a narrower view of what mind may/may not be.
While I agree that we probably won't come to any agreement, I disagree that my position rests on more assumptions. It's unsurprising you'd allege that, though.