(March 23, 2016 at 6:42 am)bennyboy Wrote:(March 23, 2016 at 4:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: So it seems you're basically saying what I'm saying with different words. Remind me why we disagree?I think the difference is in what assumptions we make, and the degree to which we are willing to extend them. I'd say I'm at one end-- I'm very suspicious of extending givens about mind into general rules, especially at the scientific level-- it smacks of begging the question. You're in the middle it seems-- acknowledging the philosophical difficulties but asking what else we are going to do if we want to move forward in a sensible way. Rhythm's at the other end-- he's willing to make philosophical assumptions about mind based on a computational model, and define terms in such a way that extending them into non-human systems is not only acceptable, but pretty much a given.
Studying that stuff is entering uncharted territories. I'm not an expert in that field, I can only relate to physics. So if I'm making any historical comparison, the study of mind/brain is like the year 1900 in physics when Planck discovered that energy was quantized. No one knew at the time what was going to happen, how physics was going to unfold and the shift in our thinking it would demand. And after 116 years, there are still debates of what QM really means. So, I cannot imagine how this mind/brains study will really turn out.