(March 29, 2016 at 11:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That being said, there has been a lot of very interesting science going on around mind in the last 20 years, so I certainly don't want you guys to think I don't value that. The problem I have is when it comes to assertions about exactly what causes mind and why-- I don't find any current views, physical or otherwise, very convincing.
I think the consensus that the mind is the brain is more of a pragmatic result than a theoretical one. We assign the identity because for the most part it works as an explanation of the phenomenon, including its evolution, whereas most other theories are non-starters. It doesn't mean we couldn't be wrong, but I think you hold the mind-brain paradigm to an unusually high standard of evidence. Things like the closure of induction and the philosophical understanding of the link between cause and effect pose similarly insurmountable hurdles, yet I don't think you place those problems in the same category. In short, I think you make an exception of the mind-brain problem in your standards.