(April 5, 2016 at 8:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: Is this how you handle every competing proposition to your own notion of matter-mind? I'm starting to see how you managed to come to that flight of fancy now. You can;t tell the difference between a cantelope, a ferrarri, a pc, or a golf club. Things must all be the same stuff. Matter-mind. Matter-melon. Matter-9 iron, and ofc none of these are dinstinct from each other, none are specific. So, its Matter-mind/melon/9 iron/computer/ -all of the stuff happening-. All properties of matter, nothing specific, nothing discrete.Look, either a whole system is mind, or a part of it is. If you cannot demonstrate that the whole system is, then it must be assumed that part of it is. If we want to understand the essence of mind, we'll have to establish what about a particular physical system allows for mind. Waving at the brain doesn't work, because not all brain systems are connected to the subjective experience of ideas. You might as well wave at your bedroom and say, "Yep. . . evidence is it's in there somewhere, for sure."
Quote:WE actually don't see things that way, but you should already know that. There appear to be a great many comp systems on earth that we neither designed nor manufactured. OFC, the contention of CTM is that we and other sentient life are among the most robust examples. The division line is specific, refer to the definition, when you finally allow for identity in the world.And this says exactly what about why material systems allow for subjective experience?
