(June 14, 2013 at 4:06 pm)little_monkey Wrote:In my opinion, as much can be learned about how the mind works by a subjective observation of one's own mind as by imaging brain function. You can study every pigment, and analyze every speck of paint, on a canvas, and not arrive at an understanding of why the Mona Lisa is a great work of art.(June 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: One approach to this is simply to say that mind is brain function. However, saying repeatedly and confidently that things are equivalent doesn't make them so, and science has a lot more assumptions than proof right now.
It's a lot better if we postulate that "mind is brain function". It favors a scientific investigation. Afterall, science deal with how things function. If we want to understand more about mind/brain, then the scientific method is better equipped than philosophy. If you postulate that mind is separate ( Dualism), that it can't be investigated by empirical method, then what will you say after that?
This is because all the objects we study meaningfully actually have no existence outside concept. A brain doesn't exist; what exists is a bunch of particles, arranged in space in varying densities. It is the experiencing mind which formulates ideas about experiences, and identifies some of those particles as a singular concept worth investigating.
