(December 24, 2009 at 8:17 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:theVOID Wrote:As for why i feel confident with my position:From all positions to choose from, I too feel most confident with the naturalistic position simply because the other positions, most notably the supernatural position, have no predictive and explaining power at all. That said, I think my stance is more accurately phrased as "body constitutes mind" for the brain is not separate from the body and the rest of our nervous system and the physical level does not equate to the conceptual level.
I consider the mind being an abstract of the physical brain the most likely scenario due largely to occams Razor, that being the mind brain relationship does not require an assumption where as the opposing position requires the introduction of a separate state of reality (supernatural) in which a process of mind could take place. So this is a case of choosing the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions and not one based on any empirical certainty, though even empirically the absence of evidence for anything supernatural as opposed to the evidence for mind/brain correlation lends strong credence to the latter and none to the former.
I see it more like a computer with the senses and limbs etc being peripherals, the physical body like the motherboard and the brain like the CPU and RAM which is doing the calculations for the OS/Mind - buit i gota admit it's a super simplistic analogy.
.