Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

That's a bit presumptious, especiallly since that would not be my objection. I agree that alterations in the brain produce changes in consciousness. That does not exclude the possibility that changes in mind produce changes in the brain.

How is that an objection?

Using the oft-repeated comparison - hardware generates software. Changes made in hardware effect alterations in software. Changes made in software also result in changes in hardware. That does not mean that software has an independent existence and hardware states are simply representative of the software. The fact that hardware generates software remains unchanged. So, you see, the possibility that changes in mind produce changes in brain has not been excluded, it is very much a part of it.

True. I believe that some problems are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. For example, determining whether a number is irrational or not. The mind-body problem falls into that category.

I've seen this fallacy being employed incidentally, but never stated explicitly. This is called poisoning the well - you start by the assumption that the mind-body problem is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry and then you can reject any scientific explanation given on that basis.

You're confusing essential properties with accidental properties. Anything that exists has both. A particular person can be standing still or running, happy or sad, and still be the same person. The mind is not different in this regard. It's contents can vary and it can operate on the brain in various capacities and still be the same mind. Nevertheless consciousness (which is itself only one particular state of mind) does have a specific nature: intentionality. While the contents of consciousness vary, this feature of consciousness is always present.

Actually, I made no such distinction. Even the essential property of a mind finds expression through brain and the change in expression of intentionality would indicate a change in consciousness itself. And if that change can be effected through the brain, then it indicates that consciousness itself is dependent on the brain - not just expressed through it.

---

I also have personal knowledge of the existence of my mind-- something you cannot have, unless you want to define mind in purely physical terms (i.e. brain function).

The only way you can have personal knowledge of the existence of your own mind is if you define it in physical terms. To put it another way, unless you define mind in physical terms, all you'd have is a strong belief in the existence of your own mind - a belief that is not justified and therefore cannot be regarded as knowledge.