On naturalism and consciousness

[Surgenator]

Yes the desk I see is really there, because I can test it with my other sences that are independent of each other.

You are stuck in this idea that "I can only have experience, then all is experience."

No I'm not. I'm stuck on the idea that everything I can know as a human being is based on experience, and that the source of those experiences cannot be determined.

It can be infered! Do you not understand how you can reasons things out?

You are correct that ideas exist in a mind. The mind is a set of processes in our brains. A process is a set of interactions between neurons. So whats the problem?

The problem is that you are asserting as reality a model which cannot explain the mind, cannot identify what physical systems do/do not have a mind, and does not include mind in any part of its calculus of mechanical interactions. The problem is you keep saying, "Mind is X," when you have no means of proving this to be the case.

And I disagree. We might be using different definitions of mind. What definition are you using?

No, we are not bringing in family members. That could too easily lead to personal attacks and away from the discussion. Come up with another example.

huh? I'm talking about the relationship between how you actually experience people you know well, and the physical "reality" of a human being that your model of choice actually supports.

If you want to bring up human relationships, then just say a "human relationship like a mother and her son." I do not like using terms like "your mother" because it can lead to an emotion response rather than to a logical one.

The physical model does a poor job of explaining your experience of humans and relationships between them. Pick another person you know very well, and the point still holds. So go ahead, pick a person, and describe the relationship between your experience of them and the physical description of what they "really" are.

No, a physical model does a pretty damn good job of explaining human relationships.

The only fundamental truth is that experiences are experienced. The default position for a model of reality is that this capacity for experience is the only reality.

So solipsism is the default model of reality, right? Because you can't prove you're not hallucinating all of your experiences. How do you go from solipsism to idealist monism? Did you infer a third body from your experiences? Did you weigh the probability of a third person against the probability of a hallucination? What is stopping someone from infering the existence of an inanimated object (like a desk) from their experiences? I would really like to know.

Being through this, ANN is a workable model. The details are still being actively researched by people way more qualified than me.

Nope. Redefining mind in physicalist terms is just begging the question.

I'm not redifining the mind. I'm explaining how it can arise using physicalist terms.

Nobody has shown that an ANN actually experiences qualia,

Did you miss the part about people are working on it? Do not conflate "haven't shown" with "cannot show."

or could.

But it now seems that you're sure that it impossible to show. Please explain how this is so without a long winded tirade that boils down to: idealistic monism is true, so you are wrong. Because you haven't shown that idealistic monism is true yet.

On a seperate note, another requirement of a good model is that it has to be falsifiable. What test can be done where the results would be inconsistent with idealistic monism?