RE: On naturalism and consciousness
August 29, 2014 at 6:49 pm
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2014 at 6:54 pm by Surgenator.)
(August 29, 2014 at 2:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote:So we are using different definitions of mind. It's funny how you define the mind that only makes sense in your world view, and not in any world view like my definition. No wonder we're arguing in circles.(August 29, 2014 at 1:32 pm)Surgenator Wrote: ]Mind: the subjective experience of the interaction of ideas and percepts.
P.S. My definition of the mind is 'the faculty of consciousness and thought.' Please inform me if this definition is unsatisfactory for some reason. Otherwise, I will assume we are using this definition.
Quote:Fine, a physical(-like) brain. Happy now.(August 29, 2014 at 1:32 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I'll give you the physical monism answer so that you might have a better idea of what I'm asking. Physical monism can be falsified if there is an observations that cannot be linked back to physical processes. Good examples would be: telekinesis, telepathy, or any other physic powers. Also, mind over matter phenomena like a hologram existing outside of the holodeck as depicted on a Star Trek episode.A physical brain? I wonder why you felt the need to qualify the word "brain" in this way?
The existence of a mind is not such an example, because we have never seen a mind existing outside of a physical brain.
Quote:What you haven't asked, and should have, is this: is the framework in which the brain resides really a physical monism, or is this view of things a symbolic representation? Do the neurons in the brain exist as more than an idea? How about the atoms? How about the QM particles?I'm not sure why your asking me these questions. You already know what I'm going to say. The framework is really represents physical monism. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Quote:What's the difference between a gazillion QM particles vibrating in space and a brain?The types and their arrangement.
I noticed that you didn't provide a better answer to my question on falsifiability. I provided the observations that would disprove mine. Where is yours?
Just to make sure. this is my definition of reality: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist." Please provide yours.