On naturalism and consciousness

[bennyboy]

This is the reason why we're arguing past each other. We can't even agree on definitions. The rest of the discussion if mostly pointless until we do. I'm not gonna accept your definitions because they're inherently biased. I recommend we use mine.

Nope. I use the words as they are meant. You use the words as they would mean given your world view is true. I won't accept any definition of consciousness, mind or qualia that don't explicitly define them in terms of subjective experience-- because that's what ALL people mean by those words, except the ones trying to argue for physical monism.

I have shown these in earlier post. The fact we were using different definitions may explain your lack of understanding my points. I may have not address your last bullet point, because I cannot figure out what your saying there. Nevertheless, continuing this topic is pointless until we agree on definitions.

You think because I disagree with you that I cannot have understood you. That's arrogance on your part, but forgivable because most people in a debate feel the same way.

I don't think this way. I think our world views are a natural byproduct of the philosophical assumptions we've made, many of which are arbitrary, and most of which are unnecessary except for psychological reasons. We've both accepted the assumption that not-self exists, and that our experiences are about things not of the self. You've taken the additional step of believing that the things which are not-self are of a particular nature. I'm not willing to take this additional step, because it seems to me that the method of drawing conclusions-- the experience of thinking-- is at odds with the objective nature which you assume.

I agree that we are done. So if you like you can take your last shots if you like, but unless you have new ideas to add, there's little more to say. I'm satisfied that I've expressed my own position clearly enough, and comfortable with the fact that you disagree with it.