On naturalism and consciousness

[bennyboy]

Are you disagreeing with my statement? Does beach sand possess "mind"? How about a spool of thread? Pencils? Under a "traditional" theory of mind, or under a computational theory, none of these things would possess "mind". There's really no difference in this regard. That's all I'm trying to explain.

I don't think the sand possesses mind as a singular entity, but at the subatomic and atomic levels, there would still be mind there (IF single-substance, dual-property is true).

With regards to observation - there's that custom box you've built, eh? If observation can't help us we're in deep shit - as that means that logic and reason can't help us either (we're quickly running out of tools, aren't we).

I think observation is very helpful. It helps us make formulas about things, build bridges and computers, and allows us the power to indirectly (but very greatly) change our life experience.

It's a permanent unknown the way you have conceived of it.

I don't see any other way to conceive it that conforms to basic logic. If I'm trying to use observation to make inferences about observation, I end up with a nasty circle, and circles are the enemy of logic.

A moot point. Nothing about considering mind to -be- it's physical correlates invalidates observation...cmon man. I appreciate the dramatic flair - but that's a bit much...but just to be a pain in the as...so what if it did? Whats the worst that could happen, it would be unknowable? No problem, it already is- according to you.

The problem here is that by defining the subjective in objective terms, you might end up with results that don't accord with reality. You might, for example, end up with a robot that you assume and believe to experience qualia, but which in fact does not. And all the scientific articles and reviews, all the confirmation of one observer with the results of another, won't change that fact.

(if you'd like to explain that position, about mind and correlates invalidating observation, btw, I'd love to see how you got from a to b on that one, despite not being able to sign onboard)

As soon as words get defined in a way that begs the question, we already know that our results are going to fit our world view. This is not a process of inquiry, but of semantic reflection-- the logical equivalent of a dog happily chasing its own tail.

We all criticize X-tians for doing this. "What's God? He's the all-powerful being described in the Bible. What's the Bible? It's the infallible proof of the existence of God." It's a fun enough game to play if you like that kind of thing-- but it thwarts any sincere investigation into whether an actual God could or does exist.