A Conscious Universe

[The Grand Nudger]

1) You define mind AS brain function-- not a product of it. But you haven't defined exactly what it is about the brain that "IS" mind, except in very vague terms. Is it the information itself? Is it the sensation of a particular brain part firing? Is it a field generated by the electromagnetic fluctuations in neurons as signals travel through them? What is it, other than a general wave toward the brain, and a strong feeling that the mind must be "in there somewhere"?

You're waiting for definitions and explanations that are truncated by considering mind -as- brain. I have defined exactly what about brain -is- mind, physical structures capable of and engaged in computation. In my explanation, information is a description of the state of a physical structure, this is all that the term information refers to, architecturally. I'd wager that any particular sensation is many "parts firing" - not necessarily by description of function, but by my experienced depth and breadth of function (and how others report the experience). It is the -state- of a nueron, any-field- is a carrier for a signal (again, same way it works in any pc, in principle). It is what I have continually described it as, that you ask makes me doubt that any part of my explanations have sunk it -at all-. Thats my explanation, anyway...I don't know that it's done that way, I can only see how it could be done by reference to objects we see doing this sort of work to a similar or identical effect as described. I don;t really need to wonder about anything more fundamental, lurking around under the surface, if this work can be accomplished here, at our level of observation and interaction.

2) It is impossible to use your definition of the mind outside the context of animal brains. You cannot, for example, look at any other physical system, and know whether it is experiencing qualia or not.

-and we can't know from animal brains either...unless we reference observed effect. There's very little we can say about -our own- with any credibility once we remove the metrics by which we judge these relationships in any other context...which seem, in this particular context, to be unsuitable to you here regardless of how suitable you find them elsewhere.

In fact, in a philosophical sense, you cannot establish the existence of mind outside your own experience.

If you'd like to go that route, sure....but I'd caution against proposing knowledge and then defending that knowledge against criticism by invoking the solipsism defense. If I can't know such and such, neither can you.

It seems to me that an objective world view, largely in vogue because of scientific objective observation, is incompatible with a super-important "thing" that you cannot even identify.

What thing, and is there a requirement for anyone to be able to identify any conceptual thing? A requirement of complete knowledge?

Is it really correct to say, "I denounce solipsism because it's a pointless position that lends little to an understanding in life,"

For me, yes - you'll have to decide your own answer for yourself. What do you think, throwing your chips in with the solipsists on me Benny? I don;t want to hear anything else about the fundamental units of the universe if you are - you're done, fin, you have nothing to communicate to anyone, if there is indeed anyone to communicate it to, or a universe exterior, for that matter.

and then follow that arbitrary assumption through a chain of ideas to the brain as creator of mind?

I don't think that brain creates mind...so I guess you'll have to ask someone else? Like I said, nothing sunk in. Maybe that's why we're having inexplicable disagreements?

Can't the brain/mind be an expression of the underlying mechanic of objects...which are themselves an expression of the underlying mechanics of ideas? Why this need to cut out the middle man for mind? Not satisfied with the photons?
-of course not.........

(also...you ask alot of questions that you don't seem to be prepared to answer for your own framework - got an ETA on that "how do ideas do ideas to ideas" question I asked? No amount of me being wrong would make your position more credible, no shortage of explanation from me would excuse such a shortage from yourself. Bonus points if you can explain computation without reference the the behavior and characteristics of physical objects - also.....you'll be very, very famous. To my knowledge, no one has ever built an idea machine....(though we have managed to build seemingly physical quantum computers) imagine the applications of a sizeless computer! - hell, we could do away with our meatsuits and let our consciousness float as point particles (ala photons)...yes?)

-if it isn't clear, I think I can give you your underlying idea world and it won't remove the brain as mind comment in the least......I actually feel that your framework would support a physical comp mind (provided that I say "and physical stuff is just a particular interaction of ideas/information" - and especially since it does not look to redefine computation in the least, any existing example of comp holds for this framework of yours). Gratz, you're still a biological automaton..and mind isn't all that important to the issue. That's if I just conceded for sake of argument, mind you...I still don't think you've constructed a very solid framework-

Let me ask a very simple and general question. In your framework...why do you and I need computers and an internet connection to have this conversation, fundamentally? What is it about our "idea stuff" that requires this other "idea stuff" in order to interact and form a third set of "idea stuff"? What necessity is there, for starters, for this middle step?
(you already know my answer, the human voice only travels so far - described by resistance in air, etc...we possess no ESP organ (if such transmission is possible), the comps and internet act as physical states and carriers...on and on)