(March 19, 2015 at 4:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(March 19, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I'm not, while "technically" we "don't know". Our macro medicine is pointing to the safest bet, "You" are merely your brain in motion. It is really a bad idea to treat "you" as separate than your brain" It is a process, combined with fuel/material in a specific structure/and motion.I think you may need to re-read my post. I'm not disagreeing with you. My description is a flowery one of oblivion.
Quote:Ocham's razor basically says when you have competing claims trying to fill in a gap, the one with the least superfluous or no baggage is your most likely answer. And that is one of the core principles of modern science today. When you sit up an experiment you don't over complicate the data, formula, or control groups or methodology. Keep it as simple as possible.Again, I don't disagree. I would only say that there is a difference between discussing what we know or even what seems most likely given the information we have vs. opening the field to speculation, so long as it is clearly labeled as such.
Trying to separate you from your brain begs more questions than it would solve. Our consciousness is an outcome of those factors mentioned, those are specific in size and arrangement. Take those things away, the process cannot function.
Not ruling out future discoveries by pointing at the best bet even with what we don't currently know.
Again you don't cling to everything about the past just because we don't know everything. You best bet still has to go through the riggers of data and method. It is not a given, no, but we don't have to conclude a unicorn is our brain.
