(March 16, 2016 at 9:52 am)little_monkey Wrote:It totally changes it, because you end up with (3) brain activities = assumed to be mindful. This is not a very satisfying conclusion.(March 16, 2016 at 12:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: (1) begs the question. It should read: "assumed to be mindful"
Regardless, it doesn't change the argument.
Quote:Mind includes qualia. If you want to leave it out, then why are you studying mind at all?Quote:You haven't explained how you have ascertained that the physical structure sitting in your lab (i.e. the person) actually does experience qualia.
Qualia is not part of my vocabulary, as it is subjective, and many philosophers have different definitions. You'll end up in one of those perpetual semantic war. I'm talking science, I'll leave the philosophy to those who like to indulge in speculation that are never verifiable.
Quote:Do androids dream of electric sheep? I don't know the answer. However, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they would.Quote:Now, in the case of people, this is a very easy assumption to make. But what happens when androids smile and breath?Are those androids capable of self reflection? Can they dream? Can they create new thoughts not stored in their programs? These are "mindful" stuff, and when humans perform them in their mind- one can see observable results and correlation in brain activities.