(April 14, 2016 at 12:08 pm)ohreally Wrote:(April 6, 2016 at 5:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The strawman is that you keep talking about physical objects and sayng they don't have mind. I've never said they do.
As for the rest: look, if I ask how an engine converts chemical energy to motion, you won't just wave at the engine, and say "There it is." You'll explain about the burning process, show how fuel is regulated, show how the pistons work. You'll show how the sparkplugs ignite the fuel, and how a feedback loop continually charges the battery to allow the process to continue, for the most part, indefinitely. You'll identify what part of the engine does exactly what role in the process, and will do so happily and with ease.
My question for you is very simple: what brain systems and functions are you calling "comp mind," and how do they work, even vaguely? How do they allow for mind? And, specifically, do parts of the brain not really involved in processing, like the blood in the veins or the cerebral spinal fluide, get called part of "mind" or not?
I don't get how your analogy of an engine is any better. It seems like every argument you make against a comp mind can be applied here as well just as effectively.
What you said isn't in accord with what you quoted.