(August 19, 2016 at 10:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think we're going to have to just disagree on this one. I do think that scientific hypothesis, in this field, currently....have explanatory value. A Theory of Mind (in the scientific sense) will either emerge from the contenders or will not, and we'll just keep looking...but what we have moves those chains. It may not explain it all, it may even be wholly wrong, but it gives us a piece to work with.That's fine, but nobody is arguing against science or the value of hypotheses.
I'm arguing that until we know on what level of organization the elements of mind supervene, something like the OP could be taken seriously-ish.
Quote:You've been asking me what -allows- for mind, qualia, psychogony, psychology. Both of us, it seems...say brain, to one extent or another. I think that what we do know -could-, not necessarily does, but -could- explain what we desire to know. I appreciate that you wonder if there's more, or think that there must be more - in order to explain the phenomena we both agree exists and is real in a tangible and meaningful sense.It's not that I think there's more. It's that I think much, much less may be required.
Quote: An unknown, or barely known quantity or quality that might be rationally inferred, directly or indirectly tested...but not - heretofore, described. I wonder that too. It's certainly possible, and would resolve some paradox, in specific instances, for sure. I can only say that we'll cross that bridge when we get there.It boggles the mind trying to imagine how we ever COULD get there. But I doubt Newton imagined computers playing League of Legends, so. . . who knows?
