Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I say mind is what a brain (of particular and peculiar complexity, embedded in a body, embedded in an enviroment) 'does' (in the same way that legs 'do' walking).

There's no profit in trying to examine walking (as event) apart from that which 'does' walking, that which walks. In the exact same way, there's no profit in examining mind apart from that which 'does' mind, that which thinks.

All the jargon in the world (physicalism, etc.) contributes not one thing to the conversation, which - properly - ought to be about how mind (self, 'I') arises or extends out, is maintained, remains coherent.

Plainly: there is no in-dwelling spirit, no dual-aspected substance, no ethereal conduit...there's just 'you', a finite, discrete, complex, on-going, recursive, organic, event...that's it...that's all.

Ain't that enough? Aren't 'you', as a dynamic ordering of chemicals and electricity, miraculous enough? Do we really need to be ensouled to be spectacular?

And: no, I didn't read the friggin' article either.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

I don't subscribe to the magazine, although I occasionally buy a copy at my local newsagent, so I haven't read the article. Is it any different from the usual dualist line of shit which is ordinarily peddled by navel-gazers with no grounding in basic science? If it isn't I already have quite a backlog of more interesting papers awaiting my attention in due course.

henry quirk wrote:Wholly natural: agreed.

But, till the brainiacs figure out 'how' brain does mind, also wholly mysterious (in a general, non-scientific, unjargoned, way, of course).

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

Well, it's wrong.

henry quirk wrote:Wholly natural: agreed.

But, till the brainiacs figure out 'how' brain does mind, also wholly mysterious (in a general, non-scientific, unjargoned, way, of course).

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Well, I have to say that I am impressed, once again, with your ability to created and sustain an argument. I find myself at a complete lost to find words to build a counter argument.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:the mind is assumed to be a series of "events" which leads the writer to question physicalism in the same way that Zeno's paradox is an artifacts of "Units"

Dalek Prime wrote:Brain stops, mind stops. Full stop.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Brain stops, mind stops. Full stop.

You're a man after my own heart, Dalek. Nothing beats the bloody obvious when it comes to getting to the point of a question. Rotting cadavers are not widely renowned for their remarkable mental powers.

Dalek Prime wrote:the simple solution is probably the closest to the truth.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:the simple solution is probably the closest to the truth.

Nearly always, mate. The only time when this may not be the case is when we have incomplete information about the nature of the question, in which case we tend to fill in the gaps with our own bullshit. Theists are the folk who set the benchmark for this practice.

"simplex sigillum veri"...the simple is the seal of the true.

When in doubt, assume that reality is exactly what it appears to be.

Obvious Leo wrote:Unfortunately in the course of my various physical ailments I've had to undergo a number of surgical procedures under general anaesthetic. I have a close friend who is an anaesthetist and she reckons general anaesthesia is precisely analogous to death. I'm more than willing to believe it because it is a complete cessation of any form of consciousness whatsoever, especially one's awareness of the passing of time. One minute a pretty nurse is asking you to count backwards from 100 and the very next minute a different pretty nurse is smiling at you and offering you a cup of tea. You could have been out of it for 10 hours or fifty years and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I assume death will be much the same without the pretty nurses.