A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. Possibly we are no more then a complex AI machine, with a cpu, camera lense, recording device and hologram device reflecting into a secondary inner camera?:) Brendan > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:32:16 +0000 > From: blroadies@xxxxxxxxx > To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [Wittrs] Re: How mind works > > > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote: > > I am not asserting that we can look into your brain and see what you > see > > and nothing I am saying about consciousness depends on that. > > I thought you were asserting a total physical dependence on mind which > would mean an account of mind in physical terms...but if you are simply > asserting.. > > > On the other hand, if we are accounting for how you see anything at > all > > we will want to know how those various instrumentalities work, > > then I see nothing a bit controversial. Your answers are in a perceptual > psychology text. Then again, you do have a philosophical position.. to > wit.. > > > Once more we see that you are invoking a dualist model, > > Yes. I speak of brain and of mind. I know of no language game that > allows me to intergrate them. You hold to physicalism and characterize > me as > > > supposing that to speak about mind we must be speaking of something > > that is entirely different and forever set apart from the physical. > > Different but not set apart. No brain, no mind, remember. Our difference > lies in my reluctance to use the concept of "substance" and make a > so-called ontological move. Time and again you said, "one must." I don't > accept that imperative. > > > consciousness can be explained in functional terms vis a vis brains > > just what is being explained? How is memory, desire, greed explained by > saying it is a function of the brain? > > > If you agree with my point about existential dependence > > then the only question remaining is why you think it is unintelligible > > to speak about brains as the source of minds! > > "Source". You keep on coming up with new words. Does "source" mean > basis, in other words, no brain, no mind? If so, no one on this List > diagrees, I trust. > > > Of course not! We are our brains in one sense and not our brains in > another. > > Sounds like Dualism. There is a sense in which we aren't material. > > > You absolutely don't want to acknowledge anything like a causal role > > for what is physical vis a vis minds and yet you say you > > don't deny that minds are existentially dependent on brains. > > Not all dependence is causal. Your smile (your example) is dependent up > your facial muscles. But your muscles don't cause the smile. > > Question: In your philosophy, how do you distinguish (if in fact you do) > between a Tourette's patient's foul language and a actor playing the > part of a T patient? > > > This, my friend, is a difference without a difference. > > Having thus agreed to the existential dependence formulation > > there really isn't a lot left to argue about except some turns of > phrase. > > My friend you fail to see the critical difference which work I with > every day concerning the causal possibility of pain. If you treat a pain > patient as suffering from something caused by his brain, rather than > something he is living, then you cripple him and significantly decrease > his change for recovery > > > > > > > WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 > TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf > 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz > 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza > GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs > YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ > FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009 > _________________________________________________________________ Brrr... its getting cold out there Find someone to snuggle up with http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fdating%2Enz%2Emsn%2Ecom%2Fchannel%2Findex%2Easpx%3Ftrackingid%3D1048628&_t=773568480&_r=nzWINDOWSliveMAILemailTAGLINES&_m=EXT