Hey Alva Noe is a Professor of Philosophy at UC Berkeley. Just 'cause all the guys in white coats don't understand philosophical argumentation, no reason to call him a cowboy!
; have you forgotten the content of our having gone over this particular matter before? I would think--if you were to think back on it in an effort to recall
--that there would be no reason to appeal to Dr. Noe's position in academia; that's well understood. To simply brush off points within the counter evidences against a portion of his conclusion (1)
with the assertion that those in the sciences do not adequately enough understand the positions he
has argued, is a very meaningless gesture--unless it is backed up with materially decisive evidence
I will tell you straight up, mind is not something that can be defined at all in my book.
OK; that's fair enough, in that it is your personal (perhaps we could say 'pet'
) definition, however I would still say that one would have to demonstrate the validity of such a definition in manner that matches the third person agreement (done by accumulating first person experiences) and in a way that is pragmatic to actual, down-to-earth daily living.
Whatever definition you dream up, mind is doing the defining. If you call something 'physical', that is the result of a mental operation.
I would like to really, really think about that, then. Do you really think that by admitting that brain works, one can then jump to the conclusion that we are wrong in thinking that brain works? That, is the element of the sentence you have offered, is it not? Besides, you have automatically inserted a definition of mind which stands in opposition to the standard English definition, and any demonstrable pragmatic definition (since you seem no to accept what is found in the first two to four entries in any good dictionary
) as though such were a valid counter argument; I'm not convinced of the correctness of such an argument.
On that second statement; should we try to convince ourselves that (for example
) the food we must consume, so as to keep the earth element that is us going, is a non-physical thing, just something of something which we cannot know anything about? There is a very specific, pragmatic and most logical reason why there is that English term 'physical
' (and it's etymological beginnings have extremely little weight in our present day 'definition-by-usage' sense
), and to assert that the word is empty and meaningless is most surely a hopeless cause.
Anyway, don't worry, I am not going to keep up this argument, as it will no doubt continue until . . .
I do understand, jeeprs
, and hope you will trust me on that one; yet I will be honest, and say up front that I emotionally doubt the truth of that desire--based on past history to present
Show me a dead brain, and I'll show you a dead mind.
Now that's what I call a hostage to fortune!
It is in no way a trick question, Twirlip
, in asking how you got that quote, there. How did you get it?
Descartes argued the seat of consciousness was the pineal gland; last time I checked that was a modulator of melatonin.
Yes, it releases melatonin on prompts from the circadian clock-like function of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (which receives direct projection from the retinas [retinohypothalamic tract
Point being, there is no specific neuron we can name "consciousness" or "mind".
Not only is this statement completely lacking in leverage (for usage towards any argument
) but evidences a certain misinformed position, as well.
1. A portion of his presentation in that book, and his argument, is against solipsism (and an element of non-realistic philosophical thinking), and regarding these...and a few other points which he does make, I see no major contending counter evidence, and do agree with what he as put forth.