I am getting the impression jeeprs rejects eliminative materialism's dismissal of alternate description of "mind" outside neurobiology.
Quote:I am getting the impression jeeprs rejects eliminative materialism's dismissal of alternate description of "mind" outside neurobiology.
Of course. This tendency was formed in a previous existence. I was born to argue with materialists. And in the end, I must win, because I can always come back, and they can't.
From what I have gleaned from this discourse - keep in mind I am currently eating lunch and selectively scanning posts -, I am getting the impression jeeprs rejects eliminative materialism's dismissal of alternate description of "mind" outside neurobiology.
I think the difficulty here is how we are treating this understanding of mind too much like an objective and subjective dichotomy. I believe this is unnecessary to some extent. Although we are objective, that is having physical causation, we have subjective cognition. You can dissect and analyse the basis and this will lay the empirical understanding for what allows for this emergence of subjective cognition. The parts versus the whole.
We have this ontological separation between objective foundation and subjective emergence, chemicals and emotions. However, they are both the same. Although we understand how something functions at a mechanical level, this does not necessarily leave us constrained to such in terms of description. Pragmatically speaking, we do not go "I feel happy because of the increase of dopamine in my system." I think jeeprs argues there is this separation, or disparity, between knowledge of objective foundation (that is the dopamine) and how we personally describe the chemical foundation ("happy"). Philosophy is personal to some extent and I do not believe jeeprs is making the allusion to mysticism as the only philosophical description of "mind" but suggests there is no need to limit our description of "mind" to the jargon of neuroscience -- purely reductionistic terminology. We can in fact use holistic terms such as "happy", "sad" and even, dare I say it, "mind".
You two seem to be literally arguing over labels.
I agree with neuroscience
But KasieJin, you continually respond to philosophical arguments with . . . That has been your approach from the get-go, from day 1, right from the very first time I read any of your posts, which is why I always react the way that I do.
One can speak ones mind or change ones mind because with culture we have the words and the concepts of mind, personality, and consciousness ready made for us...
I appreciate your concern, minimal, I am not sure if the nuance of how you see it is quite so bull's eye, but would think there is an element of viable truth in your view on the 'jeeprsxKJ' exchange history.
Quote:I agree with neuroscience
I cannot possibly disagree with neuroscience. I have had a close relative saved by neurological science. I have nothing but respect for neuroscience. That is not at issue here. The debate, as far as I am concerned, is about philosophical materialism.
I am actually intrigued why there is this apparent incongruence between the two positions, really
Quote:I am actually intrigued why there is this apparent incongruence between the two positions, really
It goes back a long way. He's a scientific type, I'm a mystical type. Scientific types tend to believe that human beings are the result of processes which we have basically got figured. Mystical types believe there is an entire dimension to existence which the scientific types don't get. It includes 'religion' but a lot more, as well (such as the whole point of existing, but I am not going to press that now.)
Have a look at this excellent essay by Tom Wolfe, called Sorry But Your Soul Just Died. Be sure you read to the last sentence.
I think holistic is nearer to it - a multi-disciplinary approach based on comparative religion, Western philosophy, and Buddhist meditation. But I am certainly nearer the religious end of the spectrum.
Firstly, I will present the range of the more realistic and pragmatic working definition for the term 'mind,' as follows:
Quote:1. memory; recollection or remembrance 2. what one thinks; opinion 3. a)that which thinks, perceives, feels, wills, etc.; seat or subject of consciousness b) the thinking and perceiving part of consciousness; intellect or intelligence; c) attention; notice d) all of an individual's conscious experiences e) the conscious and the unconscious together as a unit; psyche. (Webster's New World Dictionary 2nd. Ed.)
Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes.
1. The element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons; 2. the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism; 3. the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism
( Stedman's Medical Dictionary)
Incidentally, I am in general agreement with the definition you have given of mind. Mind can be defined in the way you have suggested, and if it is defined that way, there are many things that can be said about it. As you well know, however, I believe there are other levels of both mind, and 'explanation', so I can't take that particular definition as exhaustive or inclusive.
Appreciate the come back on that, jeeprs. . . and will ask you to spell this out so that we can clear up the definition.
The mind is very much a physical thing
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.
What about the argument that the brain is like a tuner for mind, which exists in attenuated form, throughout the universe.
IN the case, the fact that damage to a part of the brain affects the mind, is due to creating difficulties in 'reception' (so to speak).
What is the argument for this view? That the predictable nature of the universe suggests a greater intelligence. You might think that a religious argument, but Einstein certainly accepted it.