Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pretty much, although thare might be grounds for an attribution of consciousness (awareness. sentience) to basic lifeforms without a brain, although arguments would probably not be that robust.Consciousness, as far as we've observed, cannot exist without brain in a living body. Agreed?
I agree entirely, unless you want to interpret "the consciousness is dependent on the brain" as "all possibile consciousness must depend on a brain".There are physical links to consciousness. We can disrupt or alter consciousness through drugs, electromagnetic fields, kinetic force, extreme temperatures, dehydration, etc. That anything that affects the brain affects consciousness is the best evidence that the brain and consciousness are linked and more importantly, that the consciousness is dependent on the brain.
Afaict that is a definition was form a human medicine dictionary, and is meant for doctors practicing that discipline. Doctors are not specialists in the philosophy of mind, and I suppose I was wrong to ask for a science dictionary definition of mind because a medical one could be produced and wind up being misrepresented as considered scientific reflection on deep philosophical issues. The problem is that a medical doctor, or a medical dictionary, are not authorititive sources for arguments in the general philosophy of consciousness or awareness. Medical doctors are not meant to be experts on what are for them in professional practice irrelevant philosophical issues.Science Dictionary - Free Dictionary Lookup by Babylon, enter mind.
Mind
Mind 1. the organ or seat of consciousness; the faculty, or brain function, by which one is aware of surroundings, and by which one experiences
I agree that definitoins of words come from observation of usage, and that usage can be determined by observation. So what? It still does not follow that all and every instance of mind/awareness/consciousness/experience per se is defined as the brain, or as something that the brain does.
Afaict that is a definition was form a human medicine dictionary, and is meant for doctors practicing that discipline. Doctors are not specialists in the philosophy of mind
Likewise, your chemical chocolate definition is not one made by philosophical experts. So, I guess, unlike in real life, philosophically there could be chocolate without those ingredients.Afaict that is a definition was form a human medicine dictionary, and is meant for doctors practicing that discipline. Doctors are not specialists in the philosophy of mind, and I suppose I was wrong to ask for a science dictionary definition of mind because a medical one could be produced and wind up being misrepresented as considered scientific reflection on deep philosophical issues. The problem is that a medical doctor, or a medical dictionary, are not authorititive sources for arguments in the general philosophy of consciousness or awareness. Medical doctors are not meant to be experts on what are for them in professional practice irrelevant philosophical issues.
I think the term artificial refers to man made.
Likewise, your chemical chocolate definition is not one made by philosophical experts. So, I guess, unlike in real life, philosophically there could be chocolate without those ingredients.
Afaict that is a definition was form a human medicine dictionary, and is meant for doctors practicing that discipline. Doctors are not specialists in the philosophy of mind, and I suppose I was wrong to ask for a science dictionary definition of mind because a medical one could be produced and wind up being misrepresented as considered scientific reflection on deep philosophical issues. The problem is that a medical doctor, or a medical dictionary, are not authorititive sources for arguments in the general philosophy of consciousness or awareness. Medical doctors are not meant to be experts on what are for them in professional practice irrelevant philosophical issues.
Or I suppose I may be wrong. What evidence is that to argue that comments about mind in a human medical dictionary are meant (professionally intended) to be universalist pronouncements on philosophical questions regarding the nature of all and any possible mental or sentient life?
ANnyway: Firstly if they were professionally intended I claim it would be unprofessional of them because medical doctors are not and were never meant or trained to be experts in the field of philsophy of mind. They would be an unqualified authority, and it owuld be upprofessional of them to act in that role. Secondly if they are not professioanlly intended comments on philosophy of mind then you cannot use the dictinary as a source of qualified professional opinion on deeper philosophical issues. So that option would be arguing from unqualified authority once again.
Not sure that this is all that philosophy comes down to but it certainly is a very common phenomenon. Some philosophies downright feed on merely this.I'm starting to understand philosophy better.
Something I agree with : one definition which matches what I agree with proves it true by the simple meaning of the word.
Something I disagree with : any slight discrepancy in wording, alternative definition, or possible difference in background of the people using the word means that it's not true by definition.
You seem to be flogging the same old dead horse. Anyway even if you can fins a non cacao chocolate out there (like carob chocolate), maybe that undermines the analogy you wished to establish because the idea variable chocolate you wished to ridicule seems possible after all.Just like it doesn't follow that all and every instance of chocolate per se is defined as a food with certain chemical properties. So what? There's still no reason to accept either of these ideas (non-chocolate chocolates, non-mind consciousness) just because someone makes them up to try and prove a rhetorical point.
So now you complaining to me that science and reality don't line up with what the philosophy of mind types believe?
No. I asked for evidence that discussion of mind in a medical dictionary was meant to be a universal proclaimation on philosophical issues. If I asked for the answer to 1+2=3, you could provide it. So please, if I am that ignorant of obvoius truths, please step up and meet the challenge.
I dont know that manyphilosophers of mind, but I suspect that experts in neurophilosophy like the Churchlands (Paul and Patricia) or thinkers like Daniel Dennet might actually know more about the mind and brain than the general practitioner of medicine does, never mind you and I. Which proves that philsophers can know science.Anyway, what makes the philosophy of mind types qualified to discuss brain function? What sort of biology and medical training and practice have they had in the field?
Where did I claim that? I think you're imagining things.If you're going to discount neurologists as being unqualified to talk about the mind
As I said please provide evidence that a medical dictionary was professionally intended to comment on the nature of all possible consciousness. The challenge remains....I'd need to know that your self-proclaimed experts in the field have any better standing.
Well there is IIRC "carob chocolate" bars available on the market. But they are not regarded as true chocolate, but a substitute.Likewise, your chemical chocolate definition is not one made by philosophical experts. So, I guess, unlike in real life, philosophically there could be chocolate without those ingredients.
It does arise thre yes, but not (as far as people seem to know) of necessity. It may arise elsewhere, for example in computers.A word which wouldn't be needed if consciousness wasn't understood to refer to something which arises in non man-made biological systems.
That's where we're at. I seem to have a hill to climb with you.I'm starting to understand philosophy better.
Something I agree with : one definition which matches what I agree with proves it true by the simple meaning of the word.
Something I disagree with : any slight discrepancy in wording, alternative definition, or possible difference in background of the people using the word means that it's not true by definition.
No. I asked for evidence that discussion of mind in a medical dictionary was meant to be a universal proclaimation on philosophical issues.
Why should I? All you're going to do if this challenge is met is move the goalposts again. You asked for a definition of consciousness as a part of brain function. I provided it. You objected to a particular word and said you wouldn't accept it unless I found a scientific dictionary which defined mind as brain. I did - with multiple examples. Now you're complainig because I provided a definition from a scientific dictionary, even thought that exactly what you asked for in the first place.As I said please provide evidence that a medical dictionary was professionally intended to comment on the nature of all possible consciousness. The challenge remains....
It does arise thre yes, but not (as far as people seem to know) of necessity. It may arise elsewhere, for example in computers.
Where did I claim that? I think you're imagining things.
Sound familiar?Doctors are not specialists in the philosophy of mind
What? Are you saying that there is no such thing as a valid defintion of "ethics" or "epistemology"? That's laughable, but more of a tragedy.So much is for sure: Philosophy is not natural science, and there aren´t "qualified authorities" who determine the meaning of words in philosophy. Actually, there aren´t "qualified authorities" in philosophy at all.
There are more in depth discussions of consciousness available in the likes of the SEP, Wikipedia and Scholarpedia, not to mention the likes of the Oxford Companion to Consciousness etc. Please don't say you don't trust them because philosophers language is just made up as they go along (or whatever you meant). I am sure, with philosophy being studied at the worlds leading universities, one genius or other would have noticed that one by now. Or perhaps you would like to submit a paper to a leading journal and enlighten us all?Thus, I wonder what kind of source you were thinking of when demanding a qualified authoritative philosophical definition of "consciousness", in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?