4 ms·
No, which means maybe we should stop arguing about it. 'Mind' is primarily a word. EDIT: i seem to be restricted from replying further: We can discuss everyth
by zerostar07 9y ago
No, which means maybe we should stop arguing about it. 'Mind' is primarily a word.
EDIT: i seem to be restricted from replying further:
We can discuss everything, but the argument goes in circles around non-duality, hard problem of consciousness, subjective experience, and keeps moving the goalpost of the "mind" to increasingly subjective and impossible to examine-or-falsify definitions. We can equally discuss about any kind of fiction.
You also have another beast: define "definition" and "objectively". Those are not concrete entities that can be probed in the real world, they are convenient shortcuts to our mental processes that may well be flukes.
- mannykannot 9y agoThe idea that we can't discuss anything until we can precisely define it presents a bootstrapping problem for science.
- creep 9y agoInteresting thought. Should we stop arguing about the universe as well?
- creep 9y agoIn response to your edit: Yes, exactly. That is the chaotic aspect. You can't really define anything but you can define everything. It's paradoxical. Whatever. We still need the illusory aspects. Without such discussion we would never have had the industrial revolution, artificial intelligence, medication, etc. All of these things were based off of discussions of inexplicable ideas like morals, idealism, health, utilitarianism and, yes, MIND. Define all of those things for me, in an objective way. You can't. Sorry. None of these are really based off of reality. They work in reality, but that doesn't mean anything.