posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:24 PM
Hi, well i've done some philosophy, and i've quit philosophy, over this very issue!!
The debate still rages, but the majority of conservative philosophers decree that there is NO MIND, its all physical. At this end of the argument you
have examples like Daniel Dennet's book 'Consciousness Explained'. People in philosophy departments actually go around citing this stuff, bragging
that they have it figured out and its only time before medical science, neuro-physicists etc can prove all this.
All a bunch of absolute BS in my humble opinion. These same people will tell you that there is no such thing as free will, as the universe is causal
and determined..... without any spontaneous non-casual events whatsoever..... er, except for the big bang, which was both uncaused and spontaneous...
etc..... so.... total BS once again, IMO.
On the other side of the argument you have stuff that points to the soft mushy and inexplainable world of experience itself... as phenomenal
properties of the mind.... hence the field of 'phenomenology'.... based on experiential qualities.
On this side we have really cool stuff like Thomas Nagel's article 'What is it like to be a bat?' in which he points out that, no matter how much
hard bat-science a analytic bat research scientist might perform, they will NEVER ever ever know what it feels like to be a bat, to swoop fly and
sense things with that audio sonar thingy.
Also is F. Jackson's famous 'something about Mary' argument about the science genuis (Mary) who grows up locked in a black and white room. No
matter how much informatioin about colour, eyesight, brain hardware and physics that she can learn, she does not know the colour green untill she
leaves the room for the first time and sees the grass.
So basically we can argue that things like green, love, and feelings, are phenomenal properties that cannot be seen with microscopes in brains.
Thats where the debate starts!