 |
 |
On 8/15/09 1:48 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > That what is now challenged is whether > humans have a 'mind'. Clearly, 'mind' does not exist as a biological > organ. 'Mind', similar to 'consciousness' appears to be an illusion or > rather an incidental imaginary artifact of the way humans function. Dear Terry, I've never understood how this position becomes a convincing one. I've not been able to see how one could hold that consciousness is illusory without sawing off the branch one is sitting on. Surely truth can only be confirmed within our experience. How does turning our consciousness of the world into an illusion not create insurmountable difficulties for establishing a foundation for knowledge? For instance, what results of an experiment are able to be obtained outside of consciousness? (Introspection does not provide reliable epistemic foundations, but introspection is not consciousness.) I'm not trying to start an argument here. I'm actually interested in understanding the view, since I've seen it propounded by some illustrious thinkers and scientists, and have never been able to see how it could hold much water. I also know you're meticulous about these kinds of philosophical issues, so I figured you'd be a good expositor. Kind regards, Ben