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.
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.