= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Capla comments on Can science come to understand consciousness? A problem of philosophical zombies (Yes, I know, P-zombies again.) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (41)
I'm not sure what you mean by "mind" or "consciousness." I usually think of a mind as the content of a consciousness. I don't know yet if that is an artificial distinction.
Couldn't one equally suggest that consciousness is content of a mind?
I could be missing something, but I guess the approach I'm saying is identify certain concepts and then label them.
And so far, I haven't seen much in the way of a standard distinction between consciousness and mind and experience and qualia and phenomenal reality, ect.
You have a point.
"Minds are made of thoughts."
Is that a coherent thing to say?
Does having a thought make something a mind?
Or does having a mind make something think?
I think the most honest thing to say is that as of right now, there isn't a material, or spatial, or temporal description of how these things are related. Which comes first temporally, which is larger spatially, which is more complex materially. None of those questions have answers.
I think we can say with a pretty straight face that we all have subjective experiences. How that involves minds creating consciousness or consciousness creating minds is something of which I'm skeptical.