Oh, these definition problems again. Of course, I think that there is something "mental", but being a materialist, I think that the "mental" or "mind" is part of the physical. That the "mental" supervene on the physical. Did you understand my example with waves? So when I say that there IS something "mental", I don't mean that there is some entity that is separate from the physical, I only think that there is an aspect of the physical that can be called "mind". Do you understand?Kurieuo wrote:Where did I mention spiritual entities? Unless you wish to say you don't believe there is anything "mental"Nils wrote:Kurieuo,Kurieuo wrote:Remove talk of states. Without the physical, could consciousness be had? No, not if the mental supervenes upon the physical. Hence, the mental is produced by the physical ordering.
I don't understand what you are saying. We discuss a materialistic worldview and then there are only physical things, no separate spiritual entities. How can you then discuss what could be had without the physical? Not only consciousness can not be had but anything.
About the philosophical conscious debate somebody wrote some years ago that there are two camps; one is headed by David Chalmers and the other by Daniel Dennet. Chalmers discuss the mind-body problem but I would not regard him as a materialist. Dennet thinks he has solved the problem. My impression is that the mind-body problem isn't of much interest among philosophical oriented brain researchers.
-- everyone, all sides, still discuss the mind-body i.e., "mind" and "body" problem.
My opinion is that first person evidence is totally unreliable. There has been so much evidence of that.PS. I'm not saying anything, my body is doing the talking so it would seem to some, not me.
PS Your short answers make it difficult to me to know if you understand my position or not, the position we discuss currently.