| > I re-iterate my comparison to religion, theistic philosopher reason similarly about the soul/god/etc. I'd guess most philosophers of mind would love to understand how - or show that mind is indeed physical. But it is not as simple a job as it might seem; like any rigorous subject, you'll have to have familiarity of the subject matter to understand why that is the case (and if you are looking for argument, one can't hope to summarize many years of technical papers and necessary background on a HN comment) > What authority do philosophers have to label anything silly? They are the expert of their field, why wouldn't they have authority there? If I throw out some idea about physics, I'd guess physicists should have first authority to decide whether my idea is silly. > Reminds me of the claims made about religion vs science, that science can only study the 'physical', where religion is needed to explore the 'spiritual'. As far as I'm aware, philosophy of mind has absolutely no religious motivations. Most are proponent of some physicalist theory, but many of those would probably say -we are not fully there yet to show how it is possible. |
I don't consider it a rigorous subject.
> you'll have to have familiarity of the subject matter to understand why that is the case
Do you have this understanding?
> one can't hope to summarize many years of technical papers
Of course you can, that's what summarize means. Can you explain to me what 'technical' means in this context?
> They are the expert of their field
Phrenologists are experts in their field too; what authority does that field have?
> As far as I'm aware, philosophy of mind has absolutely no religious motivations
The comparison was wrt the study of doubtful concepts.
> many of those would probably say -we are not fully there yet to show how it is possible.
"not yet there"? We are not quite able to prove the existence of god either.
What progress has been made, in either case?