| > like any rigorous subject 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? |
> I don't consider it a rigorous subject.
Many universities offer undergrad, masters and phd level work in this subject. Could be helpful to know why you think it is not rigorous.
> Do you have this understanding?
Like I said, I have a beginner level interest in the subject, ie, I have taken a undergrad. level relevant course in psychology and one in philosophy of mind, and occasionally read related books.
Maybe you do have a full explanatory theory of qualia, of other mind, transcendence of objects in perception, unification of consciousness, how consciousness leads to another, forming the concept of "I" in addition to "me", how to speak of contents of consciousness in their own right and so on.
There's various thought experiments to highlight some of the basic problems that you have to go through, (ex: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/)
If you you have a complete explanation of mind in physical term, please do share or write some papers on some journals so people can slow down on AIs and start building a mind.