On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[Ooberman]

.

You give the example of the car vs. driver, but I have heard it said we are like the passenger in the car, continually critiquing the actions of the autopilot. That is, our Mind is along for the ride.

What is our Mind that it can come 'along for the ride'?

It's our consciousness. It's the part of our brain function that assesses data.
Our body/senses act and react to internal and external stimuli. The body wants to drink because the senses tells it water is needed.
The body moves to get water, we recognize our mind saying "I think i'll get some water" or "gee, I think I'll get a drink". Though, maybe we have more control than that.

The mind 'coming along for the ride' is the part of our brain function we are aware of. What is the "we" when I say "we are aware", it's just a term for what consciousness is. The part of the electrochemical process in the brain that is aware of the brain and brain function.

Again, I'm not seeing the problem, even if my explanations are insufficient for you to understand my view. I will try to continue to explain.


After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

If that is happening, why do we need another entirely different hypothesis (with no epistemological support, BTW) for the minds awareness of some of it's actions?

Please answer. It's not fair to throw leading questions to me. You have an obligation to explain your view, not simply criticize mine.

[olavisjo]

.

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

Good point, if there were no 'I', then all of my thoughts would be unconscious. But that is not the case, so there is an 'I' inside of me, and that 'I' can't be material the way we understand matter and energy.

[Ooberman]

.

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

Good point, if there were no 'I', then all of my thoughts would be unconscious. But that is not the case, so there is an 'I' inside of me, and that 'I' can't be material the way we understand matter and energy.

Why not? Please explain your position. You are making a claim that "I can't be material the way we understand matter and energy".


Why not?




BTW, as an answer to your possible question, you are mistakingly assuming "I" is already separate from conscious and unconscious activity in the brain. You are presuming "I" is a separate function.

Unconscious and conscious activity is from the brain. However, there are unconscious activities in the brain, then there are activities that we seem to be somewhat aware of, then there are the ones we are aware of. That latter is the "I" you are talking about.


It's all the same thing. It's kind of like the Trinity..
There is unconscious activity & conscious activity, but they are both brain activity.

[Divine Insight]

Again, I'm not seeing the problem, even if my explanations are insufficient for you to understand my view. I will try to continue to explain.

Well, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do, because apparently you seem to think that this mystery if far simpler than what it actually is.

But you've already got problems when you speak of "Our" consciousness. Who is this "our" that thinks it has consciousness?

I'm hoping to make some progress on these concepts as I answer your following concerns"

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

This is a very good point that I have no problem with at all. When you ask "Who is that, then", my answer is that there is no "WHO" involved with those thoughts.

One problem you seem to be having is that you seem to think that I am in denial that the physical brain is indeed a thought computer. I don't deny this at all. And neither do the mystics. We are totally aware of the physical brain and it's computer-like nature.

The mystics practice "Transcendental Meditation" for this very reason. They let go of all their thoughts and simply observe them "passing by like a river". That river of thoughts is indeed the biological computer of the brain operating in the background. That brain is NOT us.

We are not our thoughts. We are the one who experiences thought. And this is the main point of the mystics.

In fact, ironically your very observation that "unconscious thoughts" are going on that we aren't even consciously aware of actually proves that thoughts alone are not consciousness.

So you've just proven that thoughts are not consciousness. Something that I was already well aware of.

If that is happening, why do we need another entirely different hypothesis (with no epistemological support, BTW) for the minds awareness of some of it's actions?

Please answer. It's not fair to throw leading questions to me. You have an obligation to explain your view, not simply criticize mine.

Because thoughts are not consciousness.

Consciousness is being aware of thoughts.

So the real question isn't "What are thoughts", but rather what is it that is experiencing these thoughts?

You keep referring to a brain, or a body that is having this experience.

But you haven't even begun to explain how a brain or body could "have an experience".

What is it that is having this experience?

This goes back to what I said before. The body is made entirely of energy. Matter as standing waves of atoms, and activity in the form of electromagnetic fields, and possibly other phenomenon as well.

So what is experiencing all of these thoughts?

You haven't even remotely answered this question yet.

All you have been able to do is describe thoughts themselves, and even you admit that some thoughts are going on beyond conscious awareness. Therefore thoughts alone cannot be consciousness. If they were, then no thought could be subconscious.

So the thing that is having an experience cannot be the thoughts themselves.

In other words, "Brain activity" alone does not explain conscious experience.

Yet every argument you've given thus far, has been an argument concerning brain activity.

You still haven't even come close to explaining what it is that is actually experiencing these thoughts.

You seem to believe that this is such a simple problem and you don't understand why we aren't "Getting it". But I offer to you that you haven't even come close to explaining just what it is that is having an actual experience.

Who is the YOU that experiences your thoughts?

You also spoke of Free Will, but in a sense the mystic form of Transcendental Meditation actually proves that we do indeed have "Free Will".

How so?

Well, when you are in a state of transcendental mediation you are not thinking at all. Instead what you are doing is being the silent observer of a river of thoughts that is flowing before you (i.e. your computer brain is running along like an idling engine) You see these thoughts passing before your "consciousness awareness" and you realize (without actually thinking about it), that you are free to simply sit there and allow all of these thoughts to pass by untouched, or you may reach out and pluck a thought to consider and act upon.

Now you may say, "but to even make those kinds of decision is already a thought process", but that may indeed be totally wrong.

How so?

Well, your ultimate conscious awareness may not require thoughts to drive it. It may be a totally spontaneous "will" that is as "free" as the wind as they say. Although that's a bad analogy anymore because we know that even the wind is actually driven by other factors.

But the real question on this topic of consciousnesses, is to ask what is the nature of this mysterious "will" that experiences (and ultimately selects) which thoughts to react to.

Your thoughts are not you. You thoughts to not "drive" you (although they certainly can if you allow them to)

In fact, this is the whole point of Eastern Mysticism. They idea is to mediate until you have transcended your thoughts to the point where you do indeed realize that your thoughts are not driving you, but instead you are choosing them.

Thoughts don't choose thoughts. And thoughts themselves cannot be the root of consciousness.

However, because we experience life through this brain that is constantly generating thoughts, we can easily become lost in the illusion that we are totally under the control of our thoughts, so much so, that we don't even really have any choice over how our thoughts unfold. A person who is living their life from that perspective is indeed a prison of their brain.

This is the whole idea behind Mysticism. It's a philosophy that helps people free themselves from the prison of their own brain.

And in order for this philosophy to be meaningful, one must conclude that the ultimate entity that has this free will choice to act or not act on thoughts, must be "spiritual" in nature. (i.e. independent from the brain and it's constant computer-like logic-driven thinking)

But all you keep doing is suggesting that we are the activity of this brain.

How then do you explain transcendental mediation?

How is it that we are able to transcend our thoughts if thoughts themselves are supposedly the basis of our very own consciousness?

[Ooberman]

Again, I'm not seeing the problem, even if my explanations are insufficient for you to understand my view. I will try to continue to explain.

Well, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do, because apparently you seem to think that this mystery if far simpler than what it actually is.

But you've already got problems when you speak of "Our" consciousness. Who is this "our" that thinks it has consciousness?

The activity of the brain that results in it forming a thought that says ""This collection of whatever (senses, thoughts, awareness, etc.)" is me."

I'm hoping to make some progress on these concepts as I answer your following concerns"

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

This is a very good point that I have no problem with at all. When you ask "Who is that, then", my answer is that there is no "WHO" involved with those thoughts.

But clearly it is MY Brain, ME, having those unconscious activities, no?

I think we are seeing the problem. You don't think of all the activity of the Mind as central to the Brain.
I see the Mind as what the Brain does.

One problem you seem to be having is that you seem to think that I am in denial that the physical brain is indeed a thought computer. I don't deny this at all. And neither do the mystics. We are totally aware of the physical brain and it's computer-like nature.

The mystics practice "Transcendental Meditation" for this very reason. They let go of all their thoughts and simply observe them "passing by like a river". That river of thoughts is indeed the biological computer of the brain operating in the background. That brain is NOT us.

We are not our thoughts. We are the one who experiences thought. And this is the main point of the mystics.

In fact, ironically your very observation that "unconscious thoughts" are going on that we aren't even consciously aware of actually proves that thoughts alone are not consciousness.

So you've just proven that thoughts are not consciousness. Something that I was already well aware of.

I haven't proven anything. I am not an expert and have very little knowledge of this. I dare say none of us will prove anything in this conversation.

That said, i don't think I "proved" that at all.

I know you think the brain does something, but I am trying to understand why you think it's a calculator, and then, that we (in some other dimension or something) press the buttons.

I don't see support for this at all.

It seems you are making a simple definition error. You want to define the Mind/Consciousness/Us as something wholly apart from the brain. Yet, even you admit a 'simple' tumor can affect how WE act.

How does the radio have such an impact on the receiver? This is magical thinking, IMO.

If that is happening, why do we need another entirely different hypothesis (with no epistemological support, BTW) for the minds awareness of some of it's actions?

Please answer. It's not fair to throw leading questions to me. You have an obligation to explain your view, not simply criticize mine.

Because thoughts are not consciousness.

Consciousness is being aware of thoughts.

So the real question isn't "What are thoughts", but rather what is it that is experiencing these thoughts?

You keep referring to a brain, or a body that is having this experience.

But you haven't even begun to explain how a brain or body could "have an experience".

What is it that is having this experience?

This goes back to what I said before. The body is made entirely of energy. Matter as standing waves of atoms, and activity in the form of electromagnetic fields, and possibly other phenomenon as well.

So what is experiencing all of these thoughts?

You haven't even remotely answered this question yet.

All you have been able to do is describe thoughts themselves, and even you admit that some thoughts are going on beyond conscious awareness. Therefore thoughts alone cannot be consciousness. If they were, then no thought could be subconscious.

So the thing that is having an experience cannot be the thoughts themselves.

In other words, "Brain activity" alone does not explain conscious experience.

Yet every argument you've given thus far, has been an argument concerning brain activity.

You still haven't even come close to explaining what it is that is actually experiencing these thoughts.

You seem to believe that this is such a simple problem and you don't understand why we aren't "Getting it". But I offer to you that you haven't even come close to explaining just what it is that is having an actual experience.

Who is the YOU that experiences your thoughts?

You also spoke of Free Will, but in a sense the mystic form of Transcendental Meditation actually proves that we do indeed have "Free Will".

How so?

Well, when you are in a state of transcendental mediation you are not thinking at all. Instead what you are doing is being the silent observer of a river of thoughts that is flowing before you (i.e. your computer brain is running along like an idling engine) You see these thoughts passing before your "consciousness awareness" and you realize (without actually thinking about it), that you are free to simply sit there and allow all of these thoughts to pass by untouched, or you may reach out and pluck a thought to consider and act upon.

Now you may say, "but to even make those kinds of decision is already a thought process", but that may indeed be totally wrong.

How so?

Well, your ultimate conscious awareness may not require thoughts to drive it. It may be a totally spontaneous "will" that is as "free" as the wind as they say. Although that's a bad analogy anymore because we know that even the wind is actually driven by other factors.

But the real question on this topic of consciousnesses, is to ask what is the nature of this mysterious "will" that experiences (and ultimately selects) which thoughts to react to.

Your thoughts are not you. You thoughts to not "drive" you (although they certainly can if you allow them to)

In fact, this is the whole point of Eastern Mysticism. They idea is to mediate until you have transcended your thoughts to the point where you do indeed realize that your thoughts are not driving you, but instead you are choosing them.

Thoughts don't choose thoughts. And thoughts themselves cannot be the root of consciousness.

However, because we experience life through this brain that is constantly generating thoughts, we can easily become lost in the illusion that we are totally under the control of our thoughts, so much so, that we don't even really have any choice over how our thoughts unfold. A person who is living their life from that perspective is indeed a prison of their brain.

This is the whole idea behind Mysticism. It's a philosophy that helps people free themselves from the prison of their own brain.

And in order for this philosophy to be meaningful, one must conclude that the ultimate entity that has this free will choice to act or not act on thoughts, must be "spiritual" in nature. (i.e. independent from the brain and it's constant computer-like logic-driven thinking)

But all you keep doing is suggesting that we are the activity of this brain.

How then do you explain transcendental mediation?

How is it that we are able to transcend our thoughts if thoughts themselves are supposedly the basis of our very own consciousness?

[/quote]

What do you mean transcend your own thoughts?

I tried to read the rest, but it's really too far afield for me. Free yourself from the prison of your brain?

Why not remove your brain? Then you can be as free as you wish, under your construct. I'm not understanding what you think "WE" are if not completely encased and created by our brain?

What is the alternative? "Something else" won't do. There has been enough time to develop a coherent theory of the alternative.

You say consciousness can't be matter or energy. What is it? Time? What else is there?

[olavisjo]

.

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

Good point, if there were no 'I', then all of my thoughts would be unconscious. But that is not the case, so there is an 'I' inside of me, and that 'I' can't be material the way we understand matter and energy.

Why not? Please explain your position. You are making a claim that "I can't be material the way we understand matter and energy".


Why not?

Imagine a 3-D printer that prints on the atomic level. And you began to slowly assemble a human brain. At what point would it become self aware? Would you add one atom to the trillions and suddenly the brain would cry out "I am alive!" Or would it become self aware gradually. Then what would it mean to be 50% self aware? "I sort of know that I exist but I am not entirely certain!"

I see no reason to think that self awareness is a property of matter and energy.

[Ooberman]

.

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

Good point, if there were no 'I', then all of my thoughts would be unconscious. But that is not the case, so there is an 'I' inside of me, and that 'I' can't be material the way we understand matter and energy.

Why not? Please explain your position. You are making a claim that "I can't be material the way we understand matter and energy".


Why not?

Imagine a 3-D printer that prints on the atomic level. And you began to slowly assemble a human brain. At what point would it become self aware? Would you add one atom to the trillions and suddenly the brain would cry out "I am alive!" Or would it become self aware gradually. Then what would it mean to be 50% self aware? "I sort of know that I exist but I am not entirely certain!"

I see no reason to think that self awareness is a property of matter and energy.

Argument from ignorance. We don't know how it happened, but we can be sure that if we printed it correctly, it would happen.

[instantc]

.

After all, I'm sure both of you accept we do unconscious acts and and have unconscious thoughts. "Who" is that, then?

Good point, if there were no 'I', then all of my thoughts would be unconscious. But that is not the case, so there is an 'I' inside of me, and that 'I' can't be material the way we understand matter and energy.

Why not? Please explain your position. You are making a claim that "I can't be material the way we understand matter and energy".


Why not?

Imagine a 3-D printer that prints on the atomic level. And you began to slowly assemble a human brain. At what point would it become self aware? Would you add one atom to the trillions and suddenly the brain would cry out "I am alive!" Or would it become self aware gradually. Then what would it mean to be 50% self aware? "I sort of know that I exist but I am not entirely certain!"

I see no reason to think that self awareness is a property of matter and energy.

Argument from ignorance. We don't know how it happened, but we can be sure that if we printed it correctly, it would happen.

This is not an argument from ignorance. It's the indivisibility argument for the immateriality of the mind, put forward by Descartes, and appreciated by the elite of the philosophic community today.

You on the other hand are begging the question, how exactly can you be sure that if we organized physical matter correctly, it would become self-aware? You are presupposing what you are intending to prove.

[instantc]

Divine, before I respond to each of your points, I thought of a way I make sense of this discussion.

To me, it seems Dualists are like this car owner in my fictitious story.

A car owner brings his car in for a tune up, claiming there is something wrong with the car. It doesn't start many times, and it doesn't seem to be the temperature. It seems random.


The car mechanic says, well, that's just how it works for some cars, some are lemons. Perhaps there is faulty wiring, or some deposits on the spark plug, etc..

The mechanic goes into great detail about all the things that could be wrong with the car.

The car owner is not satisfied.

"But what if it's something else?"

"What do you mean?" asks the mechanic.

"I mean, what if it's something beyond our scientific ability?"

"Um, OK, but why ask that when we haven't exhausted the more plausible answers?"

"Well, they are only more plausible if you have a naturalistic presupposition. What if there is something evil in my car? What if there are things we can't possibly understand? Something supernatural to explain it all?" says the car owner.

"I get what you are saying, but how can I possibly answer that?! I've suggested everything we know about cars and why they don't start. I imagine if we took apart the car, piece by piece, we might find the problem."

"Oh, well that's having Faith in mechanics! i am asking you to open your mind! What if there are magical beings that opera....





Do you see how I view this conversation about Brains and Minds?


The Brain is the car. While we haven't taken it apart, piece by piece, why are we imagining these things like string theory? Seems completely unwarranted.

I find this an inapt analogy for two reasons. First, we know that a car is an entity with only physical properties because we can build one. Second, I submit that we can reasonably expect any problems with car engines to be within the reach of science in its present stage, since car engines never do anything problematic or inexplicable. This is not the case with our minds. The mere fact that my mind can be about something else is inexplicable. How can this chunk of matter be about that chunk of matter? That is a huge problem for the scientific community, perhaps so huge that it warrants some skepticism about whether science in its present stage is ready to deal with the problem.

I hear this compaint all the time, and I think it is a poor physicalist response to begin with. 'Why aren't you skeptical about everything? We can't be sure that my kitchen table is purely a physical entity either.' It is the extraordinary nature of the mind on one hand, and the conceptual philosophical arguments on the other hand that warrant skepticism regarding the materialism of the mind.

I agree that in order to justify agnosticism in this regard, one must be able to show what makes the mind categorically different and explain why we should accept materialism of other things but not as easily accept materialism of the mind. I also think that you are doing a good job ignoring the reasons presented to you. That might be because you take it for granted there are only physical properties, as we have been able to physically explain almost everything in the world. I would advice you to read both David Hume and Descartes, and then see if you still hold the position that car engines and minds are comparable.

[Goat]

Argument from ignorance. We don't know how it happened, but we can be sure that if we printed it correctly, it would happen.

This is not an argument from ignorance. It's the indivisibility argument for the immateriality of the mind, put forward by Descartes, and appreciated by the elite of the philosophic community today.

You on the other hand are begging the question, how exactly can you be sure that if we organized physical matter correctly, it would become self-aware? You are presupposing what you are intending to prove.[/quote]

It might be the argument from Descartes, but it sill is a logical fallacy to say there is when we have no evidence for it. And, that is the argument from ignorance.. no matter who said it.

The evidence we have that 'if we organize phyiscal matter correctly', it becomes self aware is that in all the cases we see self awareness, we see a certain complexity and pattern to the brain, and if this pattern gets disrupted, awareness goes away.