where do we get the idea of the mind-brain identity thesis?
I understand its irresistibility - but where does it come from?
what is the epistemological basis of this belief?
such an idea cannot be based on observation
it's not an empirical hypothesis
but it is a view that assumes that scientific theory
applies here -
yes
but why -
only - I think - because it is assumed it must -
if science is true
or to put the negative - because if there are entities
that are not physical - science misses the point -
or so it is thought
I don't think this is so - but one dimensional thinkers
might just get the heebie- jeebies
here
so in a sense - what we have is science as metaphysics
I mean - the argument that the physicalist view is not
just an empirical theory - but must also be -
a metaphysical theory -
anyway
apart from an emotional attachment to the brain (?) -
to physics - and an even stauncher belief that if x
exists it must be explainable - and in physical terms -
what do we have?
do we have any reason to hold the mind-brain
identity thesis -
to believe the mind is the brain?
no
the patriarch may include the prodigal son in his will -
for the sake of 'family' unity - it doesn't follow though
that the prodigal is a member - in anything but name -
at least from the point of view of the patriarch -
and perhaps even the prodigal
the mind - the brain
seems like it should be the right fit
certainly at this time in intellectual history
a comfortable fit -
frankly though - there seems no positive reason
to make the connection
perhaps the best approach at this juncture -
the rational approach is to keep an open
mind - or is that an 'open brain'?
otherwise - bite the bullet and say - we don't know
what the mind is
could be the new radicalism
