/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15277916

I'm not that anon, and I'm also not a materialist, but from a logical point, I have to disagree with you. Logically speaking, the other anon has indeed provided a prediction. If the brain is damaged then consciousness will cease. That is literally a prediction.

You're just throwing out terms like "burden of proof" without even developing your argument. Unfortunately, just name dropping "burden of proof" is not an argument. Anyone who has studied philosophy of mind or metaphysics or cognitive science in even a cursory fashion should have an appreciation for how complex the topic is. With any field as big as the philosophy of mind, you can be pretty sure there will be compelling arguments for both positions, and there will be some instances in which the burden of proof falls on the materialist and some instances in which it fall on the non-materialist. As for your criticism that
>You've made no novel future testable predictions with this ad hoc rescue device. This assertion has no validity and is not evidence merely for being stated.
The same exact thing could be said for your theory of the brain as a receiver. What novel insights or testable predictions can be derived from this image? All you've said is that the brain functions as a receiver, but if you can't develop that idea any further or produce any empirical predictions, then basically all you've done is provide a very questionable metaphor. As I said, I'm not a materialist, but I don't necessarily think the brain operates like some sort of "receiver" for consciousness. That sounds like some entry level Joe Rogen/Terrence McKenna New Age pop philosophy.