What you actually said was: ''Too much of a stretch, I think. Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it.'' - Togo - and that is what I was responding to in this instance.
Well let's look at the full context, which actually appeared in my post:
Too much of a stretch, I think. Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it.The brain/mind is a physical phenomena, so if philosophy has any intentions of discussing or inquiring into nature of the mind, the mind being a physical phenomena of a brain, this is an instance of an investigation into a physical phenomena.
You'll note that you appear to equate, in the section I've bolded, discussing with inquiring, and state that both are an instance of investigation. Hence my reply.
In other words, I choose which bits I want to ask you about, and ask you about them. And you refuse to answer because you've already decided which bits are relevant and which are not. So you just repeat the bits you feel are relevant.
Exactly what bits do you believe I've ignored? I think that you've missed the point and focused on irrelevancies...
Which is exactly what I said you were doing. You've decided in advance what topics are relevant and should be subject to question, get annoyed because I'm not asking question on that list.
Which is eerily similar to the idea that philosophy should limit itself to questions proposed by science, using science as a starting point, and not engage in any questions that might challenge or engage with the underpinning assumptions. I'm not saying that is your position, but it's certainly been a theme in the past.
So let's see what you believe is the problem. With so many irrelevancies I don't know what you think I've ignored.
The problem is that you're only willing to discuss matters you consider relevant to a refutation of your own position. That excludes anything you've not considered, and anyone who wants to talk around the topic. The problem is that you're not willing to simply discuss philosophy.
Togo, please give a formal list of the points you think I've ignored and I'll address your concerns point by point. Let's see if they are relevant.
HaHa no, that's just inviting the same problem over again. How about you list all the points you consider irrelevant, and demonstrate why they are inappropriate to discuss in terms of the OP and the stated purpose of these boards?