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.
Yes, that is what I said. But what I said has no relationship to your reply. When I said - ''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'' - I was clearly referring to the necessity for philosophy to include scientific information....and not your so called objection that '' Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it.'' Your reply was irrelevant to what I said. This is one example of why I complain about a strawman argument.
Which is exactly what I said you were doing.
I think I complained about your tendency to ignore difficult points first, and you followed suit. Go back over our exchange and check. Not that it matters. What you should be doing is making a formal list of the points you believe I've ignored. Which I requested, but you've declined to do... citing the reason as; ''HaHa no, that's just inviting the same problem over again.'' - Togo.
You complain that I ignore your points - which I say are off track (strawmen), and point our why - yet when requested, refuse to list your points clearly and concisely so that they can be seen for what they are.
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.
I'm annoyed because you come up with irrelevant objections and claim I ignore your points. They are not points, they never were points. Look at my original claim and try to do better next time.
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.
Togo, tell me how philosophy is supposed to inquire into the nature of the mind, either a function of the brain or the idea of immaterial mind, without including the discoveries of scientific investigation?
I look forward to seeing your explanation.
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.
Crock. The subject of the thread defines the subject matter being discussed, namely whether ''mind'' is material or immaterial. I went on to say that investigation into the nature of brain/mind is impossible for philosophy without reference to scientific discovery. Philosophy simply does not have the means. Without the physical experiments, brain imaging, etc, not enough can be known about brain function purely through discussion and reasoning. This is what places limits on philosophical inquiry.
