Phil. of mind and neuroscience has different subject of study, in most cases, beyond the basics, they can just ignore each other. I think you might have a very bad misunderstanding of what philosophy is.
To re-iterate, philosophy of mind chooses to ignore neuroscience. Again, more "you don't understand", but no substance.
If not helpful, you may choose to look it up on Internet on specifics of topic of study, not sure what sort of substance would suffice.
If you want to look at a sort of caricatured version of this science-vs-philosphy-misunderstanding discussion, you may choose to watch this: https://youtu.be/9tH3AnYyAI8
> whether mind can possibly be physical
I re-iterate my comparison to religion, theistic philosopher reason similarly about the soul/god/etc.
philosophical junk. There's a reason "neuroscientists despise philosophers talking about conciseness".
> silly ideas about mind that philosophers wouldn't begin to consider
What authority do philosophers have to label anything silly?
> they study different things
Reminds me of the claims made about religion vs science, that science can only study the 'physical', where religion is needed to explore the 'spiritual'.
I'd guess most philosophers of mind would love to understand how - or show that mind is indeed physical. But it is not as simple a job as it might seem; like any rigorous subject, you'll have to have familiarity of the subject matter to understand why that is the case (and if you are looking for argument, one can't hope to summarize many years of technical papers and necessary background on a HN comment)
> What authority do philosophers have to label anything silly?
They are the expert of their field, why wouldn't they have authority there? If I throw out some idea about physics, I'd guess physicists should have first authority to decide whether my idea is silly.
> Reminds me of the claims made about religion vs science, that science can only study the 'physical', where religion is needed to explore the 'spiritual'.
As far as I'm aware, philosophy of mind has absolutely no religious motivations. Most are proponent of some physicalist theory, but many of those would probably say -we are not fully there yet to show how it is possible.
I don't consider it a rigorous subject.
> you'll have to have familiarity of the subject matter to understand why that is the case
Do you have this understanding?
> one can't hope to summarize many years of technical papers
Of course you can, that's what summarize means. Can you explain to me what 'technical' means in this context?
> They are the expert of their field
Phrenologists are experts in their field too; what authority does that field have?
> As far as I'm aware, philosophy of mind has absolutely no religious motivations
The comparison was wrt the study of doubtful concepts.
> many of those would probably say -we are not fully there yet to show how it is possible.
"not yet there"? We are not quite able to prove the existence of god either.
What progress has been made, in either case?
> I don't consider it a rigorous subject.
Many universities offer undergrad, masters and phd level work in this subject. Could be helpful to know why you think it is not rigorous.
> Do you have this understanding?
Like I said, I have a beginner level interest in the subject, ie, I have taken a undergrad. level relevant course in psychology and one in philosophy of mind, and occasionally read related books.
Maybe you do have a full explanatory theory of qualia, of other mind, transcendence of objects in perception, unification of consciousness, how consciousness leads to another, forming the concept of "I" in addition to "me", how to speak of contents of consciousness in their own right and so on.
There's various thought experiments to highlight some of the basic problems that you have to go through, (ex: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/)
If you you have a complete explanation of mind in physical term, please do share or write some papers on some journals so people can slow down on AIs and start building a mind.
Do you consider the fact that universities offer philosophy courses proof of authenticity? Are religious studies proof of god?
I consider non-analytic philosophy non-rigorous on the basis that the tools of thought are subjective, emotive and rely on juggling poorly defined concepts with little empirical verification.
> Maybe you do have a full explanatory theory of
Nice try. But the burden isn't on me to clarify dubious concepts. Do you have a full theory of the holy trinity?
> highlight some of the basic problems
> so people can slow down on AIs and start building a mind
pure philosophy will not solve these problems. can you point me to a philosophy paper that has made any progress in "building a mind"? What is the philosophical method for interrogation an empirical phenomenon?
-----------
If you happen to be interested anytime, you can start with some very introductory resources I bothered to look up for you (most are video, they are easy to consume):
+ Donald Hoffman - computational theory of mind, someone closer to HN's demographic (https://youtu.be/cUhrK82seVY)
+ John Searl is good speaker so try his talk (https://youtu.be/rHKwIYsPXLg)
+ Some thought experiments (remember that thought experiments are not highlighters of issue, not complete arguments) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTdUVuUqefi6...
+ If you want to know what a complete technical work looks like, here's one I've been reading: http://a.co/2xF4PPB
+ Not agreed upon but a fun one to not include - about: what is philosophy: https://youtu.be/dp8aTYUrPi0
+ Science vs philosophy sort of video, slow but good discussion in there: https://youtu.be/9tH3AnYyAI8
In the unlikely case that you become very interested, you can look up "Introduction to philosophy of mind syllabus" and go through the materials and/or books of your choice on the subject.
-----------
> What is the philosophical method for interrogation an empirical phenomenon
That would go into philosophy of science, which I have absolutely no familiarity with. I'm guessing, to a philosopher of science, 'empirical' isn't such a simple subject as recording something that scientist would call it. I did watch this very interesting video once about phil. of science: https://youtu.be/5ng-t0o7E-w
Really, how so? you're the one assuming the authority of philosophy, not me. How are my projections 'faulty'? You just keep pivoting, and claiming there to be some counterpoint, somewhere, even though you can't seem to supply them yourself.
> you can start with some very introductory resources
No thanks, implicit to this move is the suggestion that I need to read "very introductory" material. I don't.
> That would go into philosophy of science, which I have absolutely no familiarity with
Then you have no basis for arguing with me?
You may find the work of Patricia Churchland an interesting exception.
of course, if you encounter philosophers/scholars/believers who argue about whether the mind can be physical, it's a lost cause..