[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Yes, but you can't reasonably call everything we are discussing, "A name given to particular brain process" singular or plural! Besides, it second guesses the question as to whether these things are purely brain processes!

Indeed, I was giving you the definitions I would use, since you asked "so how do you define ..." I have no idea how to come up with universal definitions that would be metaphysically neutral. That's why I keep asking you for your definition.

If you can't define your terms without assuming all you want to prove, why accuse Ian of the same thing?

I'm not presenting any proofs, am I? We could try to come up with metaphysically neutral definitions of consciousness and pain experience by enumerating a set of internal experiences that fall under those terms. That should be pretty safe, but incomplete.

Really, your definitions are useless - they don't even distinguish between pain and contentment or joy!

Sure they do. Pain is one set of brain processes, joy is another.

All of which seems to justify my view that we should just use these terms with their full normal meaning (without a definition) and invent extra terms for anything else (such as the word 'qualia').

The problem with the folk definitions is that they are metaphysically loaded (theory laden) and so we talk past one another because we assume different metaphysics.

For example, if someone says "Given my mental state ...", is he assuming a dualistic notion of mind, an idealistic one, or simply using the term as a name for a set of brain processes? Without knowing, you can't carry on a coherent philosophical conversation. You can certainly have an informal chit-chat about his mood, but that's not what we're doing here.

~~ Paul