>> If a tiger is distinct from a brain state, which I think we agree on, and if our thoughts are about real things such as tigers, which I assume we agree on, then how can there not be more to thought than the associated brain state?
> We also have thoughts about unreal things. I don't see why such thoughts should be any different than the ones we have about real things.
Let me rephrase then:
If a tiger is distinct from a brain state, which I think we agree on, and if our thoughts can be about real things such as tigers, which I assume we agree on, then how can there not be more to thought than the associated brain state?
> We also have thoughts about unreal things. I don't see why such thoughts should be any different than the ones we have about real things.
Let me rephrase then:
If a tiger is distinct from a brain state, which I think we agree on, and if our thoughts can be about real things such as tigers, which I assume we agree on, then how can there not be more to thought than the associated brain state?
A brain state does not refer to a tiger.