BTW, do you perchance post on Slashdot under a similar alias?
All the time and everywhere I am Sycraft. On Slashdot, I append a suffix since I created an account and lost the password and e-mail address to get it back.
As for the theoris of mind, there are many philsophers that take one or the other seriously. None of them claim it ot be a total explination, but they claim it to be basicallly correct. As, at this point, there is evidence for and against both theories, we can say that there is no one to accept or believe as per strong inference.
I believe we have a similar situation with audio. Subjectivists claims there are things you can hear that are not yet measured without adiquate backing, objectiviststs claim that we can measure everything without adiquate backing.
As for your sig, philsohpy is notquestions that cannot be answered, at least not good and useful philsophy. Philsophy is reasoning out things so that they can be tested by science. I'll again turn to theroies of mind and language, since that is what I've studied the most. The DCTM and CCTM are useful philsophical theories in that they give psychologists a model to test. The philsopher postulates hwo the mind might work, the psychologist can then test it. Same thing in psycholingustics. You can't test how humans deal with language until you have a model to test. Philsophers generate the model, psychologists falsify it.