About omniscience

[Gorgias]

Gravity is a constant relationship between things in time-space.
They interact based on that unchanging principle

You’re talking about F= (G m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]) / r[sup]2[/sup] …right?

Yeah… unless your example is that there’s a “universal gravitational constant” (which is only a constant factor, and not ‘gravity’ per se), then your analogy is that this whole thing is subjective, based on the masses of two objects and the distance between them. In other words, change the mass, or change the distance, and the force of gravity changes.

 

[Aloysium]

You’re talking about F= (G m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]) / r[sup]2[/sup] …right?

Yeah… unless your example is that there’s a “universal gravitational constant” (which is only a constant factor, and not ‘gravity’ per se), then your analogy is that this whole thing is subjective, based on the masses of two objects and the distance between them. In other words, change the mass, or change the distance, and the force of gravity changes.

I was referring to G, an unchanging relationship between two things in time and space, irrespective of their mass and distance from each other.
Thank you for your feed-back.
Like I said it’s an analogy. The words and how they are used together may be interpreted in a number of ways. Some of these don’t work as you advise.
While I put it out there, I was hoping it might resonate with Vera, since he/she’s is a mathematician and interested in ideas concerning God’s eternal, unchanging nature.

The subjective aspect you bring up is interesting. Different objects would have a different impression of what constitutes gravity in spite of the fact that it is a constant - G.

 

[Aloysium]

Make that G for God. The relationship between beings reflects the triune Relationship that is the eternal Source of all creation, united in love - perfect relationality.

And, no I’m not saying that gravity is God.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Let me quickly present a few actual examples which would mirror the theoretical reasoning you presented. It is always helpful to look at the actual examples.

1. It is better to be sick and to recover than to be healthy all the time.
2. It is better to starve and then having a meal than to be normally fed satisfyingly all the time.
3. It is better to beaten within a hair width to death than to be left alone.
4. It is better to suffer needlessly and then have the suffering end than not to suffer at all.
5. It is better to lose a child to some random cause than not to lose it at all.
6. It is better to have a heart attack and almost die than not to have a heart attack at all.
7. It is better to have tooth decay and a good denture than to have a healthy dentition.

The examples are endless.

Obviously there is “some” good in the cessation of pain and suffering, the question is: “is it worth it”? And that question cannot be answered objectively for someone else. Everyone must answer the question for herself. Moreover, the ones who advocate the “bad or evil” as a “good, necessary, acceptable” precursor for the cessation of the suffering are usually NOT the ones who suffer themselves. It is very easy to endure someone else’s suffering.

Or let’s posit is a tad differently: “is the relative good of the cessation of suffering better than the absolute good of not suffering at all?”

It is strange to see that someone might choose the “relative” good and not the “absolute” one. I can only offer my personal opinion. I don’t care about the possible virtue if it comes too expensively. What is “too” expensive is decided by the sufferer herself. No one is qualified to make that decision for someone else.

As for the last sentence of yours: “the possible choices can be predetermined, but the actual choice cannot be if we wish to maintain the freedom of the act”.

(I will reflect on your other post in a bit.)

I actually agree with you that this question must be answered on an individual basis. But, may I point out that you are being somewhat inconsistent? In one breath you insist that an apologist cannot judge whether another’s suffering is worth the potential good that can exist because of it while, in the same breath, implying that choosing the “relative” good over the “absolute” (your words) is wrongheaded.

You are also spinning the argument. I respect that you are not convinced, but you are not even addressing my real argument. Here’s what I am NOT saying (but the only thing you’ve addressed): “We should have suffering so that we can also have the good of the alleviation of that suffering.” This is a tunnel vision focus on suffering. The alleviation is not the only potential good. But, I think you know this. You know that heroism is a good that is good for more reasons than that it prevents suffering. It is also good because it is a great human accomplishment. It’s a manifestation of greatness that requires a domain and range which includes negative values (pain and suffering) in order to have enough room to appear. This is not a principle we disagree with. We create obstacles and challenges in sports where nature fails to do so just so that we can manifest human greatness. The anticipated objection is that the suffering which we create to overcome in sports is laughable in the face of the suffering of life. Well, yes, but the problem of evil is a problem in the logical consistency of Christian theology about God. So, in order to address it, you have to consider the rest of Christian theology which says that even the suffering of life which we consider unimaginable today will pale in comparison to the magnanimity of being which we can experience through Christ (Romans 8:18). If that is true, then even the worst of life’s suffering will pale in comparison to how magnificent we will be at the end of it all. It will be like we were just running a race and our suffering was as small as the muscle pangs every runner gets (2 Timothy 4:7). If this principle (which we take on faith) is true, then there is no problem of evil. God is, in fact, more benevolent than we could ever imagine. Omnibenevolent, to be specific.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Wonderful. So how do they deal with these real contradictions, which are not potential problems? I will be happy to read your explanations. Use your own words. As I pointed out there are only four possibilities, all with their own problems.

And the four possibilities have nothing to do with any kind of temporal sequence. I only deal with causative relationships, not temporal ones. Let me recap the problem in a short form.

Both “A” and “B” are sets.
Set “A” represents God’s knowledge.
Set “B” represents the events in the world, some of which are deterministic, while others are the results of actions make by free agents.

The set “A” has “n” members: a[sub]k[/sub], where “k” goes from 1 to “n”.
Also the set “B” has “n” members: b[sub]k[/sub], where “k” goes from 1 to “n”.
The one-to-one correspondence means that for every “k” a[sub]k[/sub] = b[sub]k[/sub].

In other words, God has exact knowledge of every event in the world. (The world is not limited to the physical world.) This is what you (generic Catholic you) assert. I did not invent it.

There are exactly four possibilities:

1) A causes B.
2) B causes A.
3) A and B are caused by an external agent.
4) There is no causation, so the one-to-one correspondence is a lucky coincidence.

As a mathematician this should be obvious to you.

I am only interested in your analysis. Of course if some other Catholic thinker has already presented an analysis of this problem, you are most welcome to quote it.

As before I have to point out that the church has no explicit and coherent philosophical underpinning. Some theologians are Thomists, other are Molinists. Some might even be the followers of Aristotle or Plato, or some other philosophers.

I do not want to impose limitations. If an explanation is rational, I don’t care if it comes from a Catholic theologian or a Protestant one, or an atheist one. If the Catholic thought is rational, you don’t need to point out its origin. Coming from a Catholic source adds nothing to its rationality. If it is not rational on its own, then coming from a Catholic thinker does not make it rational.

Once I have adequate time, I will reply to this, too.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I actually agree with you that this question must be answered on an individual basis. But, may I point out that you are being somewhat inconsistent? In one breath you insist that an apologist cannot judge whether another’s suffering is worth the potential good that can exist because of it while, in the same breath, implying that choosing the “relative” good over the “absolute” (your words) is wrongheaded.

A little misunderstanding. I simply asked if the relative good (of cessation of suffering) is superior to the absolute good (of no suffering at all). In my eyes the absolute good of no suffering is much better than the relative good of cessation of suffering. If you, or anyone else begs to differ, I will be happy to beat him within a hair width of his life, so he can “enjoy” the cessation of the beating. Also, no one (not just the apologist) is entitled to make a value judgment about the suffering of someone else.

[Of course that is not “absolute”. When children (or anyone who is unable to make a rational decision) are exposed to some pain and suffering, we (the adults) must make the judgment if the pain is necessary or not. At this point some nincompoop might jump in and start to ask about a sleeping patient, that person can be awakened and make the decision for herself. If, however the person is in coma, then we must accept the responsibility to make a decision for them. And am not going to discuss this any further.]

Here’s what I am NOT saying (but the only thing you’ve addressed): “We should have suffering so that we can also have the good of the alleviation of that suffering.”

Indeed, but since you did not say anything specific, that was the only possibility to address, since the existence of the suffering is logically necessary to value the cessation of the suffering. More about this below.

The alleviation is not the only potential good. But, I think you know this. You know that heroism is a good that is good for more reasons than that it prevents suffering. It is also good because it is a great human accomplishment.

I don’t accept that heroism is “good”. Heroes do not want to be heroes, they are forced to be ones.

It’s a manifestation of greatness that requires a domain and range which includes negative values (pain and suffering) in order to have enough room to appear. This is not a principle we disagree with. We create obstacles and challenges in sports where nature fails to do so just so that we can manifest human greatness. The anticipated objection is that the suffering which we create to overcome in sports is laughable in the face of the suffering of life.

That is not my objection. The difference is that the suffering we overcome in sports is self-inflicted, voluntarily chosen, while the suffering in life is usually imposed by others or the circumstances. Anyone is welcome to suffer if it is volitionally chosen (except again the parents who force their children to become gymnasts). In the Philippines there are people who want to emulate Christ’s passion, and have themselves crucified. Only they can make a value judgment about their suffering.

Continued below.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Well, yes, but the problem of evil is a problem in the logical consistency of Christian theology about God. So, in order to address it, you have to consider the rest of Christian theology which says that even the suffering of life which we consider unimaginable today will pale in comparison to the magnanimity of being which we can experience through Christ (Romans 8:18). If that is true, then even the worst of life’s suffering will pale in comparison to how magnificent we will be at the end of it all. It will be like we were just running a race and our suffering was as small as the muscle pangs every runner gets (2 Timothy 4:7). If this principle (which we take on faith) is true, then there is no problem of evil. God is, in fact, more benevolent than we could ever imagine. Omnibenevolent, to be specific.

This principle is problematic, moreover - unacceptable. For the so-called “greater good defense” the following must be true:

1. The greater good must be a logical corollary of the suffering, and
2. the amount of the suffering cannot be decreased without “sacrificing” the greater good.

So to say that some unimaginable good will be given in the afterlife cannot retroactively justify the unnecessary (gratuitous) suffering here. The concept of “benevolence” cannot be reconciled with any amount of unnecessary suffering. God could life anyone into the superb afterlife, if he wants to. The suffering here is not a logical prerequisite.

Now, let’s get some examples.

The scenario is hiking in the wilderness. One of the people is bitten by a poisonous snake on his pinkie. The other one is a doctor, but he does not have an antidote for the poison. The only way to save the life of the person is to chop off the bitten finger. Losing the finger is a small price to pay to prevent the death. It is “worth” the suffering.

The second scenario is almost the same, except the doctor has the necessary antidote. If he still insists on cutting off the finger to save the life, it cannot be condoned, because cutting off the finger is is unnecessary when the application of the antidote is sufficient.

I hope you see the point. The “good” of living cannot justify the amputation if there is another solution without the suffering.

The pain and suffering must be logically necessary for the greater good to materialize.
The pain and suffering cannot be decreased without losing the greater good.

If you wish to insist that God is “benevolent”, the onus is you to provide a rational argument for ALL the suffering and substantiate that EVERY instance of suffering is necessary to achieve some greater good, and none of the suffering can be decreased without losing that greater good. And that is a “tall order”, to say the least.

There is another problem for you. To deal with sufferings is a question of technology. God is supposed to be omnipotent, which means that God able to anything except logically impossible states of affairs. So all the sufferings could be eliminated God, by simply “willing them away”. In other words, there can be no logically necessary sufferings.

So much for the “greater good defense”.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Wonderful. So how do they deal with these real contradictions, which are not potential problems? I will be happy to read your explanations. Use your own words. As I pointed out there are only four possibilities, all with their own problems.

And the four possibilities have nothing to do with any kind of temporal sequence. I only deal with causative relationships, not temporal ones. Let me recap the problem in a short form.

Both “A” and “B” are sets.
Set “A” represents God’s knowledge.
Set “B” represents the events in the world, some of which are deterministic, while others are the results of actions make by free agents.

The set “A” has “n” members: a[sub]k[/sub], where “k” goes from 1 to “n”.
Also the set “B” has “n” members: b[sub]k[/sub], where “k” goes from 1 to “n”.
The one-to-one correspondence means that for every “k” a[sub]k[/sub] = b[sub]k[/sub].

In other words, God has exact knowledge of every event in the world. (The world is not limited to the physical world.) This is what you (generic Catholic you) assert. I did not invent it.

There are exactly four possibilities:

1) A causes B.
2) B causes A.
3) A and B are caused by an external agent.
4) There is no causation, so the one-to-one correspondence is a lucky coincidence.

As a mathematician this should be obvious to you.

I am only interested in your analysis. Of course if some other Catholic thinker has already presented an analysis of this problem, you are most welcome to quote it.

As before I have to point out that the church has no explicit and coherent philosophical underpinning. Some theologians are Thomists, other are Molinists. Some might even be the followers of Aristotle or Plato, or some other philosophers.

I do not want to impose limitations. If an explanation is rational, I don’t care if it comes from a Catholic theologian or a Protestant one, or an atheist one. If the Catholic thought is rational, you don’t need to point out its origin. Coming from a Catholic source adds nothing to its rationality. If it is not rational on its own, then coming from a Catholic thinker does not make it rational.

I think that A causes B.

 

[ericc]

This principle is problematic, moreover - unacceptable. For the so-called “greater good defense” the following must be true:

1. The greater good must be a logical corollary of the suffering, and
2. the amount of the suffering cannot be decreased without “sacrificing” the greater good.

So to say that some unimaginable good will be given in the afterlife cannot retroactively justify the unnecessary (gratuitous) suffering here. The concept of “benevolence” cannot be reconciled with any amount of unnecessary suffering. God could life anyone into the superb afterlife, if he wants to. The suffering here is not a logical prerequisite.

Now, let’s get some examples.

The scenario is hiking in the wilderness. One of the people is bitten by a poisonous snake on his pinkie. The other one is a doctor, but he does not have an antidote for the poison. The only way to save the life of the person is to chop off the bitten finger. Losing the finger is a small price to pay to prevent the death. It is “worth” the suffering.

The second scenario is almost the same, except the doctor has the necessary antidote. If he still insists on cutting off the finger to save the life, it cannot be condoned, because cutting off the finger is is unnecessary when the application of the antidote is sufficient.

I hope you see the point. The “good” of living cannot justify the amputation if there is another solution without the suffering.

The pain and suffering must be logically necessary for the greater good to materialize.
The pain and suffering cannot be decreased without losing the greater good.

If you wish to insist that God is “benevolent”, the onus is you to provide a rational argument for ALL the suffering and substantiate that EVERY instance of suffering is necessary to achieve some greater good, and none of the suffering can be decreased without losing that greater good. And that is a “tall order”, to say the least.

There is another problem for you. To deal with sufferings is a question of technology. God is supposed to be omnipotent, which means that God able to anything except logically impossible states of affairs. So all the sufferings could be eliminated God, by simply “willing them away”. In other words, there can be no logically necessary sufferings.

So much for the “greater good defense”.

God created a world that operates consistently under a set of natural laws. Which means that human actions as well as natural laws must operate consistently for the well being of the universe. If God were to will away all forms of pain/suffering by discarding the natural operation of such laws, it will cause mass confusion, unpredictable results, and general insanity. Therefore, God for the greater good of consistent operation of the universe holistically, past, present ,future need to permit suffering. Only he would know the total greater good, piece meal analysis in a moment of time can not know the impact of future actions and incidental impacts.

Natural laws include laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc. If you do certain things to the environment, there are impact to the weather, water supply etc. If you expose yourself to harmful chemicals or radiation, you may impact the health of your future offsprings, perhaps even generations away genetically. DNA combinations must operate consistently as well. Certain combinations may result in sickness and defects as well as positives. If you choose to live in a geographically unstable part of the world, it is expected that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions may be experienced. Tectonic plate movements, oceanic currents etc all have beneficial consequences.

Now if these laws are suspended on a whim, no scientific knowledge can be gained if results are not observed consistently. In fact, one is never sure what is going to happen if such laws don’t operate. I foresee insanity because logic can not exist in such a world. One may claim that God should design a “better” world. I am not sure whether there is anyone qualified to know what a “better” world is or whether it is feasible. The universe we know is pretty well-tuned as it is. Having a consistently operating world is a greater good.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think that A causes B.

That would be fine, as long as you only consider deterministic events. It makes the universe a giant clockwork, where everything plays out God’s will. But it fails to account for our free actions. If our free actions are caused by God’s knowledge, then they are not free - by definition. You described a Calvinistic universe, where everyone’s actions are predetermined, predestined.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

God created a world that operates consistently under a set of natural laws. Which means that human actions as well as natural laws must operate consistently for the well being of the universe. If God were to will away all forms of pain/suffering by discarding the natural operation of such laws, it will cause mass confusion, unpredictable results, and general insanity. Therefore, God for the greater good of consistent operation of the universe holistically, past, present ,future need to permit suffering. Only he would know the total greater good, piece meal analysis in a moment of time can not know the impact of future actions and incidental impacts.

Natural laws include laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc. If you do certain things to the environment, there are impact to the weather, water supply etc. If you expose yourself to harmful chemicals or radiation, you may impact the health of your future offsprings, perhaps even generations away genetically. DNA combinations must operate consistently as well. Certain combinations may result in sickness and defects as well as positives. If you choose to live in a geographically unstable part of the world, it is expected that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions may be experienced. Tectonic plate movements, oceanic currents etc all have beneficial consequences.

Now if these laws are suspended on a whim, no scientific knowledge can be gained if results are not observed consistently. In fact, one is never sure what is going to happen if such laws don’t operate. I foresee insanity because logic can not exist in such a world. One may claim that God should design a “better” world. I am not sure whether there is anyone qualified to know what a “better” world is or whether it is feasible. The universe we know is pretty well-tuned as it is. Having a consistently operating world is a greater good.

There is no logical necessity that the laws should be exactly what they are. A consistent universe could be designed and implemented with different laws. And it is very easy to design such a world. All we need is to separate the two functions of the nervous system, the thinking and the feeling parts - keep the thinking part and get rid of the “feeling” part. The flora works just fine without pain and suffering. If some natural event destroys part of the organism, it can simply regrow, and no suffering takes place. All the creator needs is to add a thinking part, and voila! you have a much better system.

 

[Gorgias]

I think that A causes B.

No, “God’s knowledge (of human acts)” does not cause “human acts”.

God is the cause of all humans. Humans are the cause of human acts. God knows all human acts.

God’s knowledge of human acts does not depend, in a way that makes God ‘contingent’, on the human acts. He created humans, and therefore, atemporally, He knows them and their acts. (Of course, this makes no sense if we view it solely through and within the context of spacetime. Here, we’re limited, and our knowledge is gained, in part, through observation. That observation, then, is limited – both temporally and contingently – by the action itself. No action, no observation. God, being out of creation and being its creator, is not limited in this way. God’s knowledge of events is not based on observation. Therefore, no dilemma, no contradiction, no ‘gotcha’ in the way that VL suggests.)

There are more than the four scenarios that VL sets up. The four VL presents, however, are all either illogical or do not meet the definition of who God is. Choose any one of them at your own peril.

 

[ericc]

There is no logical necessity that the laws should be exactly what they are. A consistent universe could be designed and implemented with different laws.

There is no reason a better world can be created with different laws.

And it is very easy to design such a world.

It is easy? You can make a world better than what God has made?! You certainly posses powers greater than God and you are still posting in these forums.

All we need is to separate the two functions of the nervous system, the thinking and the feeling parts - keep the thinking part and get rid of the “feeling” part. The flora works just fine without pain and suffering. If some natural event destroys part of the organism, it can simply regrow, and no suffering takes place. All the creator needs is to add a thinking part, and voila! you have a much better system.

Jokes aside, it is not a better system. The feeling is important for the survival of the organism. We jerk our hands away when we touch something hot, regardless whether we are thinking or not. We see danger and we react accordingly. I hear a car coming swiftly from behind and I instinctively look behind and think how to react. I smell gas in the room and I react by leaving the room or opening the windows. The feedback mechanism is essential for the survival of the organism. The flora also has a sense mechanism. It reacts to sunlight, water, nutrients or even touch. But there is no mind in it so it is irrelevant for discussion. Unless you are contemplating creating a vegetarian world populated by plants and fungi only.

Many people think it is easy to design a better world. They slice and dice a tiny bit out and want it to be a certain way but they forget the relationships necessary with the rest of the system. The universe is not only meant for one person but for all. They certainly do not know whether can they optimize their world for the greater good because they are not omnipotent nor omniscient. They just do not know enough about designing worlds. Indeed even the most basic of life creation stumps everyone. Life from lifeless matter. The fine tuning of the world is overwhelmingly mind boggling. Do you know what world will result if you tweaked the dials a little bit? If you don’t know, how can you claim it to be easy?

The world of Alice in Wonderland simply doesn’t exist. Even if it is feasible, Alice didn’t find that world to be a pleasant or coherent world to live in. That is what happens when laws of nature cease to operate. Insanity.

 

[Bradski]

You can make a world better than what God has made?

Perhaps you can explain the difference between the world before the fall and after it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is easy? You can make a world better than what God has made?! You certainly posses powers greater than God and you are still posting in these forums.

Unfortunately I lack the actual power, but not the ability to think “outside the box”.

Unless you are contemplating creating a vegetarian world populated by plants and fungi only.

Something like that. Maybe you got it. All they need is sapience, but not sentience. And since such a world is logically consistent, God could have created it. By the way, there is a simple being, called “planaria”, which has total regeneration ability. Cut it into pieces, and each piece will regrow into a full animal. This is not science fiction.

 

[ericc]

Perhaps you can explain the difference between the world before the fall and after it.

I think it is the same world, but some of the great stuff that was lavished on Adam/Eve previously are no longer available to them, among them immortality and a great garden and no kids. And fellowship with God was broken.

 

[ericc]

Unfortunately I lack the actual power, but not the ability to think “outside the box”.

We certainly can conceptualize many things, but when it come to the nitty gritty details, often times, we find ourselves with conflicting objectives, contradictions and general sloppiness in solving problems. However, I leave it to you to fashion a world of your own desires. Which may or may not be preferred by the rest of humanity. So the greater good for you may not be the greater good for the rest of us.

Something like that. Maybe you got it. All they need is sapience, but not sentience. And since such a world is logically consistent, God could have created it. By the way, there is a simple being, called “planaria”, which has total regeneration ability. Cut it into pieces, and each piece will regrow into a full animal. This is not science fiction.

But what is the point of creating such a universe? For what greater good? For non-sentient life forms? I may have missed your point. A world populated by amoebas and fungi somehow is rather meaningless.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We certainly can conceptualize many things, but when it come to the nitty gritty details, often times, we find ourselves with conflicting objectives, contradictions and general sloppiness in solving problems. However, I leave it to you to fashion a world of your own desires. Which may or may not be preferred by the rest of humanity. So the greater good for you may not be the greater good for the rest of us.

I rather doubt that anyone would miss the psychopaths. And you need not worry about the details. “With God everything possible” - Matthew 9:26. Of course that is not exactly true, but omnipotence is defined to be able to do anything, except four sided triangles, married bachelors and other logical impossibilities.

But what is the point of creating such a universe? For what greater good? For non-sentient life forms? I may have missed your point. A world populated by amoebas and fungi somehow is rather meaningless.

Just like this world. And you might not have realized that sentient and sapient are not interchangeable. We are called Homo Sapiens, not Homo Sentient. The two functions of the nervous system: “to think” and “to feel” can be separated.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The two functions of the nervous system: “to think” and “to feel” can be separated.

:twocents:

Nervous system, I understand - proteins, neurotransmitters, action potentials, nucleus, dendrites, axons, cerebral cortex, nerve tracts, limbic system, parietal lobe, all sorts of really interesting anatomy and physiology. A functional MRI or other fancy scans can reveal which area of the brain “lights up”, is undergoing increased metabolism, when a person feels and thinks of something.

The brain is required to enable a person to type out words on a keyboard. Feelings and thoughts arise as part of this process. With a certain amount of effort, we might be able to create a diagram describing how an event is perceived, interpreted and reacted to in terms of the neurological areas associated with perception, attention, the emotional response and the behavioural expression through coordinated muscular activity. None of this of course explains the actual feeling or the reality of the thought, nor that of the wholeness that is the person, who perceives, feels pleasure, pain and anxiety, who thinks and carries out the ensuing activity.

There can be no sufficient mathematical or material explanation for the person, me and you.

The colours and shapes that appear on the monitor physically constitute the realities of what is the brain, and the screen, and everything in between, united as the mental event which arises from the meaningful, relational beingness that is the nature of the human spirit, the reality of being a person.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Nervous system, I understand - proteins, neurotransmitters, action potentials, nucleus, dendrites, axons, cerebral cortex, nerve tracts, limbic system, parietal lobe, all sorts of really interesting anatomy and physiology. A functional MRI or other fancy scans can reveal which area of the brain “lights up”, is undergoing increased metabolism, when a person feels and thinks of something.

The brain is required to enable a person to type out words on a keyboard. Feelings and thoughts arise as part of this process. With a certain amount of effort, we might be able to create a diagram describing how an event is perceived, interpreted and reacted to in terms of the neurological areas associated with perception, attention, the emotional response and the behavioural expression through coordinated muscular activity. None of this of course explains the actual feeling or the reality of the thought, nor that of the wholeness that is the person, who perceives, feels pleasure, pain and anxiety, who thinks and carries out the ensuing activity.

No one can say that our actual brain is the only one which is possible.

There can be no sufficient mathematical or material explanation for the person, me and you.

Where did you get this Cartesian certainty?