Cogito Ergo Sum

[Aloysium]

I would not say that scientists cannot figure out the mysteries of the brain. They are doing a pretty good job at correlating the various neuronal pathways to the experiences the person has when they are well and when functioning is disturbed. Scientists would include neurologists, psychiatrists and neurosurgeons.

I think I get what you are saying about modelling hylomorphism in terms of digital and analogue. it does get at the concept that we are dealing with one thing, but separating and focussing on specific qualities. Although it deals with our need of some physical body, glorious or otherwise, I don’t know how it explains our condition upon death. You can’t eliminate the whole numbers from the real line. In death and before the resurrection, our spirit is free or lost from physical constraints while remaining ever connected to its Source in God, whose knowledge is our existence.

Hope what follows is of some interest. Writing on my phone - sorry for the typos, repetitions and nonsense.

I take a different perspective on this, seeing the ultimate reality to be the person, whose nature it is to be in relation to the world in which one participates. It is all mystery ultimately, the final truth being simply that it is what it is.

We view the world through different lenses - the physical, psychological, spiritual.
We are part of and continuous with the totality of the physical universe.

The relationship of the person with the physical world can be simplified as being structured in accordance with the central and peripheral nervous system.
The pattern of neuronal activity constitutes the particular conscious or unconscious event. However, that does not mean that the words are contained by or eminate from the physical.
The person comes whole.

With respect to the psychological, I would include our feelings, perceptions, and various cognitive and artistic capacities. This encompasses such fields as mathematics, economics, science itself, culture, religion and philosophy. While we share similarities, we are no more animals than animals are plants. It is the latter spiritual aspects of the psyche, our soul, with the eternal nature which they require, that elevates us.

Getting to the spiritual, that is where everything comes together within the reality of our relationship with God, who formed and maintains us in existence through the eternal act of love - who He is. We come forth ontologically, in each moment whole, as persons - physically, psychologically and spiritually. The category of spiritual has to do with existence and its awareness, meaning, beauty, good and evil, truth and love, which contains these all.

 

[inocente]

Is the theory of consciousness according to Inocente any better? Many atheists, like yourself, fill in the holes with dogma and/or philosophy…no different than many theists. When you can offer scientifically verifiable evidence that explains the hard problem of consciousness then i can take you more seriously.

Err, I’m as Baptist. Born again. Baptized by total immersion. Gave my life to Christ. Got the tee-shirt.

Just like the Catholic Church, I do not accept Descartes’ substance dualism. Just like the Church, I do not run away from logical issues. If individuals want to sell me on substance dualism, they have yet to explain the fundamental logical issue of how their thinking substance is supposed to interact with physical substance. (And btw, why a new body is needed in heaven, when according to Descartes, the thinking substance and therefore the soul can exist without a body).

And fans of substance dualism keep making appeals to ignorance, the fallacy that just because something isn’t yet explained, they must be right, prove it ain’t so.

 

[inocente]

Of course thoughts can have properties of truth or falsehood. I never said all mode of thought has it. I only said that matter can never have it.

Let’s use my example thought: “Venus’ clouds are mostly made up of water.” That thought is true or false, no? No omniscience or anything else required in order for that thought to have either property.

Well, a number of philosophers have theories of ideas, Plato, Hume, etc. They disagree on the exact definitions, but I think maybe they all agree that your thought is an idea which is a composite of the ideas of Venus, clouds and water. And that your idea of Venus is in turn a composite of other ideas, such as planet, and that it’s visible in the evening sky, etc. And your idea of water is a composite of ideas of liquid, wetness, etc.

And that the whole idea together with an idea of whether it’s true is a further composite idea. So “Venus’ clouds are mostly made up of water” is a composite idea which may give rise to the further composite “It’s true [or false] that Venus’ clouds are mostly made up of water”.

 

[inocente]

That’s not my line of thinking at all. I believe that both the materialist side and dualist side have good points and I’m open-minded enough to pull good or strong points from both sides to arrive at tentative conclusions. This is a skill that many are unwilling or unable to do. Any one side taken by itself seems incomplete, in that there are gaps in knowledge or problems that arise that have not been reasonably explained based on empirical evidence and/or logic.

I think there’s a big difference between ongoing research in progress which is constantly nibbling away at the problem, and a speculation that has been around for hundreds of years without being able to explain how the purported thinking substance can possibly interact with physical substance.

But if at some point the research gets stopped in its tracks, and there’s no possible explanation for something other than the existence of an invisible undetectable thinking substance, you’ll be proved right, so no harm done. I’m just saying it might not be wise to hold your breath waiting.

*Yes, I also believe that consciousness does not depend on any one area of the brain. I’m also open to the idea that more than the brain is involved, but my adherence to those views vary based on the quantity and quality of the evidence.
*

Consciousness as a conversation between brain areas is an elegant explanation. For instance, it explains why we sometimes fly like superman in our dreams - we can do it when the brain areas which know we can’t are offline. As soon as they become part of the conversation again we fall back to the ground. But it’s currently only a speculation, I’d have thought there are lots of experiments needed before a detailed theory is possible.

 

[inocente]

Your post #47 [music encoded in neurons and again weighing nothing…] How do you explain neurons existing in the material world not having some characteristic of matter and weighing nothing?

Que? Of course they weight something, each neuron is made of billions of atoms.

A light switch weights exactly the same whether it’s switched on or off. Same for a neuron, its switch state doesn’t change its weight.

• How can you know of it’s existence if not empirically, which deals with the characteristics of matter? Things physical and spiritual can be known by their effects on matter and on non-matter. This is a method of reasoning called “aposteriori” from effect to cause used in the proof for the existence of God. You would think that empirical scientists would know this and apply it metaphysically to non-material realities, they make technological advances but still remain in the dark.*

You seem to have got completely the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line.

Are you saying that thoughts are made up of neurons?

Noo!!! There are billions of neurons and each is connected to thousands of others. The state of a neuron, along with which of its (name removed by moderator)ut connections fire simultaneously, dictate the output path on which it fires. A thought is a sequence of these activations, perhaps involving many thousands of neurons.

There’s loads of literature on this, I’m not making any of it up. For instance see here for textbook nuts and bolts - neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/toc.htm.

No, not the opposite, but to include the metaphysical and not just theirs’ Do you think they are prejudiced about scholastic philosophy? Do you understand why what you call “howls of anguish” from CAF members exist? Prejudice and bias are real obstacles to knowing the truth If we can sit down and counter why certain philosophical arguments are not logical or true, then you can give them some credibility, of course this goes for both sides. Does such a situation exist, I strongly doubt it. I like the statement " The truth is still the truth if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie if everyone believes it."

Hang on. There are around one billion Catholics in the world. Suppose one in a thousand are scientists. That makes one million Catholic scientists in the world. Whether they are scholastics I don’t know. I don’t know whether Catholic universities teach their science undergraduates scholasticism. More generally, it’s surely just one school of philosophy, which lost favor hundreds of years ago, and I don’t know if philosophers generally see it as anything more than medieval. I mean I genuinely don’t know.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think there’s a big difference between ongoing research in progress which is constantly nibbling away at the problem, and a speculation that has been around for hundreds of years without being able to explain how the purported thinking substance can possibly interact with physical substance.

But if at some point the research gets stopped in its tracks, and there’s no possible explanation for something other than the existence of an invisible undetectable thinking substance, you’ll be proved right, so no harm done. I’m just saying it might not be wise to hold your breath waiting.

I believe we have enough evidence to conclude that the mind or consciousness is more than the physical parts that make it up so it may be immaterial or a separate physical part. It has not been reducible to physical parts as of now. By definition, there are properties of the mind that are not properties of physical structures of the brain, like the characteristics of a mental image, of certain thoughts, etc. Near-death experiences show that mental activity, whether they’re real or hallucinations of a dying brain (it’s still mental activity nonetheless), show that mind can function at times when thought should be impaired. As you bring up, future evidence may prove or disprove either one of our points, but I think a probable case can be made for some form of dualism.

Consciousness as a conversation between brain areas is an elegant explanation. For instance, it explains why we sometimes fly like superman in our dreams - we can do it when the brain areas which know we can’t are offline. As soon as they become part of the conversation again we fall back to the ground. But it’s currently only a speculation, I’d have thought there are lots of experiments needed before a detailed theory is possible.

Consciousness may involve multiple brain areas but this does not prove that it is physical nor does it answer causation or solve the hard problem. At best, this may just point to correlation or simple interaction that we must further explain. I believe many scientists have gone away from the idea of consciousness being reducible to basic physical properties like neurons, and instead look at it as a higher-order function, i.e. emergent phenomena. This goes against reductionistic methods in a traditional sense, and as it stands now, we’ve yet to see consciousness being reducible to any physical component/mechanism.

 

[yppop]

Aloysium
I am assuming that your post was aimed at mine and am responding accordingly.

I would not say that scientists cannot figure out the mysteries of the brain. They are doing a pretty good job at correlating the various neuronal pathways to the experiences the person has when they are well and when functioning is disturbed. Scientists would include neurologists, psychiatrists and neurosurgeons.

Yes science is good at describing the pathways in the brain, but then dismiss our subjective experiences such as qualia as an "emergent "property and that explains nothing. In my view, the brain is a necessary element but certainly is not sufficient and the same is true for any spiritual element - it is necessary but not sufficient. Both brain and nous are needed for us to experience reality.

I think I get what you are saying about modelling hylomorphism in terms of digital and analogue. it does get at the concept that we are dealing with one thing, but separating and focussing on specific qualities. Although it deals with our need of some physical body, glorious or otherwise, I don’t know how it explains our condition upon death. You can’t eliminate the whole numbers from the real line. In death and before the resurrection, our spirit is free or lost from physical constraints while remaining ever connected to its Source in God, whose knowledge is our existence.

Here is an abridged description of how I deal with this question our condition after death::

I would like my Heaven to be somewhere that my mother and father will be in the same age-relationship with me as they were this time around. They won’t be teenagers and they won’t be ageless, they will be my mother and father. So too will my brothers and sisters, my children, their children and all the people I have known in this life time will be there just as they are or were in this lifetime.

So my Heaven would be a lot like my present life except there would be fewer regrets and sins committed. In other words it would be palpably better. Kind of like the movie “Ground Hog Day” in which Bill Murray repeatedly wakes up on the same day, but in each repetition, he alters his behavior for the better and experiences more and more joy. Each new life would be closer to Heaven and farther from Hell until I and all the rest of humanity achieved that goal and we reach the fullness of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I am not saying with certainty that this is a theological view of Heaven in accordance with scripture and the “defined dogma” of the Catholic Church, it is merely what I want Heaven to be like. On the other hand, it describes how those that have been derived of a full lifetime of wonder, peace, and joy, those now suffering in a life that seems like Hell to eventually escape, so that all souls are saved.

In the meantime, we are making our way through our personnel purgatories in which we too often make the wrong choices by failing to respond to God’s grace. Eventually we will all escape our personal Hell and arrive at that perfect world we call Heaven.

And how would this sort of Heaven/Hell come about. Well there does happen to be a scientific solution for my hope. It is called the Many World Interpretation of the Schroedinger wave equation that is often referred to as parallel worlds. The first thing that comes to mind for some that hear of the parallel world idea is reincarnation. Living a parallel life as yourself is not reincarnation; if the Many World Interpretation is real, we are living in one now.

I find theological support for my view in the following excerpt from the Vatican’s 2004 International Theological Commissions report on “Human Persons Created in the Image of God” where it states in step 29:

29. The central dogmas of the Christian faith imply that the body is an intrinsic part of the human person and thus participates in his being created in the image of God. … The effects of the sacraments, though in themselves primarily spiritual, are accomplished by means of perceptible material signs, which can only be received in and through the body. This shows that not only man’s mind but also his body is redeemed. The body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. Finally, that the body belongs essentially to the human person is inherent to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body at the end of time, which implies that man exists in eternity as a complete physical and spiritual person.

From this I infer that since our bodies are resurrected at the end of time to exist eternally as a complete physical and spiritual person, and since in this present state the body and soul are imperfect, and since it is through grace and the application of our free will that we are justified, it seems plausible that there be interim states in which the process of justification is brought to fruition. Hence parallel worlds.

I agree with the rest of your post from a different viewpoint.
Yppop

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Err, I’m as Baptist. Born again. Baptized by total immersion. Gave my life to Christ. Got the tee-shirt.

Just like the Catholic Church, I do not accept Descartes’ substance dualism. Just like the Church, I do not run away from logical issues. If individuals want to sell me on substance dualism, they have yet to explain the fundamental logical issue of how their thinking substance is supposed to interact with physical substance. (And btw, why a new body is needed in heaven, when according to Descartes, the thinking substance and therefore the soul can exist without a body).

And fans of substance dualism keep making appeals to ignorance, the fallacy that just because something isn’t yet explained, they must be right, prove it ain’t so.

How could you deny substance dualism because of the ‘interaction problem’ but yet as a Christian you accept that a nonphysical God interacts the physical Universe? I don’t think you can say that you’re applying logic, not consistently, at least.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Aloysium
I am assuming that your post was aimed at mine and am responding accordingly.

Yes science is good at describing the pathways in the brain, but then dismiss our subjective experiences such as qualia as an "emergent "property and that explains nothing. In my view, the brain is a necessary element but certainly is not sufficient and the same is true for any spiritual element - it is necessary but not sufficient. Both brain and nous are needed for us to experience reality.

I don’t completely agree with the view that ‘emergence’ is without any explanatory value. If anything, it’s a framework that attempts to understand/explain phenomena at the level of the whole instead of going all the way down to the parts as you would do under reductionism. In a sense, you are right in that emergence does not necessarily prove nor disprove a nonphysical aspect. It certainly doesn’t conflict with the nonphysical. I happen to believe that something nonphysical (consciousness) emerged out of a physical system (the brain) and I say that because consciousness depends on the brain while not being reducible to its physical parts (neurons, etc.)

 

[Aloysium]

To speak of emergence is merely to engage in science of the gaps.

To those that would think otherwise, please explain a physical property that would make this possible.

What is required as part of any explanation is some description as to how all mental properties are linked together as individual consciousness.
The universe does not feel the cumulative suffering of mankind, just one person at a time.

The belief in a material ground of being runs into difficulty in that meaning exists; we actually understand.
There is a rational nonphysical structure to the universe that includes the mind, the evolution of which cannot be explained.
If mathematics offered that great an advantage, we’d be seeing intelligent animals everywhere, as we see types of warm blooded creatures.

I can’t wait to hear what physical activity produces the colour green as opposed to the sensation of rough - neutrons all.

 

[inocente]

I believe we have enough evidence to conclude that the mind or consciousness is more than the physical parts that make it up so it may be immaterial or a separate physical part. It has not been reducible to physical parts as of now. By definition, there are properties of the mind that are not properties of physical structures of the brain, like the characteristics of a mental image, of certain thoughts, etc.

Near-death experiences show that mental activity, whether they’re real or hallucinations of a dying brain (it’s still mental activity nonetheless), show that mind can function at times when thought should be impaired. As you bring up, future evidence may prove or disprove either one of our points, but I think a probable case can be made for some form of dualism.

Consciousness may involve multiple brain areas but this does not prove that it is physical nor does it answer causation or solve the hard problem. At best, this may just point to correlation or simple interaction that we must further explain. I believe many scientists have gone away from the idea of consciousness being reducible to basic physical properties like neurons, and instead look at it as a higher-order function, i.e. emergent phenomena. This goes against reductionistic methods in a traditional sense, and as it stands now, we’ve yet to see consciousness being reducible to any physical component/mechanism.

Try to describe an elephant purely in terms of individual atoms. Impossible. Obviously there must be several layers of intermediate explanation - chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, etc. etc. Obviously an elephant isn’t reducible to the properties of atoms alone. Obviously an elephant has characteristics that are not the properties of individual atoms.

We don’t need to appeal to anything outside the physical world to explain elephants. But some people believe otherwise, for instance claiming elephants are telepathic - beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2012/03/rescued-wild-elephant-herds-inexplicably-gather-to-mourn-lawrence-anthony-south-africas-elephant-whisperer.php

In the same way, trying to describe the thought evoked by Beethoven’s Ninth in terms of individual neurons would be impossible. Obviously there must be several layers of intermediate explanation. Obviously Beethoven’s Ninth has characteristics that are not the properties of individual neurons.

We don’t need to appeal to anything outside the physical world to explain the mind. But some people believe otherwise, because thinking substance is non-extended in space and time, so as well as telepathy it enables astral projection, aura reading, clairvoyance, divination, precognition, psychic surgery, telekinesis, remote viewing… and of course NDE.

The truth is out there. And so is something else.

How could you deny substance dualism because of the ‘interaction problem’ but yet as a Christian you accept that a nonphysical God interacts the physical Universe? I don’t think you can say that you’re applying logic, not consistently, at least.

Sounds like you think Christians ran around like headless chickens not knowing what to believe in the sixteen centuries before Descartes invented substance dualism. Descartes proposed that God created two substances - material (extended, corporeal) substance, and thinking (non-extended, incorporeal) substance. Most everybody else propose God didn’t create the latter.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Well, a number of philosophers have theories of ideas, Plato, Hume, etc. They disagree on the exact definitions, but I think maybe they all agree that your thought is an idea which is a composite of the ideas of Venus, clouds and water. And that your idea of Venus is in turn a composite of other ideas, such as planet, and that it’s visible in the evening sky, etc. And your idea of water is a composite of ideas of liquid, wetness, etc.

And that the whole idea together with an idea of whether it’s true is a further composite idea. So “Venus’ clouds are mostly made up of water” is a composite idea which may give rise to the further composite “It’s true [or false] that Venus’ clouds are mostly made up of water”.

Maybe I’m just thickheaded in this area, but I do not see how granting any or all of the above escapes the problem I mentioned. Are you sure you understood my argument?

 

[ynotzap]

Sounds like you think Christians ran around like headless chickens not knowing what to believe in the sixteen centuries before Descartes invented substance dualism. Descartes proposed that God created two substances - material (extended, corporeal) substance, and thinking (non-extended, incorporeal) substance. Most everybody else propose God didn’t create the latter.

ST.Thomas Aquinas proposes a form of substance dualism different from Plato and Descartes, and naturalist philosophers will find harder to refute. The body is not autonomous, depending on the direction of the mind to accomplish anything. Descartes failed to include the body in the essence of man. He nearly rejected empiricism completely. He could not trust the senses. He figured the only true knowledge man could have was that which could be arrived at by pure reason. As a rationalist he regarded himself as a 'thinking thing". The mind alone constituted the essence of man, the body in no way was included in this essence.

St.Thomas Aquinas like Aristotle and other scholastic philosophers distinguished between two basic dimensions of physical entities, matter and form. He teaches that the soul is the form of the body. He also teaches how we know that the soul is spiritual (non-material to some) He explains the powers of the soul by the activity In man, the power of intelligence and will, both immaterial powers necessitating a immaterial source, the soul, which Is the source of the immanent activity in humans So the union of body (matter) and soul (spiritual) as co-principles constitute the nature of humans. This important distinction Is never emphasized when speaking of Descartes theory of dualism. Descartes came up with the idea that being able to think was a good proof for his existence “I think therefore I am” There is more to it than this statement from Descartes.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

To speak of emergence is merely to engage in science of the gaps.

To those that would think otherwise, please explain a physical property that would make this possible.

What is required as part of any explanation is some description as to how all mental properties are linked together as individual consciousness.
The universe does not feel the cumulative suffering of mankind, just one person at a time.

The belief in a material ground of being runs into difficulty in that meaning exists; we actually understand.
There is a rational nonphysical structure to the universe that includes the mind, the evolution of which cannot be explained.
If mathematics offered that great an advantage, we’d be seeing intelligent animals everywhere, as we see types of warm blooded creatures.

I can’t wait to hear what physical activity produces the colour green as opposed to the sensation of rough - neutrons all.

I don’t believe that anyone can give you a detailed step-by-step explanation as to how the brain produces consciousness but we know enough to say that it depends on the brain to function. We can also establish some parameters or conditions involved. When we take a comparative look at life and look at the mind/consciousness in levels or degrees (as opposed to binary - having consciousness or not having consciousness), we tend to find that the more complexity the brain has then the higher the organisms mental abilities and consciousness (e.g. self-awareness as opposed to just simple awareness) and the less complex to less mental qualities and consciousness. Just compare the ability of bugs with humans, as an example. This all goes to show that consciousness is definitely a product of the brain.

You also claimed that emergence is a science of the gaps and to that I disagree. Emergent behavior of a system (life or nonlife) can be understood in terms of interactions occurring at different levels of the system, especially the higher-order levels. I’ll try to elaborate on this more as I respond to inocente’s post.

 

[inocente]

Are you sure you understood my argument?

Yes.

 

[inocente]

ST.Thomas Aquinas proposes a form of substance dualism different from Plato and Descartes, and naturalist philosophers will find harder to refute. The body is not autonomous, depending on the direction of the mind to accomplish anything. Descartes failed to include the body in the essence of man. He nearly rejected empiricism completely. He could not trust the senses. He figured the only true knowledge man could have was that which could be arrived at by pure reason. As a rationalist he regarded himself as a 'thinking thing". The mind alone constituted the essence of man, the body in no way was included in this essence.

St.Thomas Aquinas like Aristotle and other scholastic philosophers distinguished between two basic dimensions of physical entities, matter and form. He teaches that the soul is the form of the body. He also teaches how we know that the soul is spiritual (non-material to some) He explains the powers of the soul by the activity In man, the power of intelligence and will, both immaterial powers necessitating a immaterial source, the soul, which Is the source of the immanent activity in humans So the union of body (matter) and soul (spiritual) as co-principles constitute the nature of humans. This important distinction Is never emphasized when speaking of Descartes theory of dualism. Descartes came up with the idea that being able to think was a good proof for his existence “I think therefore I am” There is more to it than this statement from Descartes.

Exactly, as subsequent philosophers have pointed out, both his substance dualism and his cogito ergo sum are untenable claims.

Whereas I think no Catholic neuroscientist would have any issue reconciling her science and Aquinas.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Aloysium,

To add to my point in post #93, consider a person who has never had ‘visual’ experience, i.e., being blind since birth. Such a person would not have thoughts that contain colors, or any visual features for that matter. Even their dreams would just involve auditory experiences. I believe this is just another reason to show that consciousness/mind are just products of the brain and our environment, both being physical. However, I still believe that consciousness is nonphysical because it is ‘strongly’ emergent and because the information (auditory, visual, etc) can be played out without our senses, like when we mentally visualize a green apple.

Much of my argument on strong emergence and the irreducibility you can read post #85.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Try to describe an elephant purely in terms of individual atoms. Impossible. Obviously there must be several layers of intermediate explanation - chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, etc. etc. Obviously an elephant isn’t reducible to the properties of atoms alone. Obviously an elephant has characteristics that are not the properties of individual atoms.

In responding to my point about ‘emergent properties’, you brought up properties that aren’t reducible to their basic parts (atoms) alone, but I’m referring to properties that aren’t reducible to atoms at all. In other words, emergence involves being reducible to parts, but only to higher level parts of a system and not the basic level parts (atoms). A simple example would be water, which has the property of being able to absorb heat (extinguish a fire) but yet it’s individual parts, hydrogen and oxygen, do not have this property at all, and more interestingly, these parts have properties that are contrary to water, i.e. hydrogen and oxygen spark and feed fires. An even better example is the mind or consciousness, where you truly have something that is greater than its parts in that the mind can control the behavior of it’s parts (the brain). I’m sure you can recall our conversation on self-directed neuroplasticity.

We don’t need to appeal to anything outside the physical world to explain elephants. But some people believe otherwise, for instance claiming elephants are telepathic - beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2012/03/rescued-wild-elephant-herds-inexplicably-gather-to-mourn-lawrence-anthony-south-africas-elephant-whisperer.php

Emergence isn’t about appealing to anything nonphysical although it can involve that. It can also refer to emergent physical properties and that’s how scientists use the concept for the most part.

Sounds like you think Christians ran around like headless chickens not knowing what to believe in the sixteen centuries before Descartes invented substance dualism. Descartes proposed that God created two substances - material (extended, corporeal) substance, and thinking (non-extended, incorporeal) substance. Most everybody else propose God didn’t create the latter.

Your response does not answer my point about your inconsistency of rejecting substance dualism because of the INTERACTION problem, while believing in a God that is nonphysical and interacts with a physical universe.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Yes.

Okay. Let me amend myself. NONE of what you said in response escapes the problems I highlighted.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

������

Okay. Let me amend myself. NONE of what you said in response escapes the problems I highlighted.

I know that you’re responding to inocente, but I also agree with you that he did not answer your point. He spent a lot of time referencing how properties of thought may lead to “true” and “false” but not once did he make the connection to the physical properties of the brain (i.e. neurons, etc.). Concepts of true and false are just one of many mental properties that are not shared by the physical properties of the brain. Even if neurons were the cause of such thoughts, but then we should not make the mistake of equating the cause with the effect (thoughts, etc.)