Different in degree or kind: An essay captures Adler (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, November 15, 2015, 15:39 (3296 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Consciousness and abstract thought are not immaterial? Really? Then what are they?
> 
> dhw: That is not what I wrote. As you know very well, the question is whether the SOURCE is material or not.-The brain is material. Each human controls his brain and he is the source of its produced thoughts. Material under controls. Dualism, I think.
> 
> DAVID: Spoken like a true agnostic. Egnor and I are both physicians and view humans from a different perspective than you do. And Adler obviously accepted dualism.
> 
> dhw: And lots of philosophers do not accept dualism, and I'd be very surprised if all your fellow physicians accepted it. Nobody has a clue. Anyone who states categorically that the mind (intellect, will etc.) is immaterial is offering subjective opinion as if it were fact.-Frankly, it is fact to me. Our ideas here are presented in written material, BUT they are ideas. Touch one and show me that you did. You can't. The content and meanings of thought are totally immaterial.-> dhw: Incidentally, it's a great shame the lawyer does not acknowledge that evolution is not in itself a materialistic theory - an omission that you have rectified in your comment. But perhaps he has an agenda of his own.-I think he does have an agenda. Evolution is a process (material). The theory as to how it works is immaterial, an obvious difference. I don't think you confuse the two ways of approaching thought about evolution.