Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 23, 2018, 13:16 (947 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A very fair summary. But as I've noted my concept of dualism is not yours. My immaterial s/s/c has two parts, a software mechanism and a personality structure within the software, much like a file in your computer made by the software in your computer.

dhw: The s/s/c IS the personality. It is all the immaterial qualities that make up the thinking self in the soul/self/consciousness, which dualists believe to be a separate entity from the material self, although the two interact. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with some nebulous concept of “threealism”. But thank you for your acceptance of my summary. If you stick to that, and recognize the dichotomy I keep pointing out, we may be able to move on to a possible reconciliation between dualism and materialism. I will try to find time in the next few days to elaborate on the ideas I put forward earlier on this subject.

DAVID: I am not going to leave my concept of how the s/s/c works with the brain or in the afterlife. They must be different mechanisms since the brain is present in only one of the two circumstances.

There is no disagreement here! As a self-proclaimed dualist, you believe that IN LIFE there is an immaterial self/soul that does the thinking and interacts with the material brain, which provides information and implements thoughts. If the self/soul lives on IN DEATH, as you believe, then of course its thoughts will not require material expression or implementation, and so the mechanism will be different (I mentioned telepathy as a possible means of communication). You said my summary was very fair, and it concluded with the dichotomy that exists between belief in a soul that does the thinking (dualism) and belief that the thinking is done by the brain and is impossible without the brain (materialism). For some reason you are trying to dodge the issue of this dichotomy, which is not confined to your own arguments but lies at the very heart of the debate between the two approaches, both of which can call on different forms of evidence. Why can't we move on?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum