A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two (Identity)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 01, 2018, 19:21 (2397 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I stand by my last sentence. You want to keep separate the brain and the s/s/c. They are not. The s/s/c mechanism is inextricably bound in the brain and must use it during life. We do not know if the s/s/c can have proper initial thought if the brain cannot handle it *(step one of my sentence above). My dualism is not your dualism in any sense.

dhw: I’d love to know your criteria for “proper” or “normal” thought. I keep agreeing that in dualistic life the brain and s/s/c are not separate but, as you keep agreeing and then trying to ignore, they perform separate functions: the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the expressing/implementing.

You have stated our difference. In my view the s/s/c initiates thoughts by using the brain's neural networks. In your statements I am not sure how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain at the initiation of the thought process. We both agree in the second step the brain produces thought in thinking, in speaking, in writing and in reading.

dhw: Now you are saying we don’t know if the s/s/c can think its “proper” thoughts if the brain cannot express its thoughts, whereas previously you had the s/s/c thinking its “proper” thoughts and the brain “garbling” them.

We don't know about the initiation of thought. We don't live in the schizophrenic's brain, just as we don't live in cells and know exactly which is correct. We only experience the deranged thinking that appears to us.

DAVID: Schizophrenia is due to a sick brain and the patient has trouble expressing normal thought. When you hear a paranoid tell you he is being spied on though the light bulbs, you can see the consequence of the brain damage. His s/s/c is obviously confused because his brain is sick. That is in life. When his s/s/c goes to heaven my guess is that it may well think normally. No need for the brain there.

dhw: Previously you had your s/s/c thinking normally, and the sick brain unable to express the s/s/c’s normal thoughts, i.e. garbling them. Now you have the sick brain confusing the s/s/c so that its thoughts are not “normal”. The sick brain as the cause of sick thought is a fundamental element of materialism.

You are so confused. You agree that the s/s/c interfaces with a brain it must use in life, and then are surprised by the idea that a sick brain cannot start with a clear s/s/c thought before expressing it. Materialism of the brain and immaterial thought of consciousness are the start of trying to understand a concept of dualism. Thought must be initiated and then expressed. The brain must be a part of both stages.

dhw: You believe that the s/s/c makes its “home” in different parts of the brain. The brain consists of many cell communities. And so the s/s/c has its “home” in the cell communities. You regard the material “home” and the immaterial s/s/c as inseparable during life. I assume you regard the s/s/c as “intelligent” (the subject of this thread).

The s/s/c can only be as intelligent as the networks in the brain allow. We've discussed IQ before and the brain is the reason for the difference. Yes, I'm saying the s/s/c is limited by the brain it is given.

dhw: So we both propose the same structure: intelligence within the cell communities directing the cell communities to implement its thoughts. But you say the intelligence is part of God’s consciousness, and I propose (theistically) that your God invented a material mechanism that generates intelligence as well as implements the thoughts of that intelligence. There is no way in which we can tell the difference (as you keep emphasizing in relation to cellular intelligence generally). But my hypothesis explains why drugs and diseases can change the thoughts as well as the expression and implementation of those thoughts.

We both seem to agree that the sick brain can garble initial thought and expression of thought, and I think it must be two separate related steps.

dhw: Yours creates all the contradictions I have been pointing out. Mine also leaves open the possibility that the s/s/c generated by the materials can survive the death of the brain (see my post of 5 January under “Reconciling materialism and dualism”) and does not in any way exclude your God. So what logical flaws can you find in my hypothesis?

You admit in 5 January that science shows us how the material brain works. I agree, so science does not explain consciousness. You want the brain to generate the 'materials' of consciousness rather than God giving us a piece of His consciousness. The whole commentary starts with Penrose and quantum mechanics. This brings us back to quantum reality underlying what appears to be a conscious universe. Deciding about consciousness must include multifactorial explorations, which is why I have introduced so much quantum material those shows the effect of consciousness modifying quantum experiments. We just don't understand the quantum reality that undergirds the universe. Which is why we do not understand how consciousness appears in our brain. The way I interpret your thinking is that you agree the s/s/c must us the brain, but then you seem to want a separate s/s/c starting the thought process and then it somehow drifts into the neurons for expression. In my view the s/s/c must use the brain networks to think during life. A separate form of the s/s/c enters the afterlife, but contains the same conscious memories and personality structure.