A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two (Identity)

by dhw, Friday, May 04, 2018, 12:39 (229 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The beginning was the s/s/c’s thought. If the s/s/c’s thought was garbled BEFORE it was “introduced” into the brain network then the disease infected the s/s/c, which therefore did not think normally, whereas earlier you told us that it did think normally. The contradiction is clear, so let’s drop this part of the discussion.
DAVID: You have analyzed the bolded point. I think you agree that the s/s/c must work with the brain to produce initial thought'. And if the brain network is sick, the thought will be garbled. The s/s/c itself may not be sick, but unable to produce thought properly.

In my theory the s/s/c and the brain are inseparable, because the brain produces the s/s/c and then interacts with the rest of the brain. And so if the brain network is sick, the thought will be sick.Your theory separates them: God pops a bit of his consciousness into the brain, and it comes out again when the brain is dead. In your theory, at one moment you have the s/s/c producing normal thoughts and the brain messing them up (no, it does not work with the brain to produce initial thought), and the next moment you have the brain forcing the s/s/c to think abnormal thoughts (yes, it does work with the brain to produce initial thought). Shall we move on from this blatant contradiction?.

dhw: There are two separate issues here: one is our definition of dualism, and the other is the dichotomy between dualism and materialism. In my post above, I have summed up the evidence for each approach. You have focused solely on your definition of dualism. This we agreed on long ago: the two (dual) elements are mind or “soul” and body (let’s confine this to brain). In life they are inseparable. The soul does the thinking and the brain does the expressing and implementing, as in your dualistic analogy of software and hardware.
DAVID: Bolded slips away again. The s/s/c is required to use the networks in the brain to create the formation of the thought. Step 1. The s/s/c is an initiator and brain responds, then implements.

What do you mean “slips away”? If the s/s/c is the initiator, what does it initiate if not the thought? How can you possibly have a thought that has no form? Does the s/s/c think unformed thoughts in NDEs? Do you really believe that a piece of God’s consciousness – your version of the s/s/c – thinks unformed thoughts in the brain but suddenly thinks formed thoughts the moment it leaves the brain? This makes nonsense of dualism. Yes, if you want any consistency in your definition of dualism, the dualist’s brain responds to the thoughts of the dualist’s s/s/c; it does not create the formation of the thought.

dhw: But there is no way of telling whether the s/s/c is the PRODUCT of the brain or is an immaterial something you call a piece of your God’s consciousness. That is the essence of the dichotomy. If we say the brain produces thought, we state the case for materialism, which is supported by one set of evidence, as above. If we say thought changes the brain, we state the case for dualism, which is supported by another set of evidence that also includes psychic experiences such as NDEs. With my “theory of intelligence” and my post on reconciling dualism and materialism, I have tried to resolve the dichotomy. And you still haven’t pointed out any flaws in the logic of these proposals. Please do so.

DAVID: I don't accept that the brain alone produces thought. I am very clear on that. The s/s/c must use the frontal lobe to initiate thought. I believe God did it. For me there is no dichotomy. The bolded is my thought. I don't see a dichotomy. Consciousness requires a giant frontal lobe and God gave it us. From Lucy on, as the frontal area enlarged, the consciousness mechanism entered and was started in use by that given stage of hominin.

In your version, as above, the God-given s/s/c initiates thought. Consciousness is the immaterial s/s/c (self/soul/consciousness). You have said that it makes its home in the brain. I also say that its home is in the brain. How, then, can you tell the difference between brain-generated thought and “soul”-generated thought? You can't. Hence the whole debate between dualism and materialism. You don’t see the dichotomy or the contradictions highlighted earlier because you have a fixed belief. I have asked you to point out any logical flaws in my proposal, and your answer is that it conflicts with what you believe. This is like an atheist rejecting your design arguments because they conflict with his belief in chance.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum