Introducing the brain (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 13, 2018, 17:32 (215 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have offered a different explanation from yours for the expansion of the frontal lobe. You keep on emphasizing that it does the thinking, which is why your God expanded it, so that pre-sapiens would be ”capable of advanced thought”. That is pure materialism, which contradicts your claim to be a dualist. I say that in dualism, it is the soul that does the thinking, and so the frontal lobe has to expand when it needs new connections in order to organize material expression/implementation of the immaterial soul’s new thoughts. My “theory of intelligence” is an attempt to reconcile your materialism with the tenets of your dualism.

"My materialism" is a recognition that the soul must use the brain to think. We know the areas where it interlocks. I don't accept your single view that it is a one-way street. There are two logical possibilities, but you only like yours. From before:


DAVID: It is not clear whether the soul thinks in garbled fashion because of a damaged brain, or the brain mishandles proper original thought from the soul. One is correct. This is how I see dualism.

DAVID: I have always described the two possibilties about garbled thought: either the soul can think straight but the brain cannot translate straight, or the soul, using the brain to think while in life, cannot formulate correct thoughts, because I think the immaterial soul must use the brain networks during life.


dhw: Which of your statements do you now stand by? That the s/s/c’s thought is proper, but the diseased brain does not express it properly (garbles it), or the diseased brain causes the s/s/c to think improperly?

DAVID: The s/s/c must use the brain to think during life, so it is likely the s/s/c cannot produce a proper thought with a damaged brain, and may not be able to even form a proper initial thought.

dhw: Thank you. We can now forget the idea that the s/s/c thinks properly but the brain can’t express the thoughts properly...I find it difficult to understand how a piece of your God's immaterial consciousness can be damaged by material disease, but I can fully understand how consciousness that emerges from a material source can be damaged if the source is damaged.

Despite making a choice as above, since you asked me which I preferred, I still see the two possibilities, but simply favor one of them. That is not a rigid position.


DAVID: You have agreed that the s/s/c and brain are interlocked to work together. The point remains the same. The s/s/c must think using the brain networks and cannot think properly if the networks are sick.

dhw: I’m afraid it’s another case of x one day and y the next.

My thinking is not as rigid as you want it. I cannot get rid of either possibility. we are discussing theory, not fact.

DAVID: You operate under a different premise as to how the soul and brain relate. The soul has two forms interlocking with the brain in life and in a different form not requiring the brain in death.

dhw: I can see no difference between us on this, except that you want to give the immaterial soul different “forms” (what different "forms" can you give to something immaterial?), whereas I say it’s the same soul operating in different worlds.

Fair enough. The soul must work a little differently in an afterlife


dhw:I would like to think that all your contradictions, which mirror the great dichotomy between dualism and materialism, are resolved by my theory, which inverts the usual basis of dualism, thereby reconciling it with materialism. But I would welcome the pinpointing of any flaws in its logic.

DAVID: I don't see contradictions because you keep insisting only your view of brain/ soul relationship is true.

dhw: There are at least three examples of your self-contradictions above. These are inevitable so long as you see yourself as a dualist and yet continue to insist that the soul depends on the brain for its ability to think.

All we know is a brain produces the soul's thought's. A sick brain produces garbled thoughts. The two possible arrangements are the only choices. You want a soul dictating to the brain and the brain is a simple a receptacle for thought. That is only one side of the possibilities. I have not contradicted myself. I know what I think. I've given you opinions as to what is most likely the possible arrangement. Both of us make sophisticated guesses so I keep my thoughts fluid based on eh possibilities. Please remember my starting points.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum