A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two (Identity)

by dhw, Tuesday, June 26, 2018, 12:57 (2341 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am not saying what you seem to want to interpret. The soul drives the initiation of the thought and uses the brain networks to complete it. The brain does not initiate or contribute. The brain is a recipient of the working soul's output. This what I feel as I (soul) think and receive the thought.

dhw: (Presumably you mean that in your dualistic self your soul thinks and your brain receives.) You are at last saying what I have said for many months, and I shall keep this paragraph in a safe place for future reference. You have withdrawn your earlier statement that “TWO parts, hardware and software are required for the thought to be originated”, and stand by your later statement that the soul initiates the process of thought. And now the hardware brain does not contribute thought but is “used” by the software soul for information and material implementation. That indeed is “true dualism”.

DAVID: Do not keep 'presuming' from your rigid point of view. In my view the immaterial soul/software ( probably quantum in nature) initiates the thought but MUST use the networks of the material brain with which it is totally interlocked in fully completing the thought and offering its final expression. The brain contributes the network hardware in this process and therefore can be viewed as a passive participant. This is my initial and continuous view which you have constantly tried to twist into your viewpoint.

I see absolutely no difference between our versions! Of course the thinking soul MUST use the brain in this material world, but what does it use the brain for? Thought is an ongoing process. In your own terms: The soul “initiates the thought” of the spear, USING the brain to provide information (need for food, animal, distance); the actively thinking soul then carries on USING the “passive participant” “receiving” brain for ongoing information relating to the now developing concept together with the means to implement the thought materially. It is the soul that is in charge of the thinking and processing and immaterial development, and it USES the information from the brain to complete the concept and achieve “final expression”. What have I “twisted”?

dhw: Once more, what is your objection to the clear dualistic split into thinking soul (initiating and developing thought) and information-supplying, materially expressing/implementing body/brain?

DAVID: And I add that the process involves the soul using the brain networks initiates and completes the thought.

Agreed, in the manner explained above. What is your objection?

dhw: And I still await objections to my reconciliation theory.

DAVID: And my objection is still the same. You have the soul arising from the material brain through God's work, and I've agreed that it is possible God did it that way, but it becomes a material source of the soul and I don't view it as dualism but an extended form of materialism.

dhw: No problem. I remain neutral in the materialism v dualism debate, and my theory is simply an attempt to reconcile the two approaches. I am pleased that you can find no flaw in the reasoning, and am doubly pleased that we seem to be approaching agreement on a logical version of dualism.

To sum it up: Until now you have insisted that the dualist’s “separate consciousness mechanism” cannot think separately from the brain. You have now agreed that the soul alone initiates thought; I hope you will also agree that thought is an ongoing process in which the thinking soul uses the information provided by the brain to develop its thoughts and give them their material form as described above. The soul or piece of God’s consciousness does not depend on the brain for its ability to think, and therefore there is no reason why it should not remain the same “separate consciousness mechanism” in an afterlife, except that it now observes and communicates through its psychic powers. What could be clearer?

DAVID: I'm glad your view, which does not accept mine is clear to you.

In this analysis of what constitutes dualism, the only difference I can see is that although you agree the active SEPARATE consciousness mechanism does the thinking in life, and uses the passive brain for information and material expression to help it finalize its thoughts and realize them materially, you say it requires an ADDITIONAL consciousness mechanism to be able to think in death. Why can’t the same separate consciousness mechanism initiate and develop thought using psychic means to replace the above functions of the brain ?