A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two (Identity)

by dhw, Friday, June 29, 2018, 13:21 (2338 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It seems as if you have finally agreed that there is no "twisting" and no difference between our versions of the nature of dualism, in which the soul, or “separate consciousness mechanism”, or “piece of God’s consciousness”, does the thinking and uses the passive, non-contributing brain to acquire information and to give material expression and implementation to its thoughts.

DAVID: Your summary of my point of view is not complete. The soul is interlocked with the networks, which means it initiates the thought, accepts information, refines the thought and broadcasts the completed thought through those networks, nothing psychic in life. The networks are required for the whole process. And this is a true dualism concept requiring two parts.

Absolutely no difference here, since I have never disputed the interlocking. You have simply put my version of dualism into different words, but have now confused the issue by saying there is “nothing psychic in life”. My “psychic” reference relates to the afterlife, when there are no material means of observation and communication, but I pointed out in passing that these psychic powers may already be present during life.

dhw: Since you agree that the passive recipient brain does not initiate new thoughts, it is therefore illogical to argue that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens passive recipient brain before the “separate consciousness mechanism” could initiate new thoughts! It is equally illogical to argue that the same “separate consciousness mechanism” used in life requires a different consciousness mechanism in an afterlife. See below.

DAVID: In view of my response above, your objections do not apply.

Of course they apply! You say yourself that it is the soul and not the brain that does the initiating and refining of the thoughts. So you don’t need a bigger brain to initiate thoughts! But of course the soul would not be able to initiate thoughts if it didn’t have the information on which its thoughts are based. Pre-sapiens did not need a bigger brain to know he was hungry, there was meat standing 50 feet away, and he wanted to have it, and since in dualism the brain does not initiate thoughts, it therefore makes no sense to say that only a bigger brain could have initiated the new thought of “spear”.

dhw: In dualism the “mechanism of thought” is the soul! In death the mechanism of thought is still the soul. There are not two different mechanisms of thought. There are two different mechanisms for observation and expression, one material (the “separate consciousness mechanism” uses the recipient brain for information and material expression) and the other psychic. That is the logical distinction you have agreed to above. [..]

DAVID: Again, you want a static form of soul separate from the brain, and dictating to it. And please, don't tell me what I must believe as a dualist.

I am not telling you what you must believe. On Wednesday, when I offered you the same summary in your own words, you wrote: “It seems as if you have finally accepted my ideas”. The term “SEPARATE conscious mechanism” is yours, and it is you who wrote that the brain is “passive” and is the recipient: “The brain does not initiate or contribute. The brain is a recipient of the working soul’s output.” (Sunday June 24) How does the passive brain receive the soul’s output (or its instructions) if the soul doesn’t dictate to it?

DAVID: I am my own dualist with my own concepts. And you have admitted to two different mechanisms in life and death, although you keep detaching the soul and brain in the thought process.

And we have agreed on those concepts, and at various times you have agreed that the “two different mechanisms” refer to the means of observation and communication, not to the “separate consciousness mechanism”. In life the soul and brain are interlocked, but in your own words the soul is a “SEPARATE consciousness mechanism” which resides in and works with the material brain. I keep reproducing your own words which present precisely the same concept of dualism as my own, so why do you keep disagreeing with yourself?