A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two (Identity)

by David Turell @, Friday, June 29, 2018, 19:44 (169 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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!

In my view the larger complex networks in each stage of larger brain allows the soul to develop more complex thought. That is our difference in the theory.

dhw: I am not telling you what you must believe. On Wednesday, when I offered you the same summary in y> our 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?

When I type on my computer I initiate all thoughts, and the computer is passive. Same with soul and brain, but the more complex the computer the more complex operations I can perform on it. Same with soul and brain.


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.

dhw: 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?

You keep missing the points I've made above about the soul brain relationship. My thoughts are unchanged. Since no brain is present in death, the soul uses telepathy by being joined to the universal consciousness of God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum