by David Turell @, Sunday, July 01, 2018, 18:26 (171 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You keep ignoring or missing the main thrust of my theory. The soul/consciousness/I initiate a thought, but the start of a thought is never a complete thought. To initiate is to begin. The soul then refines the thought using the brain networks Which are passively used in the process. The completed thought is then announced through the brain. To repeat, initiation is only part of the process of thought.

dhw: The “main thrust” of your theory changes from week to week, but the starting point of this whole discussion was your insistence that only after your God had enlarged the brain was pre-sapiens capable of thinking new thoughts.....And it doesn’t remotely unravel the tangled logic of your insistence that the soul initiates new thoughts but new thoughts are only possible once the brain has already been enlarged.

As usual you have ignored my statement that the soul MUST use the brain's networks to process new thought. If you accepted that, your whole position would fall apart. Continue your non-recognition if you wish, but I haven't changed, ever, in this view.

DAVID: Refinement and completion must have a more complex network for more complex thought, and can not have that complexity without a more complex network available.

dhw: Refinement and completion of thought are carried out by the dualist’s soul, which uses the information and means of material expression provided by the brain. Your computer example illustrates dualism perfectly, as above: the soul provides the thought, and if the computer can’t express it, you need a more complex computer.

Twisted my point as usual.

DAVID: Think genius brain like Hawking or Einstein as obvious examples. The more complex computer producing a more complex output is a perfect example.

dhw: According to dualists, the complex computer/brain produces the material expression of the complex thoughts of the soul. If you believe the complex thoughts are the “output” of the complex computer/genius brain, you are a materialist, which is fine, but is the cause of all the contradictions I keep pointing out to you.

Ignoring my theory as usual. An immaterial soul uses a material brain network to initiate and form thought.

DAVID: The use of brain's networks to initiate and refine thought is not the same as initiating a refining thought by psychic mechanisms.

I don’t know what you mean by “initiating a refining thought”, but of course vibrating my vocal chords is different from passing on my thoughts by telepathy. That doesn’t mean the thoughts are generated by a different “separate consciousness mechanism”.

I meant 'initiating AND refining'. Again, I view the soul using the brain's networks to initiate and refine thought in life and God's universal consciousness in death. Again you want a static soul mechanism.

DAVID: I do not view the soul as to be a complete thought mechanism in life: it needs the brain networks….

dhw: What does the SEPARATE consciousness mechanism need them for? For the provision of information and the means of expression.

Your view only, not mine.

DAVID:… in death it needs God's universal consciousness for complete operation. But since the soul is the initiator at all times it has free will.

dhw: According to you, the soul IS part of God’s universal consciousness. Free will is a different subject altogether. Since you keep agreeing and then disagreeing on what dualism means, please make a decision:
1) In life the soul (“piece of God’s consciousness”, “separate consciousness mechanism”) conducts the thinking process while the brain provides information and means of material expression/implementation. Yes or no?

No and explained fully above. Requires use of the networks.

dhw: In death the same soul (“piece of God's consciousness”, “separate consciousness mechanism”) conducts the thinking process, while information and means of expression are provided by psychic powers such as telepathy? Yes or no?

Yes using God's universal consciousness. Your inability to understand my written explanation of my theory is amazing. but if you accepted even a portion of it, it would destroy your approach to my big brain enlargement need theory. No wonder you wander around claiming to be confused by what I write.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum