A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two; addendum (Identity)

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 28, 2018, 15:33 (141 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The brain supplies stored memories and sensory information. You know that. To use means to employ. I am my soul. I know I think materially consciously with brain electrical networks. So does my soul which is my immaterial me, because it is me. I don't understand why you don't understand that thought of mine.

dhw: Yes, if the soul exists, it uses the information supplied by the brain. That is my use number one. What do you mean by “materially consciously”? Consciousness and thought are immaterial.

What don't you understand? In life I am material and think with a material brain. That is what I wrote.

dhw: (Remember your definition of the soul as a piece of God’s consciousness?) Material consciousness is the material expression of consciousness – my use number two. “I think…” and “so does my soul”. Why are you separating your soul from “I”? Yes, your dualist's immaterial soul does the thinking. I don’t understand why you don’t understand this.

I'm not separated. I am me and my soul is me. No separation. When I think my soul thinks, because in life we are one and the same. You are the separatist. For you only the soul thinks.

DAVID: I have only one soul which appears through God's activity when I am created by embryogenesis. It is an immaterial part of my material brain and it acts as a mechanism to translate thought into electricity and back again, just as I do in material life.

dhw: Why “just as I do”? Your soul is you, remember? And we are only talking about material life, since there is no brain in the afterlife you believe in.

I view the soul as an immaterial part/image of me in life. You don't seem to view it that way which I think leads to all the confusion. In life I am a material me, and I run everything. I view the soul as recording all of me as I live and develop and producing the immaterial consciousness we cannot otherwise explain. Note this bolded comment below:

DAVID: I've ignored your constant misinterpretation of me. I never forget that I am my soul and we both use the brain networks to think. My soul does not think without me initiating the thought. It is not separate from me as you keep implying. And I use my brain to think.

dhw: I keep emphasizing that your soul IS you. And once again you are the one who keeps separating the two: “my soul does not think without me initiating the thought”. Don’t you mean your soul does not think without your soul initiating the thought, i.e. your soul (and not your brain) initiates the thought?

Explained above.

DAVID: I think that God-given mechanism is the immaterial soul, which embodies my entire personality structure and thought capacity. But in life I have to recognize how the brain plays its role in materially producing thought…

dhw: I agree with your description of the dualist’s soul, and I agree that the soul uses the brain to “materially produce”, i.e. give material expression to its immaterial thought. Thank you for confirming what I keep repeating.

I've explained the differences in our thoughts.

DAVID: ...and how the I/soul ties to the brain and then when released from the brain ends up functionally in the afterlife still thinking and observing. Therefore, in my view the soul has two mechanisms of thought, using the brain in life as I do and able to think without the brain in afterlife. A perfectly reasonable theory. Once again, I am my soul. It is not as separate as you seem to want it to be.

dhw: How can the soul have two “mechanisms of THOUGHT”? It thinks in life as in death, because according to you the soul is a piece of God’s consciousness, and consciousness is conscious, i.e. it thinks. But as you have agreed in this post, in life it uses the mechanism of the brain to observe (gather information) and to “materially produce” its thoughts, whereas in death it must use psychic means (“mechanisms”) to gather information and to communicate its thoughts.

I've not agreed. In life I/soul uses the brain networks to think. You and I have never seen a soul, so we have to reason what it is and what it might be capable of being and doing. My theory is that it has two mechanisms of thought to fit two different mechanisms of existence in life and death. We both have the right to our own theories and our own versions of what a soul is. If we can reach the same definition of soul we agree to, the seas of disagreement will part.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum