I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Fudbucker]

And the reason everytime we explain mental functioning, the Woo Slingers have to add some made quality to mental function so there is still a place for their Woo to go.

While they are still some questions to be answered about how the brain functions, the question as to whether mental functioning is a wholly material function of the brain was put to rest a long time ago.

It's the "and than." I can sit here and explain neurons and glial cells and myelin and so forth until I'm blue in the face and you'll just... invoke another layer with a new name and go "explain that."

Here's the answer. Brain damage. If I damage a part of my brain, a part of the mental functioning will cease to work. Therefore if I damage my whole brain, I have zero mental functioning.

Phineas Gage and the lobotomy put to rest a non-biological aspect to our mental functioning.

You can accept that or you can go hand out with Jabba in this immortality thread.



Yes if you are completely and absolutely ignorant of the entire concept of neuroscience and it's advances in the last hundred plus years, that is an accurate statement.



No it's only a problem for people that need a mystical woo-woo aspect to their mental function.



Yes. Science can't answer questions that aren't really questions.

I love how you're throwing out "the meaning of the problem can't be articulated" as a positive. Have you ever considered the possibility that a problem is being invented that isn't there?

That's like saying calculus is wrong because it can answer the question of what would the color blue pay the bishop to rent the mailbox.

Oh are you saying the calculus can answer that question?

See? That's all you're doing.



Yes but a theory doesn't have to explain a distinction without difference, semantics, or silly word games.

So I'm a "woo slinger" for pointing out materialism's difficulty explaining consciousness? Is Chalmers, the guy who coined "hard problem of consciousness", a woo slinger too? All those who agree with him? How easy it is to attack people instead of refuting their arguments.

Whatever, Joe Bentley. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the argument instead of the arguer.

 

[punshhh]

I understand this. The issue is that we also know that there is something else. We experience something.

Do we, do we know there is something else? How, via secondary experience(ie, we know secondary experience via secondary experience), clever.

I'm interested to know how you know there are at least two something's?

The moment you come up with any sort of coherent definition for what this "something" is, idealism collapses.

We don't know what anything is to begin with. Just to identify that a person considering idealism can't say what something in an idealist universe is, does not answer the question "are we in an idealist universe?", or even "could it be true that we are in as idealist universe?"

"Secondary in some way" is a meaningless phrase.

No it is not, because we have evidence of more than one thing, unfortunately we don't know in what way there is more than one thing, or that there is actually more than one thing.

It's not.

It is, because to have the analogy of a garage dragon, the dragon is a necessary being in the analogy. Without it there is no analogy, likewise without the "mind", there is no world.

You don't need to know what it is in order to determine how it relates to the rest of the universe? What sort of complete crock are you spouting now?

So presumably you know what something is now? So you know that there is more than one something and you know what it is now? Who told, you was it science?

Really, you seem to be caught up in some kind of intellectual world of the mind, where existence is subject to "coherent thought", or something.

And who said anything about knowing how it relates to the rest of the universe? If it is necessary, it must play some kind of role by necessity, whether we know what role or how, or not.

"Human frailty" is a meaningless phrase. Definitions can demonstrably be accurate and applied to the objects they describe.

Human frailty is a most apt phrase for pointing out the limitations of the human mind. Need I say more.

"You can't possibly know" is an extremely silly thing to say when we demonstrably can.

Really, do you accept that there may be things in existence which humanity is not at this time able to either know or detect? Or that there exist things outside the mind, which we do not, or may not be able to, know about, or understand?

No. No, it isn't.

There isn't anything else to say. No. It is not a "reasonable conclusion considering the empirical evidence". It is completely nonsensical and outright violates the evidence in place. What you have said is exactly the opposite of what is true.

What is all this evidence of, if not intelligent capability? As I said, this has nothing to do with consciousness specifically. It does apply to self-conscious awareness, as the apparatus enabling the capacity to be self-consciously aware, to think, to ponder, to be creative etc. This is all processing power. Without the conscious organism to perform all these processes, they are simply an intelligent device, which may be as dumb as my toaster.

I literally just answered this question.

Playing word games with the definition of "body" is not particularly compelling.

Yes, I am asking for the process in the body resulting in consciousness, ie how the cells generate it? The fact that large numbers of neurons can collectively perform computation is a comment on processing power not on the state of the entity. The same philosophical question arises as before why is it not possible for a lineage of organisms to have evolved to the same processing capacity, while having no vestige of consciousness. It is all computation after all, why develop consciousness, it is not necessary to perform the computation?

It is explicitly not.

Again, there isn't anything else to say. You're just wrong. Flat-out wrong. The evidence explicitly indicates that consciousness comes from computation in the brain.

Self-consciousness,yes, requires the complex processing of the brain, I agree. Is this the origin of consciousness, perhaps you can show me a working model?

Which is just a garage dragon.

Mind is a necessary being, this always provides enough wriggle room for idealism.

 

[Belz...]

Hey, I'm sorry if you thought I implied something. I put considerable time and effort into my posts, and I try to provide links to relevant sources, when I can. And it's not for the purposes of fooling anyone. You shouldn't throw around those kinds of accusations.

Dodge noted.

I talked about one thing, and you asked an unrelated question. Will you admit that, now ?

 

[punshhh]

Electro-chemical reactions in the brain generates consciousness.

Electro-chemical reactions in the cell generate consciousness.

 

[annnnoid]

But that's irrelevant: every piece of data we have points to it being entirely physical and wholly caused by the brain.

Every piece of data. This is amusing. Every piece of data we currently possess generates the conclusion that we have no idea….I’ll repeat that for the hard of hearing… absolutely no idea…how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness. No one here (or anywhere) ever has…and no one here (or anywhere) can… present anything remotely resembling an explicit explanation of the process.

…and…every piece of data we currently possess generates the conclusion that we still don’t know what ‘consciousness’ even is. Lots of ideas ( there’s an insect that’s about the size of a speck of dust that is conscious…according to some folks… but no-one ever seems to be able to explicitly explain why or how), but nothing even remotely definitive. I’ll repeat that again…nothing even remotely definitive. It’s all speculation. All …of….it.

Not too mention…that every piece of data we currently possess generates the indisputable conclusion that we still have absolutely no idea…I’ll repeat that again as well… absolutely no idea… what ‘physical’ even means. Why? Because…A) …nobody knows where this universe came from or what it’s actually made of and B) nobody knows how the brain generates the word ‘physical’ to begin with.

It really is turtles all the way down. Religion…it’s called. Currently it’s headed in the direction of ‘information’ being at the heart of whatever reality is. An informational universe, by definition, has far more in common with idealism (which, for anyone who wants to be honest about it, is not necessarily predicated on any specifically dogmatic version of dualism… but most folks here prefer not to be honest about it).

What is truly laughable is the degree to which so many go to pretend that all of this massive ignorance is merely trivial.

What were those two ‘de’ words….denial…delusion.

Why does all this not just matter …but matter so very very much (besides the blindingly obvious).

Because answering these questions will not only explain what human identity actually is, it will also explain what science itself is. In case any you have forgotten, science is an epistemology…something entirely abstract. Wholly generated by consciousness. It does not exist anywhere. None of those rules (that Nonpareil was so certain everything in the universe followed) exist anywhere except in our minds. Nobody has the faintest clue as to why / how science has the capacity to explain / predict anything at all. No one can even explain the existence of the most simple component of science…the number 1.

While they are still some questions to be answered about how the brain functions, the question as to whether mental functioning is a wholly material function of the brain was put to rest a long time ago.

Really. So tell us Joe…when, precisely, did this seminal event occur?

Yes if you are completely and absolutely ignorant of the entire concept of neuroscience and it's advances in the last hundred plus years, that is an accurate statement.

…so do enlighten us Joe (since you, no doubt, do not count yourself amongst the ‘completely and absolutely ignorant’)…how is it that the brain generates the most simple of cognitive conditions. The number 1 (and once you’ve accomplished that… we’ll move on to differential equations).

Electro-chemical reactions in the brain generates consciousness.

You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.

 

[tsig]

Every piece of data. This is amusing. Every piece of data we currently possess generates the conclusion that we have no idea….I’ll repeat that for the hard of hearing… absolutely no idea…how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness. No one here (or anywhere) ever has…and no one here (or anywhere) can… present anything remotely resembling an explicit explanation of the process.

…and…every piece of data we currently possess generates the conclusion that we still don’t know what ‘consciousness’ even is. Lots of ideas ( there’s an insect that’s about the size of a speck of dust that is conscious…according to some folks… but no-one ever seems to be able to explicitly explain why or how), but nothing even remotely definitive. I’ll repeat that again…nothing even remotely definitive. It’s all speculation. All …of….it.

Not too mention…that every piece of data we currently possess generates the indisputable conclusion that we still have absolutely no idea…I’ll repeat that again as well… absolutely no idea… what ‘physical’ even means. Why? Because…A) …nobody knows where this universe came from or what it’s actually made of and B) nobody knows how the brain generates the word ‘physical’ to begin with.

It really is turtles all the way down. Religion…it’s called. Currently it’s headed in the direction of ‘information’ being at the heart of whatever reality is. An informational universe, by definition, has far more in common with idealism (which, for anyone who wants to be honest about it, is not necessarily predicated on any specifically dogmatic version of dualism… but most folks here prefer not to be honest about it).

What is truly laughable is the degree to which so many go to pretend that all of this massive ignorance is merely trivial.
What were those two ‘de’ words….denial…delusion.

Why does all this not just matter …but matter so very very much (besides the blindingly obvious).

Because answering these questions will not only explain what human identity actually is, it will also explain what science itself is. In case any you have forgotten, science is an epistemology…something entirely abstract. Wholly generated by consciousness. It does not exist anywhere. None of those rules (that Nonpareil was so certain everything in the universe followed) exist anywhere except in our minds. Nobody has the faintest clue as to why / how science has the capacity to explain / predict anything at all. No one can even explain the existence of the most simple component of science…the number 1.




Really. So tell us Joe…when, precisely, did this seminal event occur?




…so do enlighten us Joe (since you, no doubt, do not count yourself amongst the ‘completely and absolutely ignorant’)…how is it that the brain generates the most simple of cognitive conditions. The number 1 (and once you’ve accomplished that… we’ll move on to differential equations).

Actually it looks purely personal. It's your whole argument, "nobody knows, nobody knows" and when faced with facts you handwave the facts and croak "nobody knows, nobody knows".

I'd ask what you think produces consciousness but I've already got your answer 'nobody knows".

 

[annnnoid]

Actually it looks purely personal. It's your whole argument, "nobody knows, nobody knows" and when faced with facts you handwave the facts and croak "nobody knows, nobody knows".

I'd ask what you think produces consciousness but I've already got your answer 'nobody knows".

Personal…nope. Just entertainment.

Just out of curiosity…if nobody knows the answer to a question.... how, exactly, is it a flaw to acknowledge that fact? Would it not be a flaw to pretend that answers exist where the facts clearly indicate otherwise (that's not a question).

…but hang on…according to you, THE answer all those neuroscientists are wasting their time looking for is ‘electro-chemical reactions in the cell’.

…generate what, exactly. Not to mention …how? Trivial questions. I guess the neuroscientists simply have to get back to work and face the fact that THE answer will probably not appear in one of your posts.

 

[Belz...]

Every piece of data. This is amusing.

I would have said "fascinating", myself.

I’ll repeat that for the hard of hearing… absolutely no idea…how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness.

And now you fall into the same trap as Fudbucker, conflating "we know the mind is generated by the brain" with "we know how the mind is generated". You and your ilk make this "mistake" so often that it's hard to believe that you are doing so earnestly.

…and…every piece of data we currently possess generates the conclusion that we still don’t know what ‘consciousness’ even is.

Again, irrelevant given the actual question.

Not too mention…that every piece of data we currently possess generates the indisputable conclusion that we still have absolutely no idea…I’ll repeat that again as well… absolutely no idea… what ‘physical’ even means. Why? Because…A) …nobody knows where this universe came from or what it’s actually made of and B) nobody knows how the brain generates the word ‘physical’ to begin with.

That is one of the most nonsensical, insane bits of logic I've seen in a long time. "Physical" is a word that we invented in order to describe reality. We know exactly what it means. And before you flip out: no, this isn't the same as saying that we know how it arises. But that's the thing: one isn't required for the other.

It really is turtles all the way down.

Only because people like you continue to add turtles, not unlike a young child continuously asking "why" long after their simple question has been answered.

An informational universe, by definition, has far more in common with idealism

No, it really doesn't. I'll give you one thing, Annnnoid, you sure are comfortable in your ignorance, given that you've had years to dispel your misconceptions and steadfastly refuse to address them.

What were those two ‘de’ words….denial…delusion.

You must really love the sound of your own keyboard.

Because answering these questions will not only explain what human identity actually is, it will also explain what science itself is.

Meaningless twaddle.

No one can even explain the existence of the most simple component of science…the number 1.

See ? You're back with _that_ nonsense. We've already addressed how this objection is silly and nonsensical, but you keep bringing it up as if it's some sort of deep insight. You sound like a philosophy major who's fresh out of university: all rhetoric and no experience whatsoever.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Somewhat. We know that neural states are associated with mental states, but we have no idea why electrons moving around inside our skulls (or rocks being moved around on an endless plain) produces consciousness and associated subjective experiences..

Edited by jsfisher: 

Original text of quoted text restored. Do not alter what others have posted without either making the change obvious or explicitly pointing out where the change was made. (Such changes are done typically for emphasis.)

We also have NO IDEA why mass attracts at a distance, or why subatomic particles cling together in a nucleus. This does not preclude us from using our imperfect understanding of gravity and nuclear physics to our practical advantage. So you may wish to hold that PHILOSOPHICALLY we have no idea about anything, but there are definite practical advantages to following the evidence and using it to our advantage.

The evidence that the brain generates our sense of awareness, our feeling of independent agency, our experience of the world, and our memories of our lives, is overwhelming. The evidence comes from multiple independent lines of inquiry, all of which corroborate the working hypothesis that brain activity generates these things. There is no conflicting line of evidence, only the argument that we do not understand how the brain does it, or why, therefore we don't definitely KNOW that that is the case.

Two of the most convincing lines of evidence for me are:
1: The result of direct brain stimulation. It is well documented that passing micro amp current through a tiny micro electrode located in brain tissue, activates neural circuits, and can result in a conscious experience for the patient. The experiences may be sounds, music, memories, OBEs, or emotions. With an electrode in a particular position, turning the current on and off generates the experience, then terminates it, repeatedly. My interpretation is that activating the particular neural circuit generates a conscious experience. What is the alternative interpretation which is consistent with the "conduit hypothesis"?

2: the split brain patients. I have read above in this thread a rather erroneous discussion of these results, but I suggest you watch the videos carefully yourself. The patient's non dominant hemisphere is capable of following commands, and answering questions by writing, but it does not have control of the speech centers. The dominant hemisphere, which can speak, denies the existence of the sensory inputs to and actions of the other hemisphere, and confabulates reasons why the activities of the contra lateral hand are occurring. These peculiarities are only apparent when the researchers carefully isolate sensory inputs to one hemisphere. If you just ask the guy how he feels, the dominant (left) hemisphere answers that he is unaware of any problems.

I do not know how to rectify these studies with a "brain as conduit" hypothesis. If the brain is a conduit to the "consciousness" then shouldn't each half of the split brain relate to the original single consciousness which would be aware of what both halves of the brain were doing? Does severing the corpus callosum suddenly generate two conduits to two separate entities, where previously there was only one?

As I said in the beginning there are practical advantages to accepting the mountain of data which supports the "brain generates consciousness".
One can understand diseases of the brain and develop more effective treatments for mental illnesses.
One can appreciate religion, spirituality and mysticism for what they are (aspects of culture) without insisting that one devotion is "right" and the others wrong.
One can appreciate the limitations of our own construction, and attempt as best we can avoid its pitfalls.
One can make predictions about how the brain generates consciousness and attempt to duplicate this on a non biological platform. When we succeed at this we willbetter understand the answers to some of the questions you pose; how and why does the brain do it?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Electro-chemical reactions in the cell generate consciousness.

This statement is completely without evidence and therefore unwarranted

 

[Fudbucker]

MudPhud, can you edit your post so you're quoting me correctly?

 

[Fudbucker]

Dodge noted.

I talked about one thing, and you asked an unrelated question. Will you admit that, now ?

You claimed the data shows a casual connection between the brain and consciousness:

every piece of data we have points to it being entirely physical and wholly caused* by the brain.

If you continue to claim that, I'll continue to ask you to articulate a theory of how consciousness is caused by matter. If you can't articulate such a casual theory (and it seems you can't because you haven't so far), then you can't know whether the data should go in the causality column or the correlation column.

You must have some idea of how a working brain causes the feeling of conscious awareness. Do you believe integrating information causes it? Self referential information processing? Does it arise from the actions of complex neural networks?

* I obviously bolded the key concept that prompted my question from your statement about data and causality. If you want to keep claiming I'm asking dishonest questions, instead of simply answering a question about causality, I'm not going to bother discussing this particular issue with you.

 

[Belz...]

You claimed the data shows a casual connection between the brain and consciousness:

*Causal. Yes.

If you continue to claim that, I'll continue to ask you to articulate a theory of how consciousness is caused by matter.

Then you will continue to spout nonsense, since one has nothing to do with the other. Are you even able to understand this ?

We have incontrovertible proof that alteration to the brain alters consciousness, and that a nonfunctional brain _destroys_ the mind. If you take all of the evidence, NONE of it disproves my claim, and ALL of it supports it. It is not necessary to have a theory about HOW that occurs to be able to claim that it DOES occur.

ETA: For example, if you see a car for the first time in your life, it is not necessary for you to understand HOW the engine works to be able to claim that it DOES work.

 

[LarryS]

I would have said "fascinating", myself.



And now you fall into the same trap as Fudbucker, conflating "we know the mind is generated by the brain" with "we know how the mind is generated". You and your ilk make this "mistake" so often that it's hard to believe that you are doing so earnestly.



Again, irrelevant given the actual question.



That is one of the most nonsensical, insane bits of logic I've seen in a long time. "Physical" is a word that we invented in order to describe reality. We know exactly what it means. And before you flip out: no, this isn't the same as saying that we know how it arises. But that's the thing: one isn't required for the other.



Only because people like you continue to add turtles, not unlike a young child continuously asking "why" long after their simple question has been answered.



No, it really doesn't. I'll give you one thing, Annnnoid, you sure are comfortable in your ignorance, given that you've had years to dispel your misconceptions and steadfastly refuse to address them.



You must really love the sound of your own keyboard.



Meaningless twaddle.



See ? You're back with _that_ nonsense. We've already addressed how this objection is silly and nonsensical, but you keep bringing it up as if it's some sort of deep insight. You sound like a philosophy major who's fresh out of university: all rhetoric and no experience whatsoever.

We have no idea what "physical" means - except that it means to exist independent of consciousness . . . but since we haven't defined consciousness . . .


Materialism predicts there are two definitions of "is" or "to exist", there is (1) brought into existence as the result of a calculation resulting from brain activity, IOW, the world of experience inside our skulls, and (2) "physical", as being independent of consciousness.

Your analogy of viewing a star through a telescope is a perfect example of (1). The (2) "is" as independent of consciousness we have no evidence for.

 

[Belz...]

We have no idea what "physical" means

Nonsense. Of course we do. We've invented and defined the term. Physical is stuff that exists in reality. Stop trying to "mystify" the world.

 

[Fudbucker]

You claimed the data shows a casual connection between the brain and consciousness:

*Causal. Yes.

If you continue to claim that, I'll continue to ask you to articulate a theory of how consciousness is caused by matter.

Then you will continue to spout nonsense, since one has nothing to do with the other. Are you even able to understand this ?

Your use of pronouns makes this confusing. When you say "one has nothing to do with the other", are you saying matter has nothing to do with consciousness (or vice versa)? Because that is completely NOT the materialist position. Under materialism, the brain (which is made of MATTER) has everything to do with consciousness.

You continue to assert the data points to a causal connection between the brain (which is matter) and consciousness. Soooo, can you elaborate on this causal connection? What it is and how it works? It's you who made the claim about causality and data:

every piece of data we have points to it [consciousness] being entirely physical and wholly caused by the brain.

You can't make claims like that and get all huffy when someone asks you for a theory of causality (well, you can, but who would take you seriously?)

We have incontrovertible proof that alteration to the brain alters consciousness, and that a nonfunctional brain _destroys_ the mind.

Which shows the brain is a necessary condition for consciousness. The dualist will readily admit this. They would even give an analogy: the brain is a conduit for consciousness (like an antenna), and if the brain (antenna) is messed with, the signal (consciousness) will be altered.

If you take all of the evidence, NONE of it disproves my claim, and ALL of it supports it.

Again, how does it support your claim that the brain CAUSES consciousness? How do you know the data is pointing at causation and not correlation? I ask again: what theoretical framework are you working with that allows you to put the data in the "causation" column?

It is not necessary to have a theory about HOW that occurs to be able to claim that it DOES occur.

In the case of causation? No, you pretty much have to know HOW it happens to convince anyone. Picture the following conversation:
"The brain causes consciousness"
"OK, how does that work"
"Uhhhhhhhhh...."

Not very convincing.

ETA: For example, if you see a car for the first time in your life, it is not necessary for you to understand HOW the engine works to be able to claim that it DOES work.

But that's not the claim. You're saying the brain causes consciousness, not just that the brain is necessary for consciousness. Belz, do you realize that those are two different claims?

To apply what YOU'RE claiming to the car, you would have to say, "it is not necessary to understand how the engine works to be able to claim IT CAUSES THE CAR TO MOVE". That, obviously, is not true. You would have to know, at the least, that the engine provides power to the wheels. Otherwise, as far as you know, the engine is like the battery- if you remove it, the car doesn't work.

So for the last time, Belz, how does the brain produce consciousness? You seem awfully convinced that the brain produces consciousness. You must have some idea.

 

[abaddon]

If you're not even going to read the post I quoted for an explanation of what I'm asking and why, why are you here? Or are you just explicitly trolling now?

The post you quoted said the word is used in many different ways. That’s it. Then you suggested Barehl provide his definition.

Why should Barehl provide his definition when you have insisted that yours is the definitive one?

That's a non-claim claim. Everyone recognises it. Everyone knows it is baloney.

I never said this.

The discussion so far.

I have said (repeatedly) that there is no consensus on the definition of consciousness. You (eventually) responded with this:

There is an extremely simple and coherent definition. I just gave it. Consciousness is the capability to experience. It is the ability to feel.
[/i]

If true then you can provide a citation. Can you?

You explicitly stated that there IS an extremely simple and coherent definition… and then you provided it.

Still, you have failed to cite it, you have only baselessly claimed it. I would be delighted to concede it if you DID cite it and you have had the opportunity to do so yet do not. Why?

Are you saying your words represent the scientific consensus (or any kind of consensus)….or not?

Well, yes. In contrast, you present ideas which have no evidence and cannot be tested.

<snip for brevity>

All of this is nonsense

 

[Belz...]

Your use of pronouns makes this confusing. When you say "one has nothing to do with the other", are you saying matter has nothing to do with consciousness (or vice versa)?

How in everhating hell could you ever reach that conclusion from my post ? We're talking about what I said versus your nonsensical question.

You continue to assert the data points to a causal connection between the brain (which is matter) and consciousness. Soooo, can you elaborate on this causal connection? What it is and how it works?

Are you still asking me to explain how consciousness is generated ? Have you understood NOTHING of what I've told you so far ?

You can't make claims like that and get all huffy when someone asks you for a theory of causality (well, you can, but who would take you seriously?)

No one's getting all huffy. I am telling you that your request has nothing to do with my claim. Make _some_ effort and understand this.

Which shows the brain is a necessary condition for consciousness. The dualist will readily admit this. They would even give an analogy: the brain is a conduit for consciousness (like an antenna)

Fud, would you kindly actually _read_ what I post ? I have addressed this already. A nonfunctional brain has NO mind at all. The mind ceases to exist. If it's a conduit, then why does the mind cease to even register time until the biological system is brought back on line ? This simple fact annihilates this hypothesis of the dualist.

Not very convincing.

Start by reading what people actually write, and then we can discuss if it's convincing or not.

But that's not the claim. You're saying the brain causes consciousness, not just that the brain is necessary for consciousness. Belz, do you realize that those are two different claims?

Yes. Do you realise that I never made the second one ? Again, read the damn posts before you continue to embarrass yourself.

So for the last time, Belz, how does the brain produce consciousness?

Irrelevant to my claim, and the fact that you don't understand this yet shows that you have put zero effort at actually having a conversation.

 

[Fudbucker]

No one's getting all huffy. I am telling you that your request has nothing to do with my claim. Make _some_ effort and understand this.

Belz, I'm going to take a pass on discussing this particular topic with you any further.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, I'm going to take a pass on discussing this particular topic with you any further.

Really ? You are utterly unable to understand the distinction ? It doesn't help that, when I made a very clear analogy to you, you ignored the point of it and focused instead on the differences between the analogy and thing being discussed, which is both dishonest and trivial: analogies are, by definition, different from the thing being discussed.

And now, after _several_ attempts by me to explain the difference to you, you decide to walk away ? Why can't you make any sort of effort to understand this ? Are you so dead-set against the idea that the mind is physical that you refuse to do any sort of actual thinking on the topic ? Why are you even here, then ?