Awful lot of stuff bumping around then. And what kind of corpus anyway.
All I mean is that if a lot of wet ware produces thoughts then what is
the difference between that and "something material giving rise to
something immaterial" except a more felicitous phrasing?
Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message-----
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 9:52 pm
Subject: Re: "...The realm of emotion and conscience, of memory andB
intention and sensation."
But what if thoughts are indeed corporeal but we are deluded by our
brains to
believe them as not?
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012
6:51:59 PM
Subject: Re: "...The realm of emotion and conscience, of memory and
intention
and sensation."
But if thoughts,which don't exist corporeally,are
made by physical
brains,does't this already happen? Or am I misunderstanding
something,and thoughts have some kind of physical existence,aside from
things
like bridges.
Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message-----
From: William Conger
<[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent:
Wed, May 16, 2012 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: "...The realm of emotion and
conscience, of memory andB
intention and sensation."
The question is can
something material give rise to something
immaterial?
People have always
claimed that magic for themselves but do they claim
it for
other creatures and
any living thing at all? Wait, some people even
say
inanimate things without
brains, like rocks, can have thoughts or can
have
feelings.
I very deeply
want to be a dualist. It would solve a lot of issues
that make it
more
comfortable to be a human being.
wc
----- Original
Message ----
From:
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Sent:
Wed, May 16, 2012 11:18:52 AM
Subject: Re:
"...The realm of emotion and
conscience, of memory and intention
and
sensation."
William writes:
No brains no thoughts. Show me a thought
independent of a living brain and
I'll reconsider the dualist position.
But
the dualist position is not that
consciousness is independent of brain
substance and activity. It's that
consciousness is not itself material.
Dualists are not uniformly dumb people.
Do look into the Chalmers.
Dualism
is
not my specialty, so I'm a poor
spokesman. I grant that if you pinch my
flesh you stir the brain to activity,
but I can't concede that the
neural
writhing "is" my feeling of pain. The fire
in the fireplace affects my
skin
and,
through nerve connections, my brain. But
I'd no more consider my feeling
of
warmth to be "identical" with the neural
activity than I'd say my
warmth is
identical to the fire. A typical
specialist's argument is that if you
describe
every possible thing about the
material activity in the brain you
still
haven't described my feeling.
William continues:
The origin of this
dualism is the Bible and the
expression, In
the
beginning there was The
Word.
wc
I'm not quite as
unthinking as that suggests, William. The
"origin" of MY
dualist convictions
is not the bible.
----- Original
Message ----
From:
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Sent:
Wed, May 16, 2012 9:10:41 AM
Subject:
Re: "...The realm of emotion
and
conscience, of memory and intention
and
sensation."
In a message
dated
5/16/12 9:49:34 AM,
[email protected] writes:
> And it
can't happen
without a living,
pulsing brain. Oops, that's the
> realm of
> the physical,
ain't it?
wc
>
> Dualists don't deny the physical,
neural world. But, as
Updike
