It's not all wet and bloody and you can go read it somewhere the brain
that made it up isn't. Or some other brain can tell it to you or
chisel it on a wall or something. When someone does that presumably
the synapses etc of the person being told fire off-caused by the
thought being told. I am beginning to feel like Basil de la Roche
here,missing the point and shouting loudly anyway. Perhaps Conger could
devote some of his contempt to explaining the problem clearly -why a
brain is not material giving rise to something immaterial and
exciting(or annoying)other brains with it.
Kate Sulivan
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brady <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: "...The realm of emotion and conscience, of memory andB
intention and sensation."
On May 16, 2012, at 10:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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?
How can you discern the difference between an 'immaterial' thought and
the
pattern of synapses and other neural activity that creates/gives rise
to/is
coextensive with the thought? As far as we can determine, the thought is
equivalent to and coincident with the neural activity.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
