On Jul 25, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Wolfe, Stephen S Civ USAF AMC 6 MDSS/SGSI
wrote:
> Where in the story was the word 'brain' used? You missed the entire
> argument against duality...apparently.
No, I used 'brain' instead of mind, because the equivocation was what
I was talking about. The protagonist implied the use of the senses to
detect a mind, when what he implied was the brain. A mind is easily
sensed; the fact that you interact with another is evidence of a mind,
so since he is obviously engaging the professor, he is admitting to
the evidence of the mind. But he equivocates 'mind' with 'brain',
which, unless there is a brain surgeon present, he is certain that no
one has directly encountered.
A good a priori rule is that when one attempts to demonstrate a
supernatural event or entity through the use of logic, math, or
science, it is fraudulent. By definition, something supernatural is
beyond the scope of these disciplines.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
