Hermagoras
Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007
|
Holy shit this is fun. But ERV's latest response (posted at her own blog) will be pummeled for using the word "creationist."
Meanwhile, Daniel King tries to hold his sarcasm in check:
| Quote |
Phinehas #162 (163):
You have made some clarifying points that have increased my slow-witted understanding of your position.
| Quote | The essential point is whether there is a substance, which we call ?thought,? that exists independently of the brain.
Nope. That is what is at issue, but it is not at all the point. The point that KF made and that I reiterated is part of a logical argument relating to what is at issue, not a bare assertion of what is at issue. I?ve outlined that logical argument above, but you?ve chosen to be dismissive instead of addressing the argument on points. |
Yes, please pardon my confusion at failing to give sufficient weight to what you consider to be an important distinction between ?what is at issue? and ?what is the point.? However, I rejoice in your acknowledgment that the underlying issue is the existence of a metaphysical entity called ?thought,? and I take it by extension that includes related metaphysical entities called ?mind? and ?soul,? etc.
To counter the charge of being dismissive, I will address point III of your version of kf?s logical argument, to wit:
III. The physical explanation for the origin of thought relies heavily on chance plus necessity.
We agree that a logical argument is only as valid as its premises, and point III is clearly a premise. I am especially indebted to you for fleshing out what you mean in point III as follows:
| Quote | | ?I am not aware that there is a mountain of scholarship within evolutionary materialism that accounts for thought apart from blind reliance on chance and necessity. Exactly what does this mountain of scholarship rely on if not RM + NS? |
The scholarship relies on: observation, experiment and analysis Random mutation and natural selection address a theory of origins, not a theory of mind. See below.
| Quote | | How does evomat account for the origin of thought? If by other than RM + NS, then please enlighten. |
Precisely put. This is the kernel of the nut. Evomat I take to be an acronym of ?evolutionary materialism.? Current evolutionary work provides an account of the evolution of the brain, incomplete though it is, because all science is a work in progress. Inevitably you have brought us us back to what I asserted earlier to be the gounding premise of your argument, which I will restate in the context of your premise III:
If (and only if) there is a substance called ?thought? that exists independently of the brain, it follows logically that naturalists have not provided a coherent explanation for its origin.
Some questions that you might want to consider for possible relevance:
Do you claim that thought is possible without a brain to think it?
Do you deny that other creatures, such as the chimpanzee, have brains?
Do you deny that the chimpanzee?s brain enables him/her to exhibit purposeful behavior?
Do you know that a chimpanzee is incapable of thought? If so, how do you know?
|
Another beautiful comment which will be promptly misunderstood.
--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB
http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com
|
