what exactly is wrong in that statement?While it is reasonable to regard consciousness as an emergent property of a physical system there is no profound sense in which it can be said that different people's brains work according to the same kinds of processes and an appropriately programmed computer and a human brain would work according to different processes. Any difference between these situations is just a matter of degree and any argument that we should presume other people conscious because their brains work in basically the same sort of way could also be used to justify presuming an appropriately programmed computer conscious.[7]
Mind is the best organizing principle we know.
Moderator:Metacrock
JimL
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Mind is the best organizing principle we know.
Metacrock wrote:JimL
what exactly is wrong in that statement?While it is reasonable to regard consciousness as an emergent property of a physical system there is no profound sense in which it can be said that different people's brains work according to the same kinds of processes and an appropriately programmed computer and a human brain would work according to different processes. Any difference between these situations is just a matter of degree and any argument that we should presume other people conscious because their brains work in basically the same sort of way could also be used to justify presuming an appropriately programmed computer conscious.[7]
It sounds like you're taking one phrase:
in isolation from what follows. He's not denying that people's brains work according to the same processes. He's saying that no one can claim that and at the same time claim that a human brain and a computer work according to profoundly different processes. He's wrong about that, I think, but I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying. He's saying we can use the same reasoning to assume that our human brains work alike as we can use to assume that the differences between hman and artificial brains are just a matter of degree. It's there in the last sentence of the passage I quoted.there is no profound sense in which it can be said that different people's brains work according to the same kinds of processes
Re: Mind is the best organizing principle we know.
Amoebas, dogs and aliens may have minds, but neverheless all the minds we know of reside in physical human brains. The "we know of" qualify is important.Metacrock wrote:your true assumption is that since God is not human he can' hold no commence with us, that does not follow especially if he create us to have convener with,The Pixie wrote:And all the minds we know of reside in physical human brains.Mind is the best organizing principle we know.
Thus the universe must have been designed by a human.
It is great what you can prove if you start from a generalisation, and assume it is an absolute truth.
btw humans are not the only form of mind, mind may run from ground up, so amoeba may havemimds,mdogs have them pace aliens may have then,
The bigger point here is that you are not follow the basic logic.
1. All the minds we know of reside in physical human brains
2. Therefore it is reasonable to assume all minds reside in physical human brains
3. The universe must be organised by a mind (from your post)
4. Therefore the universe was organised by a mind in a human brain
I suppose it could be modified to allow for your dog:
1. All the minds we know of reside in physical biological brains
2. Therefore it is reasonable to assume all minds reside in physical biological brains
3. The universe must be organised by a mind (from your post)
4. Therefore the universe was organised by a mind in one or more biological brains
Re: Mind is the best organizing principle we know.
To Joe and Pix: Thanks for continuing to post on here and doing your best to keep this board alive!
Re: Mind is the best organizing principle we know.
Better to post here, better formatting capacities.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
Dr Ward Blanton