On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In fact, Craig himself >> denies that his theory would manifest as violation of physical law, >> and is therefore inconsistent. > > There is no inconsistency. You're just not understanding what I'm > saying because you are only willing to think in terms of reactive > strategies for neutralizing the threat to your common sense (which is > a cumulative entanglement of autobiographical experiences and > understandings, interpretations of cultural traditions and > perspectives, etc). If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in the brain. You have said as much, then denied it. You have said that neurons firing in the brain can't be just due to a chain of biochemical events. That would mean that, somewhere, a neuron fires where examination of its physical state would suggest that it should not fire. You can't have it both ways: EITHER the neurons all fire due to detectable physical causes OR some neurons do not fire due to detectable physical causes. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.