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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to