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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to