--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > [...] > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), > > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly > > his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY > > was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied > > by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning". > > > > human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. > > Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp?
For me, yes. > He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. > > An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent of an > angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether it is in > time or space or both) observer without some kind of associated structure > (nervous system). If that's true (how would you know?), it does not follow that the system is the product of the structure. If X is a necessary condition for Y, it does not follow (from just that) that Y is a product of X (or, as materialists might say, "Y is nothing but X"). For example, some structure in the form of buildings is necessary for a university, but of course the statement "the university IS a product of the buildings, or can be reduced to the set of buildings that comprise it" is false. I am thinking MMY is a "for every university there exists some associated physical structure" kind of guy. But he's not an "and that's ALL the university IS" kind of guy. If in the above you talk about brains and consciousness, then, Curtis say, IS an "and that's all it is" kind of guy (I think! Sorry Curtis if I'm getting you wrong).
