jeeprs wrote:I agree that that post. That says pretty well all I would want to say on the topic.shel wrote: The options would seem to be:
A) If the brain contained any memories or thought to begin with, in the absence of anything else (sense input) it would soon degenerate into nothing.
B) The brain would be sustained by non-physical sense data, so a mind would emerge, or be sustained indefinitely if a mind were already present.
Sorry - I had missed this post when I responded to the one posted subsequently.
From what you have said, I think you're not really acquainted with materialist or physicalist theories of mind. They state that the act of thought, itself, can be understood solely in terms of neural mechanisms, the transfer of substances across membranes, and so on. Of course they acknowledge that in the case of the human brain, the processes are immensely complex, but in principle it is understandable through neurobiological analysis, with no residue. The two main forms that materialism takes in modern thinking is this one - the neurobiological - and the evolutionary approach, which is that humans are the outcome of a non-directed, essentially fortuitous material process which can be understood solely through scientific method, in principle, anyway.
However it is not really productive to explain a viewpoint for the sole purpose of saying what's wrong with it. SteveB also linked to some reviews of current criticisms of physicalism in this post. It includes mention of a recent book by UK philosopher, Raymond Tallis, who has the advantage of in-depth knowledge of neuroscience, having been medically trained. He also is not pushing a religious cause, as he is a self-described 'proud atheist'. See also http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... ap0396.htm for an in-depth review
You're like having a dialog with an encyclopedia, which is not a dialog at all.