Summations Only

If we were also able to measure the activity of each the painter's neurons and understand how those neurons interact to produce a specific emotion we could answer questions as to the meaning of the painting, why the painter did this or that, etc. IMHO, the "mystery of the soul" is just a synonym for our ignorance of the brain works. I don't know who said it, and I am probably not quoting it exactly, but I remember watching a show on the brain and one of the experts said, "The good news is that we found the soul . . . the bad news is that it is just a bunch of robots".

It was the title of a piece about Dan Dennett. I believe it was by Giulio Giorello.

quote:

---

Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That sounds right. Two cookies for Modulous.ABE: Dennett's reaction to hearing the "tiny robots" description of his ideas is also quite good:"It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.
Daniel C. DennettPage not foundEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

When you are up to the challenge of explaining your point, I'm sure I'll still be around to discuss it.

Could you give me an example of an "ideal why" question?And could you give me an example of an "ideal why" question to which theology has been known to give a demonstrably correct answer?And do you agree that the intent of question (3) in the O.P. might be better expressed in the way that you have done it in the sentence I've quoted?It's not a question of whether it's right or wrong, but that I think your effort says what you want to say, whereas the O.P. version probably has a similar intent, but dismally fails to express it, and is misleading.

Love, honor, beauty, faith, God ...

That doesn't answer my question, but never mind.So, science asks the questions about the mechanics of the brain that cause those five things. Then, the theologians ask "ideal" questions about those five things, then scientists investigate the mechanics of the brain that cause theologians to ask their "ideal" questions.So, it looks as though it's the scientists who are asking the "ultimate" questions. They are investigating the causes of God.

No, the neurons do not cause love, honor, faith, beauty, God ...

What does?

I don't think the ideals have causes.

But since we can stimulate those sensations by altering the brain chemistry - clearly they do.

All of the evidence indicates that they are. On what basis do you make the claim that these things are not physical? The physical cause of your preferences and ideals is very relevant to them. If we were to selectively lobotomise you or ply you with various mind altering drugs your ideals and preferences would doubtless be significantly effected. If something is causeless then it is just random isn't it? Do you think preferences just occur randomly? Or are you suggesting that preferences and ideals are uncaused but somehow non-random?Frankly you seem to be on the verge of taking dualism to new heights.

Indeed. Furthermore - Try experiencing those things without a physical brain or any neurons!!!

The neurons may be the mechanics of a persons feeling but that is irrelevant to the ideal. Something causes those particular neurons to fire as well.

But I am a dualist.