Yes, but in this thread we differ on our humble opinion of The Facts. For example, is it a "fact" that "Correlation does not imply Causation", as Hume concluded? Or is the notion that electrical activity causes thinking an instance of the "correlation causation fallacy"*1. Obviously, physical processes (electrical) must be somehow converted into non-physical (mental) processes. But continues to chase his own tail, by repeating the fill-in-the-blank query "How does non-physical A affect physical B and yet remain discernibly non-physical?"*2 That sounds like a typical gotcha trap. It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". There's no way to answer without admitting guilt -- in this case the crime of Dualism, denying the ultimate authority of materialistic Science.Ex mea (humble) sententia, let the facts speak for themselves. It can't be denied that when one is (sensu amplissimo) thinking, there's electrical activity in the brain. — Agent Smith
Are those all the facts of the case? If so, what is your verdict? If not, what is the missing piece of evidence? :joke:Your honor, Mr. Brown's fingerprints were all over the house - on the door knob, on the knife, on the faucet, on the TV remote. However, there were two cigarette butts in the ashtray and a glass of half-finished Whiskey on the kitchen table. Neither Mr. Brown nor the deceased who was stabbed 22 times smoked or drank. — Agent Smith
Apparently Chalmers merely pointed-out an ironic situation -- mind/body disjunction -- that some people accepted as normal (mind physical), and others as impossible or illogical (mind metaphysical). :smile:David Chalmers is a genius; most philosophers are. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.