Therefore, there has to be something else, other than the body, that moves a body, and this we can call a soul — Walter B
What do you mean? — Walter B
ok, i see what you are arguing — Walter B
Plato's argument for the soul being what moves the body. — Walter B
Bodies can be broken down into parts, and when seen in this way, we can imagine one part of the body moving another part (or parts) of the body. Plato and many of the Greek philosophers did not seem to consider this as a viable option." — Walter B
The recognition that different parts were listening to their own drummer is one of the driving forces of Greek thought. — Valentinus
When you want to scratch your nose, you don't say, 'hey, finger, scratch nose. — Wayfarer
Nor does your nose transfer its 'having been scratched' back to the mind via the finger. — Wayfarer
This is actually as aspect of the 'subjective unity of consciousness', and it's a matter for which there is no real scientific account. — Wayfarer
hearing is a process where sounds being made are heard by the individual as sounds being made. — Valentinus
But something other than the obvious instrument turns these feelings into information about what is happening. — Valentinus
So far you presented an argument regarding how we experience sensations and how we don't experience them and I guess you are drawing metaphysical conclusions from those experiences. I think that there are still ways that can also account for those experiences from a scientific world view. For example, I never feel a sequence, such as, commanding my heart to beat and then my heart beating, but it would be a mistake to conclude that my heart beats without any input from my brain. Thus, simply experiencing or not experiencing sensations does not help determine what is under the command of brain states or not. In the end, I don't want to argue that you are wrong simply because there are other possible explanations, but it seems that more arguments are needed before we can come to metaphysical conclusions about these things. — Walter B
Well, your original OP challenged the reader with the idea that "Greek" thinkers (many of whom disagreed with each other strongly) did not understand that parts of living things had their own processes apart from whatever made whole organisms operate — Valentinus
Yes, amply made, yet not on topic, but still interesting and I appreciate it anyway!So on that point. my point has been amply made — Valentinus
If the brain surgeon stimulated those memories by natural physical processes, which were seemingly located in the brain, then I don't see how this experiment lends itself to any form of dualism. Can you explain what was his reasoning for dualism? — Walter B
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.