dougsmith - 28 October 2011 12:23 PM
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:15 AM
dougsmith - 27 October 2011 06:15 AM
factfinder - 27 October 2011 06:04 AM
George - 26 October 2011 06:33 AM
factfinder - 25 October 2011 06:04 PM
Also, you seem to locate both rationality and intelligence exclusively as brain functions but there is a lot of evidence that every cell of the body has intelligence and there are neurons in the spine, etc.
Do you think amputation of your leg would make you less rational?
There would still be millions of cells to do the job.
Funny, your leg is quite a bit bigger than your brain, isn’t it?
See above rely. Repeating your error is not an advisable way to proceed.
[quote’OK, so here’s where we are.
No. That is where YOU are. You are still beating that red herring to death.
(1) Your leg is crucial to your intelligence, but if you amputated it you’d be just as intelligent as before because “there would be millions of cells [left] to do the job”.
(2) Your brain is not crucial to your intelligence because Dr. Lorber said that there was one intelligent person he knew who had “no discernible brain structure”. [Sic.]
But it’s already well established that:
(3) You can severely harm someone’s intelligence by giving them brain damage, or by their having a stroke; and most people Lorber studied were in fact deficient in just that way. People who have completely damaged brains (with little or no living tissue) are typically people with little or no intelligence; in fact, they’re typically dead.
Then, of course, there are those without any measurable brain to damage who manage to live at a high level.
It seems that you are one-trick pony, who, unable to accept that which interferes with your partial and flawed world view, resorts to red herrings as defense against truth.
I think what we have here is a strange idea about responsibility. The leg is responsible for intelligence even though removing it has no effect. The brain is not responsible for intelligence even though removing it removes intelligence, and removing bits of it typically removes bits of intelligence (e.g. the ability to speak or understand words or recognize faces).
I expect this is all a sort of diversion and that the goal is to convince us of the existence of substantial, nonphysical souls that interact with the physical body. Perhaps citation of the theosophist Ledbeater means that there’s a Secret Doctrine to be had, by sitting in an armchair and daydreaming that our souls live on some astral plane with the Lemurians and Atlanteans or whatever the Masters of Ancient Wisdom deign to enlighten us about. I suppose in a manner of thinking that’s an easier way to gain beliefs about the world than by actually doing experimentation ...
