This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by digofthedump

Thankyou Alan4discussion

Your argument only shows rational self-consistency, not validity.

The validity of my position is derived from its acknowlegement that reality can be understood equally in terms of object and subject. Your unfounded assumption is that the rational object corresponding as it does with a rational subject must be interpreted to mean that the rational subject is a product of the rational object rather than the other way around. I don't know how I can make my position any more simple. The rational self consistency IS the validity in this argument...unless I was trying to prove one position over the other which I am are though...and this fact makes your position a "Castle in the air".

All the evidence shows the "mind" to simply be the electro-chemical properties of the brain.

Not so. This assumes materialism. Let's agree however that brain and mind are synonymous...this is rational. The assumption lies in asserting that the object (in this case electro-chemical processes) is the basis for the subject (the cognitive processes) rather than the other way around.

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:01:08 UTC | #902754