knock, knock. Who's there?

[imported_luckyme]

carlo commented in A Question for Christians
[ QUOTE ]
If there is truly only the physical then one shouldn't say "I Think" but that "My Brain Thinks".

[/ QUOTE ]

The looser "I Think" captures it much better than "My Brain Thinks" which is conceptually lopsided. If people promise not to treat analogies as 'true' I'll use a couple as 'pointing devices'.

A simpler analogy. Hortense runs by us in the park. We say "George is running" We don't mean that in the sense that George = running. The activity can be seperated from the man in that we may say "running is good for george". We can even put nodes on george joints and feed the 'running' into a computer to help us get a better grasp of what 'running' is. Or we may say "running will get him there faster" which almost reverses our visualization of it, seeing the 'running' carrying george to the finish line.

The horrid computer analogy - the Pentium chip is not dealing those cards for you, it's the GameTown software that is doing the dealing. To say "my pentium chip deals me cards" just misses how that situation is.

(1) "MY brain thinks" is not the same statement as (2)"thinking is what the brain does". 2 hasn't finished the description yet, it would continue something like, "and that thinking is me". (1) has "My" as superfluous or at the least it's latched on to the wrong part of the duo. It could be phrased better as "My Thinking occurs on my brain" but that's still creating 3 entities being too equitibly treated. .. "Me" "Thinking" "Brain", when the "Me" and "thinking" are too intertwined to be as split off as neatly as we can with " My Thinking" and "Brain".

As usual, this claim will selfdestruct in 5 seconds. I'm hoping somebody that follows it will help me find a better way of expressing it, or even conceptualizing it.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind