> I think what we need here is a language we can all agree on. It is, I
> think, quite clear that we are talking about different "brains" "minds" and
> "souls" to eachother, and I think that is where most of the argument /
> misunderstanding stems from. Within Ray's view of the soul / mind then his
> arguments make perfect sense but if you have a different view of the soul
> and a different view of the mind (as I do) then his arguments no longer hold
> much ground and quickly become self refferential (and of course vice versa -
> I would not dream of claiming that my arguments have any kind of God given
> validity!)
>> So what we need to have are several words for mind / soul / brain / thought
> so that we can all know what we are infact talking about! Rather than
> complicating matters I think you will find it suddenly makes all our
> arguments go away as we discover that we are talking about totally different
> things. From this point we can then try to see which system fits our
> observed real world best and from that draw conclusions about the progress /
> non-progress of a scientific understanding of the brain with or without the
> mind.
Wow! sombody finally said it on a level that ray might understand.
Hurray for Joe.
