tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2659548180398873152007-11-30T09:23:00.000-08:002007-11-30T09:23:00.000-08:00Jason Barr said...<BR/><BR/> I think this is basically pretty good. I also have no idea what brain/mind problem Loftus is talking about, unless he's trying to make a point about the relation of the physical brain processes to the existential experience of the conscious mind.<BR/><BR/><B>I can think of two or three things he could have meant.</B><BR/><BR/> I must admit to still being somewhat unsure of how exactly the positive effects of mystical experience demonstrate the work of the divine in the world. I really like the reference to the Derridean trace above and I tend to use the same sort of expression to refer to God in the world, and I think it's a good analogy. I'm just not sure how to make the jump between analogy and reality. <BR/><BR/><BR/><B>that's always the problem in anything. not unique to this argument. non uniqueness is a defense for any argument.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I have visions of Deleuze's views on language dancing in my head but can't quite put it together - basically it has to do with the idea that language delimits and points to a particular shaping of difference, but does not exhaust the possibility of difference - in the same way the trace points to God, but does not define or delimit God in a way that would allow us to more definitively "put our finger" on him.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>the Derridians basically lost the argument to Pinkham, the student of Chomsky, who unfortunately is an atheist. But Chomsky could make Mincemeat of the decons. meaning in language does not derive from difference or from signifies but from context.<BR/><BR/>that was the basis of the whole argument between Derrida and Searl. So Searl deserves credit to for taking it back to J.L. Austin.</B><BR/><BR/> Would you say the brain chemistry explanation can be put in terms of being a trace, or perhaps a co- or subordinate cause? <BR/><BR/><B>the God "parts" of the brain? yes. I use that as a God argument on the big list of 42.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The way I read Genesis 1 the creation participates in its own making, and so I would see such a formulation as coherent with that.<BR/><BR/> And I could use a bit more explanation of this:<BR/><BR/> at that level questions of causation do come into it but as ex post facto argument on counter causality.<BR/><BR/> But overall, I'm pretty impressed.<BR/><BR/><B>thanks I apprecaite that. I'm writing back about this one and the Thomas Reid argument.</B>J.L. Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com