But this is simply wrong-headed. It presumes, for one thing, that those things are something distinct from physical and chemical interactions in the brain. There is no justification for such an assumption.
This is an overly simplistic reductionist view of what was being said, it's like a paint-by numbers version of the mona lisa. Everything has to fit together as a subsetof my own model of how the world works. The fact that someone has a different language to describe experience is seen as irrelevent or wrong headead.
None of this is particularly new or deep insight, however, so I am not entirely sure where you are going with this.
If it isn't particularly a new or deep insight, why are you having trouble working out where they are going with this, surely it should be obvious? Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
The problem is not that someone else is using a different language. The problem is that they are using the same language, but clearly not the same semantics. When a laundry list of perfectly biological functions is offered up as evidence of spirituality, I get sceptical. But I will admit - and apologise for the fact - that my language was intemperate.
If it isn't particularly a new or deep insight, why are you having trouble working out where they are going with this, surely it should be obvious?
No, it is not obvious, because it looks like these very much ordinary and commonly accepted facts are being used to argue in favour of a conclusion that does not seem to me to follow from those facts.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
