Paul M. Churchland's Matter and Consciousness which I enjoyed, except for his conclusion. He never mentioned non-locality. Assuming boundaries to the 4-D S-T Continuum, how can a First-Efficient-Formal-Final Cause God be denied if the Mind-Body argument is always restrained by Newtonian physics logic? I suspect that this is a dumb question, but it is important to me because of my third novel's pending Epilogue (Title not important, bc this is not an advertisement.) I posit a male child born with unique neurological architecture; he can often see angels and demons (when condensed energy forms).

If God doesn't exist, neither do angels or demons, obviously--I think.

  • Could you please add context, i.e. at least paraphrase Churchland's conclusion and what you mean by "the Mind-Body argument is always restrained by Newtonian physics logic"? While I have a broad idea of what you mean, it is hard to find the specific philosophical framework that helps to answer the question best. As it stands, it rather asks for some handwaving to explain supposedly sentient energy forms, no matter whether it really are angels or demons (this, I would leave open to belief). – Philip Klöcking May 7 '17 at 10:23
  • Thanks. Yes, In writing I do use some handwaving to justify plot premise. – G-write May 7 '17 at 19:13
  • As for, Churchland, he does masterful job of explaining Materialist, Spiritualist, and Dualist views in all the variations. He concludes by asserting that every psi, paranormal, and such are hallucinations generated by the individual brain's neurosystem. Hence, pure materialist, I suspect. My question is why would he not consider non-locality in his analyses, if (!) non-locality suggests the limitations of classic physics? My knowledge of these matters is minimal, I confess. But, I hold to the hope that Bell's Theorem might reveal a glimpse of God's mechanism. Cancel question, for now. TY!!! – G-write May 7 '17 at 19:25
  • What non-locality are you talking about? Quantum non-locality? In that case Churchland probably subscribes to Tegmark's view that the brain is too "warm, wet and noisy" for quantum effects to matter. What does God have to do with it? One does not even need to deny him to believe, like Laplace, that he is an irrelevant hypothesis. What is the the "Mind-Body argument"? What does it have to do with "neurological architecture" or children who see demons? At present it is unclear what the connection is between your sentences or what your question is. – Conifold May 7 '17 at 20:36
  • Actually, It is Mind-Body Question. My question relates to Tegmark's view, I guess. If the Human brain is too wet and noisy, AND, if Bell's Theorem, non-locality, superluminal, and historical evidence suggest chinks in the armor of Newton, Laplace, Einstein, et al., then why is secular academia so hell-bent on denying the possibility of a Supreme Being, Who can be a First, Efficient, Formal, Final Cause, Who transcends the Arrow of Time and 4-D S-T Continuum? What lies beyond the boundary of the Universe? Anything related to Newtonian physics or Quantum mechanics? Something warm & fuzzy? – G-write May 8 '17 at 22:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.