[MD] Mystics and Brains

[Case]

> [Case]
> I would direct you to John Searles who explains that ideas are phenomena
> of brain activity in the way the solidity is a feature of mass or warmth 
> is a property of fire or brightness is a feature of light. 

[Platt]
Which is no explanation of all. Like saying a philosophy is a feature of
words.

[Case]
Ok, you caught me I don't know exactly how the brain works. I am not alone
in this. But when asked to speculate I do like some of what Searles has to
say on the subject. While the analogy you give is weak I would point out
that there could be no philosophy without words so it kind of works.

> [Case]
> Now if you could return the favor and explain how ideas can occur in the
> absence of nerves and chemistry, I would be very grateful.

[Platt]
That's easy. I refer you to Plato who argued that ideas are transcendent
entities.
No less a light than Roger Penrose agrees.

[Case]
Since Plato died before anyone knew very much about nerves and brains I
think it is safe to say he had nothing to say on the matter.

Penrose is a mathematical physicist so if you would care to explain why you
think he supports your view or even what your view is that would be nice.

> [Case]
> Since the MoQ is all about patterns of value it is subject to the same 
> difficulty. Such events are by their nature uncommon and thus not a 
> serious challenge to either system.

[Platt]
Oh I don't know. A pattern is a pattern no matter how fleeting. Especially
Dynamic ones. Anyway, an uncommon event is precisely what seriously
challenges any system. For example, the uncommon event of Galileo looking
through a telescope changed the world.  

[Case]
While spatial patterns are fleeting, they would seem particularly irrelevant
to this discussion. We are looking for patterns that reoccur in time. A
thing happening once is not a pattern. What makes the origin of life
interesting is that it becomes a pattern the reproduces across time. The
invention of the telescope is interesting because it allows a new set of
patterns to be observes repeatedly. 

I think science thrives on these kinds of events and certainly is not
threatened by them.