DavidMcCann |
12-08-2011 11:38 AM |
All of this is assuming materialism to be true. It isn't.
Firstly, you cannot make a one-to-one match of mental activity to brain states. For example, the sensation of "tasting honey" is the same whether it comes from memory, imagination, or a mouth full of honey; the brain states are different. Since two events or properties cannot be the same unless the presence of one entails the presence of the other, a brain state cannot be a mental event, only correlated with one.
Secondly, materialism is even worse at dealing with intelligibles (entities that can be thought about) than with mental objects. The rejection of intelligibles involves the loss of the sciences. How can we say an argument is illogical, unless the laws of logic have an objective existence, rather than being states in the brains of those using them? How can one theory entail another if neither exists?
|