Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference

[Faizal_Ali]

@lee_merrill

Um, quoting Mayo Clinic is a mere assertion without evidence? I commented on why the Mayo Clinic description of schizophrenia corresponds to my view,

Your view is that naturalism cannot produce a mind capable of rational thought (of which even the mind of someone with schizophrenia is capable), and therefore the mind was produced by a god or some other supernatural being.

Please quote where the Mayo Clinic says that.

@lee_merrill

But in following comments (yet to be approved by a moderator at this moment), Faizal appears to confirm my view!

I’d be my bottom dollar that one of two things is the actual truth here:

1. I did not agree with your point. Rather, you didn’t understand what I wrote.
2. I agreed with you on some minor point that is not crucial to whatever argument you are trying to make.

Let’s wait and see which it is!

@lee_merrill

@Faizal_Ali

Wrong again. e.g.In cognitive psychotherapy, we will try to help the patient enlist their capacity for rational thought to counteract the irrational thoughts that might be part of their condition.

But this does not address what I said, please read carefully: “psychiatrists are not interested in the source of our rational thinking, it’s irrelevant to helping clients.” They are not interested in the source of our rational thinking. But in your statement you imply here that you do not accept thoughts that might be part of their condition, i.e. due to mental illness, to unreasoning causes

Now, you pay attention: By “unreasoning causes” you mean purely physical processes that are have not been designed by a god or other intelligent being.

My view is that all aspects of the mind, including both rational thought and symptoms of mental illness, are due to such “unreasoning causes.” No god or other intelligent designer is involved at any point.

My statement above does not contradict that view in anyway. The problem is you are so confused that you can’t even understand your own argument.

@lee_merrill

Actually, I’m the one supplying evidence, by quoting Mayo Clinic, by quoting Faizal, even!

This illustrates another of your problems: When you think you are “supplying evidence”, all you are doing is quoting things that don’t mean what you think they mean, and which do not add up to a coherent argument for the position you are trying to defend. You have a hard enough time even remembering what that is.