Worst Arguments For Christianity

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rae, the Churchland quote claims that the subjective is our experience of neural events ‘from the inside’ while the objective could be our view of the same events ‘from the outside’. Even if that is true it does not undermine my position with respect to the severability of signs from their significance.

The medium is not the message...These examples show that meaning has features distinct from the various physical mediums that support it.

True, but irrelevant. We're talking about meaning in a complex set of neurons, not writing on a page. This doesn't even remotely relate.

The analogy holds. I say that despite vast differences of complexity both are signs that carry significance. Unless someone supplies a reason why the observed complexity brings forth novel properties, then to say the more complex example is different seems like special pleading.

Explaining the relationship between signs and their significance requires more kinds of cause than reductionism allows. At least formal and final causes provides a more complete model for that relationship.

This is an abstract philosophical argument which depends on a certain theory of causes, which, even if true, is far from obvious. This is simply insufficient and seems to put you in the position of claiming to know the kinds of causes which meaning and intentionality require.

I approach the problem against the background of moderate realism. Indeed moderate realism is not an obvious solution since it took close to 1400 years to develop. I do not think it is too bid of a step from final cause to intentionality since they seem to be different ways of saying the same thing.

Explaining the relationship between signs and their significance requires more kinds of cause than reductionism allows.

I think this reduces to a form of argument from ignorance,...

The arguments I presented are sufficient to remove from consideration the sort of identity theory proposed by eliminative materialists like Churchland.

...could you explain what kinds of causes are required that aren't allowed by reductionism?

Formal and final.