Consciousness

Ah, I see. Thanks

Is it so stupid? If I press a random part of your brain do you think anything will happen? Why wouldn't an inward bump in your skull not apply pressure to a part of your brain?

>Why wouldn't an inward bump in your skull not apply pressure to a part of your brain?
Because that would create severe symptoms. Intracranic hypertension makes you vomit and gives you an headaches.
Also, phrenology is still wrong despite the brain causing your mind simply because it's based on incorrect assumptions concerning the distribution of mental properties throughout your brain. And lots of other stuff but let's not get into it.

Wait, do you actually believe in phrenology or are you just trolling?

I think he's making a point or he doesn't understand neuroscience, which is understandable.

>divine causation the most convincing of any argument
I love thinking about it, but its not something that seems sufficient AND necessary as an explanation. (although the main reason is likely that in the case that it did convince me, the question of what is divinely causing things and the potential models of being that result don't seem as engaging to me).

>the interplay itself would be consciousness, no

This is where I lean, personally, but I don't feel super confident in any direction

Divine causation is actually impossible.
God's omnipotency entails not only the ability to do everything that is logically possible, but also the fact that God necessarily succeeds in bringing about any situation or thing that he tries to create.
This means that anything God tries to do logically implies the result of that action.
This is a problem for causation because causes DO NOT logically imply their effects. Banging two stones together does not logically imply the creation of sparks, throwing water on fire does not logically imply the fire being extinguished (or diminished, whatever, doesn't matter). Every relationship between events that we characterize as a cause-effect relationship is never also characterize by a relationship of logical implication. Not only that, but all the things that we think are linked by logically necessity, say for example 2+2 equaling 4, we correctly do not characterize as being in a cause-effect relationship.
So any argument that tries to show how God caused something necessarily fails.

This is tricky, obviously bound up in language, and dependent upon both the brain (nerves and senses) and an outer world- one cannot be conscious without ideas and named things to be conscious of. I read this book a very long time ago and had the utmost respect for Searle and his weak A/I positioning (of about 10 years ago?). Where it all stands now's beyond me. I lost interest in this topic some time ago. At stake, a definition for consciousness. So the fuck what..

My only issue with this is the implication of logic in the actions of God. God is, by definition, far in excess of humanity, and nothing that He does is necessarily able to be understood by man. Thus, why would His actions need to be logically consistent?

So if I go to you, and create a small enough, carefully placed bump in your skull, it won't do anything? The shape of your skull is completely arbitrary? On the one hand it seems like minor changes in skull shape shouldn't change much, but on the other hand brains are sensitive to small changes.
I don't believe in phrenology, but if who we are is reducible to our brains I don't see why the shape of our skulls wouldn't effect that.