Huh? Still playing with metaphysics I see. As an aside, I might ask: If you saw 10 rows of apples, each row with 15 apples neatly aligned, would you think they fell there by chance?
Those are fine questions, but they're not metaphysical questions. They're biological questions. You think it's metaphysically impossible, and I'm trying to make you understand why it's not metaphysically impossible. One step at a time. :-)
You are trying to dance and squirm around the fact that you havve described a metaphysical process of the brain. Sincce there is no empirical evidence to support what you say, it must be metaphysics. What else could it be?
Within the artificial confines of a purely deductive syllogism, perhaps. But we live in the real world, which is perceived & understood via the senses and induction as well as by deduction. Man does not understand by deduction alone.
Still dancing I see. Are you dancing as fast as you can yet? Whether you are using inductive or deductive reasoning, your view is still subjective and therefore unable to perceive true objective reality. It's logical positivism redux.
Hmmm, there it is again: A spirited defense of supernaturalism that's based on the fallacy of composition, and now "mental atoms". Exmarine, is that you?
Don't turn it around on me - you were the one using metaphysical processes in order to describe mental processes. I am just wondering where the science is to back it up. You use metaphysical explanations to defend materialisic processes - it's self-refuting.