Parables and Brains: The Logic and Religion Webinar, July 7

Francisco de Assis Mariano

unread,

Jul 6, 2022, 4:11:36 AM7/6/22

to

Dear Colleague,

You are invited to participate in the next session of the Logic and Religion Webinar Series which will be held on July 7, 2022, at 4pm CET with the topic:

PARABLES AND BRAINS
Speaker: Andrew Pinsent (The University of Oxford, UK).
Chair: Fábio Bertato (UNICAMP, Brazil).

Please, register in advance:
https://www.logicandreligion.com/webinars

Abstract: Why did Jesus teach so much in parables? These parables usually have clear explanations but why not simply teach the explanations, given the risk of misinterpretation? In this presentation, I share new insights from neuroscience that have highlighted the ancient distinction between knowledge and understanding (intellectus/nous), a distinction that is at the heart of so many challenges to Artificial Intelligence. I further argue that understanding is communicated in a privileged manner by means of metaphor and narrative. On this account, parables are not merely convenient but may be indispensable for offering the understanding upon which knowledge and wisdom are based.

Join us 5 minutes prior to the beginning of the session!

With best wishes,

--
Francisco de Assis Mariano
The University of Missouri-Columbia
LARA Secretary
la...@logicandreligion.com

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Sep 18, 2022, 6:24:08 PM9/18/22

to

They are different things, right? Parables and brains? Not the same thing?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Sep 24, 2022, 5:35:00 PM9/24/22

to

They're the same thing.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Sep 26, 2022, 4:11:38 PM9/26/22

to

No. Perhaps in some sense parables are "stored in" brains, but...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Sep 27, 2022, 7:07:45 PM9/27/22

to

Or do parables contain brains?
"Yes."
So they're not really scientific theories, then?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Sep 29, 2022, 5:00:22 PM9/29/22

to

"You're just a bit simple."
So you are... "sophisticated"?
"Yes."
Did you know that is sometimes a bad thing?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Sep 30, 2022, 5:34:19 PM9/30/22

to

"Obviously brains think."
Sure. What do you have to "elaborate" here?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Oct 1, 2022, 6:44:47 PM10/1/22

to

"Some brains don't work that well."
I... have always found this a bit difficult as a "scientific" doctrine. For example, it does not seem to naturally find its target
in stroke victims, etc.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Oct 2, 2022, 8:00:35 PM10/2/22

to

"What?"
They have a ton of brain damage which does not seem to interest the "sybarites" of the issue.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Oct 3, 2022, 5:10:47 PM10/3/22

to

Or am I wrong here?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Oct 3, 2022, 9:51:16 PM10/3/22

to

"It's a parable that you have a brain."
These types just love this loose wordplay that is in no way scientific, let alone "exact", as well.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Oct 6, 2022, 6:41:54 PM10/6/22

to

"No, I'm serious. You literally have no brain."
You mean this in some special, "esoteric" sense, then.

Trolidan7

unread,

Nov 14, 2022, 3:59:36 PM11/14/22

to

A mind is different from a brain.

It is a theory of your mind that your brain has something
to do with your mind, but it is only a theory.

A lot of your theories and a lot of your mind derive from
sensation of your external environment.

A lot of that external environment does not appear to
consist of any sort of brain matter.

It is only a theory that brains think. People were
capable of having theories or thoughts back when they
thought that minds had something to do with hearts
or livers.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Nov 28, 2022, 4:47:21 PM11/28/22

to

That's freaking insipid.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Nov 29, 2022, 3:08:11 PM11/29/22

to

Like, it is just really pretty bad thinking.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Dec 5, 2022, 9:56:09 PM12/5/22

to

Lazy forms of argument I've seen most of my days.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Dec 9, 2022, 5:47:12 PM12/9/22

to

The materialist who says "you have no brain", etc.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,

Dec 10, 2022, 6:00:04 PM12/10/22

to

Back then, when you would concede "Ramon y Cajal had a point" the conversation would basically end.