>4. Therefore, the intellect is not material. QED. That is face-palmingly bad logic. Can we pretend that famous ancient sages weren't so blindingly, obviously

>4. Therefore, the intellect is not material. QED. That is face-palmingly bad logic. Can we pretend that famous ancient sages weren't so blindingly, obviously dumb as to believe one piece of stuff can't do multiple things? >The general problem here can be related to the problem of qualia (and intensionality) and thus the mind-body problem introduced by Descartes' metaphysics and haunting much of philosophical discourse since (even when the mind is dropped and the body endowed with the powers attributed to the mind). I don't see how the acquisition of abstract knowledge has anything to do with qualia or the mind-body problem. Abstract knowledge is just hierarchical modeling.