Ok, I think I'm working my way towards the part of the argumentation that has a bearing on free will. > But if thought is entirely generated, and sufficiently

Ok, I think I'm working my way towards the part of the argumentation that has a bearing on free will. > But if thought is entirely generated, and sufficiently explained, by causal processes, it can only reflect the brain state, and can't be right or wrong. Not so. The above claim is confusing two things: (1) how a thought is generated (causality); (2) what a thought represents (conceptualization) Whether a conceptualization is true or false is _independent_ of its causal origins. This is obvious to me. But not to you? Or is more miscommunication afoot?