If mathematical objects are immaterial, does that mean aspects of human beings are too? On this episode, host Pat Flynn concludes his three-part discussion with Dr. Selmer Bringsjord about his provocative chapter in the recent volume Minding the Brain titled “Mathematical Objects are Non-Physical, so we are too.” They summarize the argument that formal thinking is non-physical and extend this reasoning to aspects of the human person. They explain that arguments for the immaterial nature of human minds has a long historical pedigree. They also discuss the Chinese Room argument by John Searle, which argues that the mere manipulation of symbols in a machine does not amount to understanding. Flynn and Dr. Bringsjord conclude that understanding requires an immaterial aspect and that machines cannot truly understand. This is part 3 of a three-part discussion.

Additional Resources

• Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Empirical Science
• Listen to Part 1 and Part 2 of this conversation.