That's not what I was talking about. Remember that my question was how you identify true reasoning or understanding from the appearance of it.
You can't under the aegis of Naturalistic Materialism. Otherwise through reason down to base axioms.
Yes, because you said in my train analogy 'when the tracks disappear so does the train'.
Not in any way you can actually demonstrate.
You are assuming subjective reports of levels of brain activity are not reliable, going so far as stating it is a 'fact'. This would only be a fact if thought was merely a function of physiology, so your statement to support it requires it, ie Begging the Question.
Are you saying there's a supernatural component to science?
No, unless you consider Reason an important component of Science?
OK. So if a brain produced strictly by evolution generates the correct answer to 1+1=2, exactly which axiom is it that is irrational. Remember that you're not saying evolution is an axiom so there has to be something else.
There is no way to tell what the correct answer of 1 + 1 = 2 is in that case.
What specifically is irrational about them? Or are you confusing arational with irrational?
No, you are getting confused. Rational means derived from reasoning and logic.
The theory of Evolution is Rational. The description of how Photosynthesis occurs is rational.
The actual event, the interactions of molecules and chemicals to do these things, are independant of thought or logic or our descriptions of how they occur, therefore irrational.
These are philosophic terms, not the usual 'popular' use of irrational, when someone is dismissing something.
Arationality again is thought not derived from logic or reason, but is an unnecessary neologism because people can't keep their terms straight. From your perspective though, you can consider it "arational" if you so wish, but that grates on my psyche and makes me feel uneducated, so I'll never use it.
Nope again. The definition of "begging the question" is not "a point I want to run away from addressing".
Pain doesn't exist in and of itself. It is a function of nociceptive pathways receiving stimuli. When you burn your hand, no pain occurs - impulses depolarisise nerves which the brain then picks up and perceive as pain. It is highly subjective from some reporting excruciating pain from innocuous wounds and others not having any to speak of. Pain often is not correlated with reality at all, such as phantom pain, referred pain, psychosomatic pain etc. or might be absent in entirety, like in DM foot or certain congenital abnormalities.
So to try and prove that our brains perceive reality correctly by referring to pain makes no sense as well as assuming that the impulses we receive and perceive are somehow proving reality, ie that we perceive reality correctly. Therefore begging the question and a frankly ridiculous argument if you know the basics of nerve function.