Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like a lot of people are accepting dualism and/or theism, then claiming that science and/or philosophy support their position. So let's be clear: In the realms of science and professional philosophy, mind/matter dualism/theism are not very popular. And there are good reasons for this.
Prior to studying philosophy, most people start out as dualists, then end up rejecting mind/matter dualism once they realize that they just can't honestly find any rational justification for it. (BTW, you can be a dualist without being a theist, but my comments here will generally apply to both.) The basic problem is that dualism is, in essence, a form of intellectual surrender. We all know that reason eventually has to surrender to "faith" (by "faith," here, I just mean the acceptance of logical "givens" or "brute facts" or "fundamental mysteries"), but the mission of philosophy is explore the power of rationality to the farthest possible extreme. We will never know what the limits of rational explanation might be if we give up too soon. Most philosophers see dualists and theists as people "who have given up too soon."
As they say in sports, the game ain't over till it's over," and until all of the basic approached to monism are proven to be conceptually incoherent, the game is not over. In fact, the game is a long ways from being over. We've barely scratched the surface of what science can tell us about the way the brain works, and about the fundamental nature of physical matter. In the grand theme of human philosophical thinking, the amazing insights offered by quantum mechanics and the mathematics of complex systems are just new-born babies. And the technology for studying neural activity in depth is still being developed – still at the "fetal stage," so to speak.
A common misconception is that monists all fit into one of two categories: (1) those who want to "reduce" phenomenal experience to "mere" physical particles and forces (these are the "eliminative materialists") or (2) those who want to reduce the physical world to the workings of mind - "life is but a dream" (these are the idealists).
But this dichotomy is misleadingly simplistic. Not all physicalists are reductionists and/or eliminativists – which is to say, they don't all accept the idea that the physical world is fundamentally composed of purely objective "mere" particles and forces. There are some viable alternatives. My personal interests are in the alternatives stemming from the basic ideas of "process philosophy."
I could say more about this if people are interested, but my main point at the moment is just this: You really do not need to accept theism in order to explain the nature of mind and world. In fact, by touting theism, you give up on rational explanation and simply fall back on mythology. I'm not saying that I, or any other non-theists, have a complete, perfect theory to offer, but I am saying this: If you choose theism, then please have enough intellectual honesty (within yourself and with others) to acknowledge that you are not offering a rational explanation of anything – you are giving up on rational explanation and taking a leap of pure faith.
And even if theism turns out to be ultimately correct, there is no good reason to suppose that any particular ancient manuscripts somehow count as the "word of God." If you are going to take a leap of faith and embrace some sort of religious mythology, don't proclaim that science somehow supports your religious claims. Science does not support this, and you are deluding yourself if you think that it does.
The only way to make it seem as if science support any sort of traditional religious theism is to ignore the details of real science, then make up your own "facts" and call the "scientific."
It seems like a lot of people are accepting dualism and/or theism, then claiming that science and/or philosophy support their position. So let's be clear: In the realms of science and professional philosophy, mind/matter dualism/theism are not very popular. And there are good reasons for this.
Prior to studying philosophy, most people start out as dualists, then end up rejecting mind/matter dualism once they realize that they just can't honestly find any rational justification for it. (BTW, you can be a dualist without being a theist, but my comments here will generally apply to both.) The basic problem is that dualism is, in essence, a form of intellectual surrender. We all know that reason eventually has to surrender to "faith" (by "faith," here, I just mean the acceptance of logical "givens" or "brute facts" or "fundamental mysteries"), but the mission of philosophy is explore the power of rationality to the farthest possible extreme. We will never know what the limits of rational explanation might be if we give up too soon. Most philosophers see dualists and theists as people "who have given up too soon."
Ad Populum fallacy. Have you tried switching to decaf coffee? You know better than to be disingenuous when confronting me, Gaylenwoof. Intellectual surrender is unavoidable no matter which view is involved. We simply accept different brute facts. To pretend to denigrate one over the other without any scientific basis (because there is none) . . . is deception in support of preference. No one has necessarily "given up" or ceased intellectual search for the "How" and you know it.
Quote:
As they say in sports, the game ain't over till it's over," and until all of the basic approached to monism are proven to be conceptually incoherent, the game is not over. In fact, the game is a long ways from being over. We've barely scratched the surface of what science can tell us about the way the brain works, and about the fundamental nature of physical matter. In the grand theme of human philosophical thinking, the amazing insights offered by quantum mechanics and the mathematics of complex systems are just new-born babies. And the technology for studying neural activity in depth is still being developed – still at the "fetal stage," so to speak.
A common misconception is that monists all fit into one of two categories: (1) those who want to "reduce" phenomenal experience to "mere" physical particles and forces (these are the "eliminative materialists") or (2) those who want to reduce the physical world to the workings of mind - "life is but a dream" (these are the idealists).
But this dichotomy is misleadingly simplistic. Not all physicalists are reductionists and/or eliminativists – which is to say, they don't all accept the idea that the physical world is fundamentally composed of purely objective "mere" particles and forces. There are some viable alternatives. My personal interests are in the alternatives stemming from the basic ideas of "process philosophy."
Process philosophy is rampant with euphemisms designed to elevate ignorance and speculation into intellectual substance . . . chief is the use of "emergent" as if it somehow is any more explanatory or scientific than "eventually God creates this out of chaos."
Quote:
I could say more about this if people are interested, but my main point at the moment is just this: You really do not need to accept theism in order to explain the nature of mind and world. In fact, by touting theism, you give up on rational explanation and simply fall back on mythology. I'm not saying that I, or any other non-theists, have a complete, perfect theory to offer, but I am saying this: If you choose theism, then please have enough intellectual honesty (within yourself and with others) to acknowledge that you are not offering a rational explanation of anything – you are giving up on rational explanation and taking a leap of pure faith.
More preference and bias. What other than preference specifically makes "we don't know" what causes this phenomenon more rational than our "unknowable God" causes this phenomenon?
Quote:
And even if theism turns out to be ultimately correct, there is no good reason to suppose that any particular ancient manuscripts somehow count as the "word of God." If you are going to take a leap of faith and embrace some sort of religious mythology, don't proclaim that science somehow supports your religious claims. Science does not support this, and you are deluding yourself if you think that it does.
Your concerns about the mythological BELIEFS ABOUT our unknowable God are legitimate . . . as are ALL BELIEFS ABOUT what we have not discovered and verified scientifically (including all YOUR preferences and euphemisms for ignorance you disingenuously wish to present as rational science or philosophy.)
Quote:
The only way to make it seem as if science support any sort of traditional religious theism is to ignore the details of real science, then make up your own "facts" and call the "scientific."
Traditional means religious BELIEFS about God that have not and cannot be established by science . . . but the EXISTENCE of our "unknowable God" (whatever is preferred to be believed) is not disputable and IS supported by what science has discovered thus far. Stop pretending the ad populum consensus of preference within the scientific community is probative.
Consciousness has many formal definitions that depend upon each theorist's particular psychological research design or problem, and their preferred beliefs about the human mind. But, when all the intellectual debris is cleared away, it is really a very straightforward and readily understood phenomenon.
Hugh Elliot, a staunch defender of materialism and no friend of spiritualists or mystics, described our mind, the process whereby we become conscious of anything, in the following very clever way,
. . . The mind is the cerebral processes themselves, not an imaginary accompaniment of them. . . . The difficulty of grasping this proposition will be largely mitigated by the fact that there exists a phenomenon from the inorganic world which furnishes a remarkably true and precise analogy to this strange product of the organic world. The phenomenon to which I refer is the phenomenon of fire.
Consciousness is the result of the mental "burning" of energy in the brain cells, and as with any burning, the result is never the same as what originally was burned. This is, at best, the worst of oversimplification. However, it is the fastest way of communicating the general idea.
I agree that this is “…at best, the worst of oversimplification.” This is the first, and possibly most important, issue to be covered. This concept is far too important to your subsequent ideas to be addressed so inadequately. The entire remainder of your presentation relies on the idea that consciousness can be equivocated to “mental burning”. I understand this not to be the case.
Quote:
Consciousness, or “thinking,” is merely energy change that produces thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings emanate from the “burning” of mental energy. Our thoughts and feelings appear to leave us, but in the totality of the universe, they continue to exist as energy. The two forms of consciousness, thoughts and feelings, possess different characteristics.
I contend it is simply inaccurate, whether as a generalization or not, to proceed in building a case for consciousness as energy in this fashion. This must be substantiated in terms of biology and, if you will, biochemistry.
I’ll be guilty, too, for oversimplification. The same cellular respiration mechanisms that exist in all somatic cells exist in the brain cells (neurons). These processes are chemical reactions that result in products that will release energy for cellular metabolism (i.e. oxidative phosphorylation within the mitochondria that results in high yield of ATP). The subsequent "energy releasing” processes should not be characterized as “burning”, unless you are going to do so for all somatic cells, because they are identical to, and use the same fuel as, those in all other somatic cells. In the most direct and simplified terms I can use; if you are going to characterize consciousness as the energy resulting from neuronal metabolism (“mental burning”), you must substantiate why and how that “energy release” is any different from the release found in all other somatic cells. Can you explain why neuronal metabolism results in consciousness when all other somatic activity doesn’t?
I contend that the roles you describe for physics in supporting your case must be applied to a characteristics of neuronal activity that are unique and exclusive to the neurons within the brain.
For this, I do believe you could look to brain waves for that difference. However, you would not be cutting new ground. If you are not already familiar with the Conscious Electromagnetic (CEMI) Field Theory by Johnjoe McFadden, please review the Wikipedia entry for a working knowledge (and the appropriate links for further study). I was unfamiliar with it before undertaking this exercise, but found it very interesting and applicable as a corollary to this discussion.
Quote:
I believe the significance of Elliot's analogy of consciousness to light and heat as the way to understand our relationship to the universe, parallels the significance that the wave analogy of light and heat had as the way to understand energy in physics.
I am curious as to your thoughts; if Elliot were equipped with the current understanding, however elementary it may still be, of biochemistry, would he have still given this analogy? In light of contemporary biochemistry knowledge, do you think the analogy to fire is still appropriate?
I enjoyed reading your synthesis and look forward to the ensuing discussion. I hope to learn from it and can only hope that my participation will be beneficial to your own continued synthesis of your understanding.
Last edited by Orestes; 11-08-2010 at 12:52 PM..
Reason: spelling
Mine had to be grounded in actual physical processes about which we do have specific knowledge . . . like vibratory resonance . . . since all that exists are vibratory energy events . . . separated (as in atoms) by different quantum states.
Mystic, seems to me that your sentence above is logically self-defeating. Your understandings and definitions have to be grounded in actual physical processes, but then you fall back on things that are, by your own previous arguments, not well defined nor proven. In fact, your vibratory resonance or energy states are only speculations in the eyes of modern physics no? Quite possibly they are the truth, but who really knows as of right now?
To explore such events or conditions is pretty much the "why" for the LHC as far as I understand it. As well as for Hawking's and others' musings. That elusive Universal Theory has yet to surface.
Gaylenwoof's very elucidating and enjoyable commentary hits the problem square-on. Don't be automatically bad-mouthing him. Science is expanding it's capabilities to explain the currently unknown at a rate that alarms neo-theists, whose stationary positions are fading at a far faster rate than science advances. This is an expected state of affairs because, unlike theism and it's static being, scientific knowledge is cumulative and thus growing exponentially.
Meantime, attempts to wrap one's personal reality around a staid, cast-in-concrete and contradictory mythology, with it's already weakened supporting structures crumbling from the aftershocks of endless scientific discovery, is in big trouble these days.
Mystic, you regularly make quantum leaps from the problems of logic's empirical limitations to absolute statements that you, unfortunately, base only on your own personal musings and meditative experiences. Those cannot be duplicated nor experienced by anyone else. You validate them by claiming you spent a lot of time thinking deeply about them, surely more than anyone else. But you invoke ethereal concepts that are no better supported than those you seek to criticize.
Meantime, the evidence against a God hiding in our so-called soul or brain continues to evolve, backed by hard science. We have farbetter explanations now at our disposal, absent inexplicable or proposed but unproven hard-knowledge phenomena that require some new "vibratory" reality. These explanations certainly more than hint at a non-theist reality. Personally, I continue to marvel at why your necessary greater-theist even bothered, as well as to why such a super-person would want to create a bunch of drooling sycophants. But that's another thread, ain't it?
I suppose this is why we all get to have our own opinions on the subject, huh? Mine are absolutely wrong? So might yours be!
We simply accept different brute facts. To pretend to denigrate one over the other without any scientific basis (because there is none) . . . is deception in support of preference. No one has necessarily "given up" or ceased intellectual search for the "How" and you know it.
Let's see if I understand what you are saying:
Your brute fact is an intelligent designer who created the world in accordance with some plan.
My brute fact is a "primordial qualitative chaos."
I’m not completely sure of your view here, but I think we might both accept the primordial qualitative chaos. I think you might be saying that God created the chaos (the raw qualitative materials as well as the nature of logic/math) such that intelligent sentient organic creatures would evolve. (If you are not saying this, then I'd say you should be saying this, because this would make your position reasonably strong.) Having created this primordial metaphysical soup, God could sit back and watch the drama unfold, plus or minus a few temper tantrums and assorted interventions as outlined in the Old Testament.
Setting aside the Biblical nonsense, I'm not altogether opposed to this general scheme, but as you know, I don't really buy it either. And just to reiterate my reasoning here: If we can accept an infinitely intelligent God as a brute fact, then why not accept the primordial chaos itself as a brute fact? In either case, intelligent sentient organisms would eventually evolve from the primordial stuff.
There is, however, at least one really good reason why science could accept my brute facts, for the purposes of theory building, but never yours. My brute facts allow for the possibility that intelligence could evolve without already presupposing intelligence. In other words, my brute facts leave room for an explanation of intelligence, where yours simply accept intelligence as a brute fact.
So the big question might be: Why would science want to explain intelligence rather than just accept it as given? Answer: Because we have extremely good empirical evidence showing that intelligence does, in fact, evolve from seeming unintelligent material. Human eggs and sperm have, at best, a very minimal intelligence. Natural biochemical processes govern the emergence of highly sophisticated creatures from these intellectually humble beginnings. At the level of species evolution, something similar can be modeled.
Intelligence does, in fact, emerge from relatively unintelligent globs of material. This well-documented fact leads us to think that we do not have to presuppose intelligence in order to account for the existence of intelligence. Millions of times every day the natural world demonstrates, in clearly documentable ways, that intelligence can come from unintelligent material. We want to explain how this happens, and we can't really explain how this happens by simply saying God did it.
I will certainly grant you that an intelligent designer might have created the primordial chaos, but this doesn't change the fact that the chaos that God supposedly created can stand on its own logical feet. It wouldn't make any difference if God died immediately after creating the chaos because the chaos, as God created it, is self-sustaining. So even if God did create the chaos, He instantly became superfluous insofar as any attempts to explain how intelligence emerges from the chaos.
Science has no need for the superfluous. The basic existential facts of the self-sustaining, self-organizing chaos are all that science needs. If you want to force science to admit the existence of an Intelligent Designer, you will need to argue that God did not create the chaos to be self-sustaining and self-organizing, and then you will have to suggest some empirical evidence to support this. Good luck with that.
btw - I do believe in "genetic fingerprinting"...it's in the blood...and we are not born at random...Psalm 87:6 The LORD shall count when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there...
layman's 2 cents...
I meant to comment on this, but had forgotten. I thought I would pass on that you might want to look into that a bit more closely. In fact, DNA carrying components make up an extremely small percentage of overall blood volume. The vast majority of blood, especially red blood cells, do not contain copies of your DNA.
I meant to comment on this, but had forgotten. I thought I would pass on that you might want to look into that a bit more closely. In fact, DNA carrying components make up an extremely small percentage of overall blood volume. The vast majority of blood, especially red blood cells, do not contain copies of your DNA.
Simply put...it is still in the blood, is it not???
I agree that this is “…at best, the worst of oversimplification.” This is the first, and possibly most important, issue to be covered. This concept is far too important to your subsequent ideas to be addressed so inadequately. The entire remainder of your presentation relies on the idea that consciousness can be equivocated to “mental burning”. I understand this not to be the case.
I contend it is simply inaccurate, whether as a generalization or not, to proceed in building a case for consciousness as energy in this fashion. This must be substantiated in terms of biology and, if you will, biochemistry.
I’ll be guilty, too, for oversimplification. The same cellular respiration mechanisms that exist in all somatic cells exist in the brain cells (neurons). These processes are chemical reactions that result in products that will release energy for cellular metabolism (i.e. oxidative phosphorylation within the mitochondria that results in high yield of ATP). The subsequent "energy releasing” processes should not be characterized as “burning”, unless you are going to do so for all somatic cells, because they are identical to, and use the same fuel as, those in all other somatic cells. In the most direct and simplified terms I can use; if you are going to characterize consciousness as the energy resulting from neuronal metabolism (“mental burning”), you must substantiate why and how that “energy release” is any different from the release found in all other somatic cells. Can you explain why neuronal metabolism results in consciousness when all other somatic activity doesn’t?
I contend that the roles you describe for physics in supporting your case must be applied to a characteristics of neuronal activity that are unique and exclusive to the neurons within the brain.
For this, I do believe you could look to brain waves for that difference. However, you would not be cutting new ground. If you are not already familiar with the Conscious Electromagnetic (CEMI) Field Theory by Johnjoe McFadden, please review the Wikipedia entry for a working knowledge (and the appropriate links for further study). I was unfamiliar with it before undertaking this exercise, but found it very interesting and applicable as a corollary to this discussion.
I am curious as to your thoughts; if Elliot were equipped with the current understanding, however elementary it may still be, of biochemistry, would he have still given this analogy? In light of contemporary biochemistry knowledge, do you think the analogy to fire is still appropriate?
I enjoyed reading your synthesis and look forward to the ensuing discussion. I hope to learn from it and can only hope that my participation will be beneficial to your own continued synthesis of your understanding.
I am most appreciative of the serious attention you are giving my synthesis. Thank you. But of course there is no "burning" in the brain . . . I remind you of the audience and purpose of this summary. The analogies are just that . . . analogies. Surely you do not mean to maintain that fire is anything other than the chemical transformation of energy . . . as are the neuronal transformations.
I am familiar with Mcfadden and am pleased you acquainted yourself with his work. It simplifies things immensely. I agree with much of his theory as a testable component of the "communication" facet of consciousness. The only thing we have that proves consciousness exists. His theory focuses on the measurable EM field effects on the motor neurons as the explanation for our responsiveness to consciousness (vocal, movement, and the myriad measurable correlates of conscious thought). However, his base point of view is consistent with the general scientific preference for physical explanations for any substrate within which consciousness forms. I obviously differ.
I retain a preference for Libet's field (non-measurable non-EM) for the ultimate "product" of consciousness . . . since I believe our soul is non-baryonic (not measurable). As I point out in my synthesis summary . . . the delay Libet discusses and McFadden tries futilely to explain . . . is explained as the quantum time to accumulate a sequential "lump of awareness" (the process probably signaled by the weaker EM fields detected as readiness potentials) prior to our experienced "instantaneous conscious awareness" that we use to communicate or act represented by McFadden's EM field.
The question as to whether Penrose's microtubules or John's resonance fields (my current favorite for obvious reasons) are the measurable corollary accompaniments of the non-baryonic consciousness field is yet to be established. Irrespective . . . consciousness and unconsciousness are composite quantum mechanical wave phenomena corresponding to what we term mind and soul respectively. It is in this sense that they are analogous to infrared radiation and light (heat and light).
Thanks for the link, but I already have a fairly substantial working knowledge of the subject matter (beyond the elementary info on that page). Yes, if you want to find DNA there you can, in less than 1% of the constituents. You can see that as a reflection of divinity if you choose.
In the spirit of objectivity, i'm going to 'sleep on' my response before posting it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thoughts from a simple-minded outsider
In the spirit of objectivity, i'm going to 'sleep on' my response before posting it.
