ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, October 03, 2009, 15:09 (5322 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Me: What we have here is an unsolved mystery. We simply do not know what constitutes the "I" that directs the brain cells, is perhaps directed by them (spontaneous ideas, dreams), takes decisions etc.-George: I've already expressed my view that what "we" are is defined by our past history, but you don't seem to be impressed by this approach. What constitutes "me" is my whole history, nature and nurture. I don't see any great unsolved mystery here. The decisions I make are partly based on conscious reasoning, which proceeds by logical manipulation of language, but I recognise that a lot of them depend on subconscious events of which my conscious part is not always entirely aware except perhaps as vague "feelings". I see no reason to go into theories of disembodied minds or souls.-As before, we seem to be discussing this on different levels. Your account of the components of character and decision-making seems to me to be spot on. But what you can't tell me is the source of your conscious reasoning, and indeed of your consciousness and of your subconsciousness, and of your ability to manipulate language, and of the vague "feelings" you have. Materialism suggests that it's all a matter of electrical impulses discharged by the brain, but we don't know how these impulses can be translated into consciousness, reason, imagination, emotion, memory, etc., and we don't know how our history and nurture imprint themselves on the material cells which emit the impulses that give us our identity. Matt has called these "very advanced philosophical questions", and perhaps they are actually very advanced scientific questions, but we don't have the answers, and therein lies the mystery that you are unable to see.-In the context of this discussion, I have pointed out that religions of most cultures believe in some kind of "soul" ... i.e. a form of being that exists independently of the brain cells. -George: This sort of argument proves nothing. People in these cultures have also believed in demonic possession, magic, witchcraft, fairies and suchlike. Or are you arguing that there is some reality in these beliefs too?-The argument is not meant to prove anything, and I have said repeatedly that what interests me is not the differences between the religions, i.e. details like those you've listed above, but the common ground. Each one has some kind of immaterial existence at its centre, and it may be that in their varied ways they are based on a universal truth. I stress "may be". I'm not a believer. I simply recognize that there are questions ... such as the origin of life and the source of consciousness ... to which there are as yet no answers. I'm therefore prepared seriously to consider the answers that are on offer in terms of material v. non-material, while bearing in mind that neither belief can take root without a large helping of faith. I might add that the least satisfactory solution of all seems to me the denial that there is a problem ... though that is an approach shared by many theists and atheists alike.