Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)
The entries under “Big brain evolution” and “Deep brain stimulation” overlap, and perhaps the sheer repetition under this more appropriate heading will help to clear up the recurrent misunderstanding not only of my position but of the problem as a whole.
Big brain evolution
dhw: How can non-conscious cells misinterpret anything?
DAVID: Your question does not fit my example. Neurons receive consciousness. So they receive a signal and if sick, garble it. Pure dualism.
dhw: You mean my question does not fit your theory, the alternative to which is that neurons create consciousness. So they not only receive information from outside themselves, but if sick they also misinterpret (garble) it and produce false thoughts. Pure materialism.
DAVID: You object by representing your materialism theory. Your neurons make consciousness, mine receive it. Answer my proposal as a strong possibility based on NDE studies.
You keep stating that neurons receive consciousness. That is not a fact. It is your belief as a dualist. Neurons create consciousness is not a fact either. It is the belief of the materialist. I regard NDEs as possible evidence for dualism. I regard the influence of disease and drugs on people’s behaviour as possible evidence for materialism. I remain neutral.
Problem repeated:
dhw: [...] the question remains: why would material drugs and diseases have any effect on an immaterial soul, which is supposed to do all the thinking? (I'm putting the case for materialism because David ignores it – not because I'm committed to either of the –isms.)
DAVID: as usual dhw doesn't understand the concept of a neuron as a receiver. See the entry today of deep brain stimulation curing OCD.
I understand it. I also understand the concept of neurons as a generator. What you do not seem to understand is that there are two different theories, and you should not present your theory as if it were an established fact.
Deep brain stimulation
QUOTES: The patients being treated in our hospital, for instance, receive stimulation of brain areas located in the ventral striatum, leading to changes in the large-scale connections that form between the striatum, the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, brain areas that play a role in decision-making, memory and thinking. One might hypothesise that the transformation following DBS can be explained by changes to this once-dysfunctional neural network. (DAVID's bold)
"But this cannot be the whole answer. The changes the patient experiences following DBS go far beyond a decrease in their obsessions and compulsions. They include a wholesale change in the person, including an increase in self-confidence; yet loss of self-confidence is not among the symptoms currently used to diagnose OCD."
Problem repeated:
DAVID: My view as a dualist is the network, described in the bold, is sick and misinterprets thoughts received from the consciousness, and the electric stimulation corrects the reception ability of the sick neuron network. dhw will claim this is pure materialism=. It isn't. Malfunctioning neurons are material and misfiring receivers of an immaterial consciousness. Thus two-part dualism. Neurons don't create consciousness as dhw seems to imply.
You quite rightly begin by telling us this is your view (i.e. your opinion), and you finish by yet again repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. It’s not. It remains an opinion. I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour - either negatively (the sickness) or positively (the cure) - can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, July 07, 2021, 15:06 (1233 days ago) @ dhw
Big brain evolution
DAVID: You object by representing your materialism theory. Your neurons make consciousness, mine receive it. Answer my proposal as a strong possibility based on NDE studies.
dhw: You keep stating that neurons receive consciousness. That is not a fact. It is your belief as a dualist. Neurons create consciousness is not a fact either. It is the belief of the materialist. I regard NDEs as possible evidence for dualism. I regard the influence of disease and drugs on people’s behaviour as possible evidence for materialism. I remain neutral.
Fair enough
Problem repeated:dhw: [...] the question remains: why would material drugs and diseases have any effect on an immaterial soul, which is supposed to do all the thinking? (I'm putting the case for materialism because David ignores it – not because I'm committed to either of the –isms.)
DAVID: as usual dhw doesn't understand the concept of a neuron as a receiver. See the entry today of deep brain stimulation curing OCD.
dhw: I understand it. I also understand the concept of neurons as a generator. What you do not seem to understand is that there are two different theories, and you should not present your theory as if it were an established fact.
Deep brain stimulation
QUOTES: The patients being treated in our hospital, for instance, receive stimulation of brain areas located in the ventral striatum, leading to changes in the large-scale connections that form between the striatum, the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, brain areas that play a role in decision-making, memory and thinking. One might hypothesise that the transformation following DBS can be explained by changes to this once-dysfunctional neural network. (DAVID's bold)"But this cannot be the whole answer. The changes the patient experiences following DBS go far beyond a decrease in their obsessions and compulsions. They include a wholesale change in the person, including an increase in self-confidence; yet loss of self-confidence is not among the symptoms currently used to diagnose OCD."
Problem repeated:
DAVID: My view as a dualist is the network, described in the bold, is sick and misinterprets thoughts received from the consciousness, and the electric stimulation corrects the reception ability of the sick neuron network. dhw will claim this is pure materialism=. It isn't. Malfunctioning neurons are material and misfiring receivers of an immaterial consciousness. Thus two-part dualism. Neurons don't create consciousness as dhw seems to imply.
dhw: You quite rightly begin by telling us this is your view (i.e. your opinion), and you finish by yet again repeating your opinion as if it were a fact. It’s not. It remains an opinion. I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour - either negatively (the sickness) or positively (the cure) - can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.
I know that. I fully understand your opinions. I just try to refute them as strongly as I can.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: You keep stating that neurons receive consciousness. That is not a fact. It is your belief as a dualist. Neurons create consciousness is not a fact either. It is the belief of the materialist. I regard NDEs as possible evidence for dualism. I regard the influence of disease and drugs on people’s behaviour as possible evidence for materialism. I remain neutral.
DAVID: Fair enough.
But still you continue to present your belief in dualism as if somehow it nullified the argument for materialism. Hence the next exchange:
DAVID: […] Malfunctioning neurons are material and misfiring receivers of an immaterial consciousness. Thus two-part dualism. Neurons don't create consciousness as dhw seems to imply.
dhw: I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour - either negatively (the sickness) or positively (the cure) - can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.
DAVID: I know that. I fully understand your opinions. I just try to refute them as strongly as I can.
I am neutral on the subject, and present BOTH sides. You try to dismiss any evidence for any opinion that differs from your own by simply repeating your opinion as if it were a fact.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Thursday, July 08, 2021, 15:30 (1232 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You keep stating that neurons receive consciousness. That is not a fact. It is your belief as a dualist. Neurons create consciousness is not a fact either. It is the belief of the materialist. I regard NDEs as possible evidence for dualism. I regard the influence of disease and drugs on people’s behaviour as possible evidence for materialism. I remain neutral.
DAVID: Fair enough.
dhw: But still you continue to present your belief in dualism as if somehow it nullified the argument for materialism. Hence the next exchange:
DAVID: […] Malfunctioning neurons are material and misfiring receivers of an immaterial consciousness. Thus two-part dualism. Neurons don't create consciousness as dhw seems to imply.
dhw: I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour - either negatively (the sickness) or positively (the cure) - can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.
DAVID: I know that. I fully understand your opinions. I just try to refute them as strongly as I can.
dhw: I am neutral on the subject, and present BOTH sides. You try to dismiss any evidence for any opinion that differs from your own by simply repeating your opinion as if it were a fact.
I'll keep refuting your approach.
Dualism versus materialism again from Feser
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 07, 2021, 20:31 (1171 days ago) @ David Turell
His latest:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/09/make-believe-matter.html#more
"Materialism can at first blush seem to have a more commonsensical and empirical character than Cartesian dualism. The latter asks you to believe in a res cogitans that is unobservable in principle. The former – so it might appear – merely asks you to confine your belief to what you already know from everyday experience. You pick up an apple and bite into it. Its vibrant color, sweet taste and odor, feel of solidity, and the crunch it makes all make it seem as real as anything could be. Anyone who says that all that exists are things like that might, whether or not you agree with him, at least seem to have the evidence of the senses in his corner.
"The trouble is that that is not what the materialist is saying. The matter to which he would reduce everything is not the matter of common sense, not the hard earth of daily experience. It is instead a highly abstract theoretical construct which – just like Descartes’ res cogitans – is not and indeed cannot be known directly via perception (nor, unlike the res cogitans, by introspection either). Moreover, it is a conception the materialist has inherited from Cartesian dualism itself. And it is that conception of matter, rather than the Cartesian’s commitment to a non-empirical res cogitans, that has made it so difficult for Cartesians and materialists alike to account for how conscious awareness relates to the physical world.
***
"Oddly enough, the trouble with the Cartesian dualism comes from the side of the body. The body, as Descartes conceives it, is not such that it can accommodate the soul. It cannot, so to speak, be penetrated by the soul; it can only remain in external contact with it. This body is not the physical body, our physical body, as we know it in our daily intimacy with it. It is the body of physics – that is, of the science of physics; a piece of matter, and particularly as Descartes conceived of matter. But the body of physics is remote and unknown to us and is not the body we live in in our day-to-day existence. The body we know is rarely sharply distinguishable from the soul: in our moods and feelings we are not often sure what part is physical and what not. There is no sharp dividing line between. The life of flesh and blood is particularly focused about the feelings and emotions. So long as there is no adequate conception of the concrete or lived body, our theories of mind cannot deal adequately with the life of feeling.
***
"Descartes notoriously takes non-human animals to be insensate automata. They lack rationality, hence they lack a res cogitans. Thus, since for Descartes the only other kind of substance there is is res extensa, which is pure extension devoid of any consciousness, that is what animals must be.
***
"Some contemporary philosophers, cognizant of the problems with the early modern mechanistic and mathematicized conception of matter, have reinserted into matter the qualities common sense attributes to it, but then fallaciously draw the conclusion that this entails panpsychism....For like the early moderns, they take the qualities of ordinary physical objects to be partially or wholly mind-dependent, i.e. to be identified with the qualia of conscious experience. Unlike the early moderns, they take these qualities to exist in physical objects themselves, and not just in our minds. The result is that they conclude, absurdly, that there must be something analogous to conscious awareness even in rocks, dirt, tables, chairs, etc. (The poor moderns. They just can’t do anything right!)
***
"The sober, boring truth – enshrined in Aristotelian philosophy and common sense alike – is that some kinds of purely material substances (namely non-human animals) are conscious, and others (like rocks and dirt) are not. The latter really do possess qualities like color as common sense conceives of it, but that does not entail panpsychism, because (contra Descartes, Berkeley, and company) those qualities are not entirely mind-dependent. Not all matter is reducible to one, lowest-common-denominator type, and none of it is reducible to the purely mathematical description afforded by physics. That description is merely an abstraction from concrete physical reality. It captures part of that reality, to be sure, but not the whole of it.
"To think otherwise is somewhat like thinking that “the average person” of the statistician really exists, but that the various individual people we meet from day to day do not. The reality is that those individuals do exist, and that the notion of “the average person,” while it captures important aspects of reality and is therefore useful for certain purposes, is a mere abstraction that does not correspond to any concrete entity. And in the same way, the concrete physical objects of everyday experience also really do exist, whereas the mathematical description afforded by physics, despite its undeniable predictive and technological utility, does not capture the entirety of concrete reality."
Comment: Pure materialism tries to tell us the way our sensations are converted into charged ions interpreted by our brain, they are not really what we feel. But Feder argues common sense has to play a role in our theories.
Dualism versus materialism again from Feser
by David Turell , Monday, September 19, 2022, 20:40 (794 days ago) @ David Turell
Comments on Chomsky's views:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/09/chomsky-on-consciousness.html#more
"For practical purposes, “matter” came to be treated as just whatever accepted physical theories happen to say about it. But, Chomsky notes, as early twentieth-century thinkers like Bertrand Russell and Arthur Eddington pointed out, physical theory actually tells us very little about what matter is actually like. It gives us only mathematical structure and is silent about what fleshes out that structure.
"In this way, the early moderns’ clear and concrete conception of the natural world as susceptible of an exhaustive description on the model of a machine or mechanical artifact has been abandoned. In its place we have a highly abstract mathematical description of nature that tells us very little about its intrinsic nature. But at the same time, the Cartesian idea of the mind as the repository of qualities that cannot be given a mechanical or mathematical analysis remains. Hence, Chomsky concludes, what contemporary philosophy and science are left with is the “ghost” but without the “machine” – the reverse of the standard assumption, after Ryle, that modern science leaves us with the machine and has exorcised the ghost.
"This is a longstanding theme in Chomsky’s work, which I’ve discussed before. As my longtime readers know, I am entirely sympathetic to it, and regard it as the key to understanding the intractability of the mind-body problem. The mechanical-cum-mathematical model of nature presupposed by modern materialism itself generates the hard problem of consciousness. Materialism thus cannot in principle solve that problem. Thinkers like Nagel have been making this point for decades, and are often wrongly thought to be carrying water for some variation on Cartesian dualism. But as Chomsky’s example shows, by no means does one have to be any kind of dualist to see the point.
***
"Chomsky’s own criticism of Goff is that he thinks that panpsychism does not in fact sit well with the whole range of empirical evidence. In particular, he says that when we take account of the neural phenomena associated with conscious experience, we have reason to conclude that while human beings are conscious, tables, say (which have nothing like the complexity of our nervous systems), are not. There are also intermediate cases, such as fish, where it is not entirely clear what we should say. But what we don’t have is any basis for concluding that consciousness exists all across nature, from human beings to ordinary inanimate objects to fundamental particles. (my bold)
***
"But Chomsky responds by noting that Goff overstates things when he suggests that science tells us nothing about the nature of matter. It doesn’t tell us nothing, just much less than many people suppose. And we can have evidence for thinking that some theories tell us more about it than others do. In particular, Chomsky repeats, neuroscience gives us grounds for concluding that while we are conscious, tables and the like are not.
***
"The reality is that, in consciousness, we are aware of features of the world and of our reactions to them. We are not, over and above that, aware of some inner Cartesian realm of qualia.
***
"But as Chomsky goes on to point out, while what consciousness tells us about this or that object or event is certainly fallible, it doesn’t follow that the reality of consciousness itself is an illusion."
Comment: same old problem. We are conscious, but we aren't sure of its source. Note the bold. Panpsychism is given short shrift, and I agree it is a tortured theory.
Dualism versus materialism again
Somewhat reluctantly, I'm reopening this thread. To save you the trouble of finding it, here is my last response when we discussed it before.
dhw: You keep stating that neurons receive consciousness. That is not a fact. It is your belief as a dualist. Neurons create consciousness is not a fact either. It is the belief of the materialist. I regard NDEs as possible evidence for dualism. I regard the influence of disease and drugs on people’s behaviour as possible evidence for materialism. I remain neutral.
DAVID: Fair enough.
dhw: But still you continue to present your belief in dualism as if somehow it nullified the argument for materialism. Hence the next exchange:
DAVID: […] Malfunctioning neurons are material and misfiring receivers of an immaterial consciousness. Thus two-part dualism. Neurons don't create consciousness as dhw seems to imply.
dhw: I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour - either negatively (the sickness) or positively (the cure) - can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.
DAVID: I know that. I fully understand your opinions. I just try to refute them as strongly as I can.
dhw: I am neutral on the subject, and present BOTH sides. You try to dismiss any evidence for any opinion that differs from your own by simply repeating your opinion as if it were a fact.
xxxxxxxx
Now back to your post
DAVID: […] the brain interprets the separate consciousness.
dhw: So the separate consciousness sends the message: “Don’t wash your hands”, and the brain misinterprets that as “Wash your hands”? The drunkard’s consciousness says: “Don’t kill your wife”, and the brain misinterprets the message, and he kills his wife?
DAVID: Foolish examples, but yes they fit.
dhw: Why foolish? And what do they fit? They are examples of abnormal behaviour. So please tell us what you think is the SOURCE of the idea to wash/to kill?
DAVID: A sick brain's distortion of an incoming message from its consciousness. The true messages appear after treatment of the brain as illustrated in this story.
WHAT message? What is the SOURCE of the urge to wash/kill?
The effects of stress
dhw: I suggest there are two kinds of depression: one caused by brain malfunction, the other by situations which trouble the patient. If the cause is malfunction, then clearly the brain is the source of the depression. If the cause is external, does your separate consciousness tell you not to worry about your isolation, the world’s chaos, your lousy prospects, and does the sick brain misinterpret this and say, “But I am worried”? Please answer. And please give us examples of “messages” sent by a separate consciousness and misinterpreted by the brain.
DAVID: Consciousness created by the brain is it acting as a receiver, much like your FM radio receiving signals. Damage a resistor chip and all that you hear is static.
Once again, you are dodging my question. What “message” is being sent in the examples I've given you?
DAVID: Worry by the consciousness covers all of your possibilities. My first wife inherited depression from her grandmother who was severely ill and had intensive treatment. Her cousin has it also, and my sum fought it all of his adult life. Wife and cousin both were treated. Familial depression.
This is very sad, but if the condition was inherited and treated, it sounds as if the cause was a malfunction in the brain. Can you inherit a separate, wise consciousness that sends messages telling you not to worry, together with a brain that tells you to worry?
DAVID: Brain damaged from birth.
And what is the separate consciousness doing all this time? Helplessly twiddling its metaphorical thumbs as it sends messages the patient ignores? These are clear cases of brain malfunction being the source of the depression.
DAVID Your brain on idle is still conscious. See here: Monday, February 05, 2024, 18:13. The messages are anything you wish to create. Your consciousness is you in constant control. Not an instructive parent or doppelganger.
Yes, the brain is conscious. The brain is not the receiver of consciousness. And that is why the first category of depression – caused by brain malfunction – supports the case for materialism. I don’t know why you refuse to give examples of “messages” to counter those that I have given, but you and your brain and your consciousness are all one, and in cases of depression, it appears to be the brain that is in control of you, your thoughts and your behaviour. I don’t know what gives you the idea that materialism = parent or doppelgänger. If anything it’s dualists who propose a doppelgänger, in the form of a you who thinks independently from your brain.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Friday, February 09, 2024, 17:25 (286 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour - either negatively (the sickness) or positively (the cure) - can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.
DAVID: I know that. I fully understand your opinions. I just try to refute them as strongly as I can.
dhw: I am neutral on the subject, and present BOTH sides. You try to dismiss any evidence for any opinion that differs from your own by simply repeating your opinion as if it were a fact.
xxxxxxxxNow back to your post
DAVID: […] the brain interprets the separate consciousness.dhw: So the separate consciousness sends the message: “Don’t wash your hands”, and the brain misinterprets that as “Wash your hands”? The drunkard’s consciousness says: “Don’t kill your wife”, and the brain misinterprets the message, and he kills his wife?
DAVID: Foolish examples, but yes they fit.
dhw: Why foolish? And what do they fit? They are examples of abnormal behaviour. So please tell us what you think is the SOURCE of the idea to wash/to kill?
DAVID: A sick brain's distortion of an incoming message from its consciousness. The true messages appear after treatment of the brain as illustrated in this story.
dhw: WHAT message? What is the SOURCE of the urge to wash/kill?
A newborn is neutral. Ethics/morals are taught in childhood. A damaged brain creates a sociopath/psychopath. An interpretation of a damaged consciousness results.
The effects of stressdhw: I suggest there are two kinds of depression: one caused by brain malfunction, the other by situations which trouble the patient. If the cause is malfunction, then clearly the brain is the source of the depression. If the cause is external, does your separate consciousness tell you not to worry about your isolation, the world’s chaos, your lousy prospects, and does the sick brain misinterpret this and say, “But I am worried”? Please answer. And please give us examples of “messages” sent by a separate consciousness and misinterpreted by the brain.
DAVID: Consciousness created by the brain is it acting as a receiver, much like your FM radio receiving signals. Damage a resistor chip and all that you hear is static.
dhw: Once again, you are dodging my question. What “message” is being sent in the examples I've given you?
A newborn is neutral. Ethics/morals are taught in childhood. A damaged brain creates a sociopath/psychopath. An interpretation of a damaged consciousness results. There is a brain/ consciousness interface. We make our consciousness as we mature.
DAVID: Worry by the consciousness covers all of your possibilities. My first wife inherited depression from her grandmother who was severely ill and had intensive treatment. Her cousin has it also, and my sun fought it all of his adult life. Wife and cousin both were treated. Familial depression.This is very sad, but if the condition was inherited and treated, it sounds as if the cause was a malfunction in the brain. Can you inherit a separate, wise consciousness that sends messages telling you not to worry, together with a brain that tells you to worry?
Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
DAVID: Brain damaged from birth.dhw: And what is the separate consciousness doing all this time? Helplessly twiddling its metaphorical thumbs as it sends messages the patient ignores? These are clear cases of brain malfunction being the source of the depression.
Agreed as brain damage. A moral consciousness fighting with an amoral self doesn't exist.
DAVID Your brain on idle is still conscious. See here: Monday, February 05, 2024, 18:13. The messages are anything you wish to create. Your consciousness is you in constant control. Not an instructive parent or doppelganger.dhw: Yes, the brain is conscious. The brain is not the receiver of consciousness. And that is why the first category of depression – caused by brain malfunction – supports the case for materialism. I don’t know why you refuse to give examples of “messages” to counter those that I have given, but you and your brain and your consciousness are all one, and in cases of depression, it appears to be the brain that is in control of you, your thoughts and your behaviour. I don’t know what gives you the idea that materialism = parent or doppelgänger. If anything it’s dualists who propose a doppelgänger, in the form of a you who thinks independently from your brain.
No! We make our immaterial consciousness from birth. We form it. It exists separate from the brain as NDE's show. I'm a dualist as you describe.
Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: […] the brain interprets the separate consciousness.
dhw: So the separate consciousness sends the message: “Don’t wash your hands”, and the brain misinterprets that as “Wash your hands”? The drunkard’s consciousness says: “Don’t kill your wife”, and the brain misinterprets the message, and he kills his wife?
DAVID: Foolish examples, but yes they fit.
dhw: Why foolish? And what do they fit? They are examples of abnormal behaviour. So please tell us what you think is the SOURCE of the idea to wash/to kill?
DAVID: A newborn is neutral. Ethics/morals are taught in childhood. A damaged brain creates a sociopath/psychopath. An interpretation of a damaged consciousness results. There is a brain/ consciousness interface. We make our consciousness as we mature.
Still avoiding my question. These are two different examples: 1) obsessive behaviour – nothing to do with ethics; 2) violent behaviour. If behaviour is “obsessive”, what message is the separate consciousness sending to the brain? If behaviour is violent, you say the damaged brain creates the violent behaviour, so what message is the separate consciousness sending to the brain, which misinterprets it? The materialist view is that the damaged brain is the source of the violent thoughts/behaviour.
DAVID: My first wife inherited depression from her grandmother who was severely ill and had intensive treatment. Her cousin has it also, and my sun fought it all of his adult life. Wife and cousin both were treated. Familial depression.
dhw: This is very sad, but if the condition was inherited and treated, it sounds as if the cause was a malfunction in the brain. Can you inherit a separate, wise consciousness that sends messages telling you not to worry, together with a brain that tells you to worry?
DAVID: Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
Genes creating consciousness is the materialist view. The exact opposite of a separate, immaterial consciousness sending messages to the material brain.
dhw: And what is the separate consciousness doing all this time? Helplessly twiddling its metaphorical thumbs as it sends messages the patient ignores? These are clear cases of brain malfunction being the source of the depression.
DAVID: Agreed as brain damage. A moral consciousness fighting with an amoral self doesn't exist
As above, then: the brain is the source of consciousness, which = materialism.
DAVID Your brain on idle is still conscious. […] The messages are anything you wish to create. Your consciousness is you in constant control. Not an instructive parent or doppelganger.
dhw: Yes, the brain is conscious. The brain is not the receiver of consciousness. And that is why the first category of depression – caused by brain malfunction – supports the case for materialism. I don’t know why you refuse to give examples of “messages” to counter those that I have given, but you and your brain and your consciousness are all one, and in cases of depression, it appears to be the brain that is in control of you, your thoughts and your behaviour. I don’t know what gives you the idea that materialism = parent or doppelgänger. If anything it’s dualists who propose a doppelgänger, in the form of a you who thinks independently from your brain.
DAVID: No! We make our immaterial consciousness from birth. We form it. It exists separate from the brain as NDE's show. I'm a dualist as you describe.
You are still refusing to give any examples of the messages your immaterial self (consciousness) is supposed to be sending to your material self (brain), and now you are introducing a third party: “we”. Who/what are “we”? Materialists say we are our cells, which create our consciousness and hence our behaviour. Dualists say we are our cells which obey the instructions of our immaterial self. So what is it that “makes” our consciousness from birth? Our various cells, with all their different functions: perceiving, processing, taking decisions etc.? Or an inborn “soul” which learns from all the experiences it undergoes in life? I know you opt for the latter. But I’m pointing out to you the extent to which you unwittingly side with materialism. As I wrote before, I remain neutral.
Introducing the brain: addressing novelty
dhw: All these experiments are conducted on mice, from which scientists extrapolate information that might be relevant to the human brain. What strikes me here is how whenever we fiddle with mouse brains, we change their behaviour. Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? (See “dualism versus materialism” for further discussion.)
DAVID: To be consistent, I would think so.
Yes, to be consistent, you would have to think so. Do you personally believe that mice have an eternal soul?
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Saturday, February 10, 2024, 18:17 (285 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A newborn is neutral. Ethics/morals are taught in childhood. A damaged brain creates a sociopath/psychopath. An interpretation of a damaged consciousness results. There is a brain/ consciousness interface. We make our consciousness as we mature.
dhw: Still avoiding my question. These are two different examples: 1) obsessive behaviour – nothing to do with ethics; 2) violent behaviour. If behaviour is “obsessive”, what message is the separate consciousness sending to the brain? If behaviour is violent, you say the damaged brain creates the violent behaviour, so what message is the separate consciousness sending to the brain, which misinterprets it? The materialist view is that the damaged brain is the source of the violent thoughts/behaviour.
You are still avoiding the theory that the brain is like a receiver. There is no consciousness in the brain. A psychopath never developed a moral or ethical code in his consciousness. That OCD can be fixed means a sick brain created a distorted consciousness. The consciousness did not independently become psychopathic and send signals to a normal brain, nor did it send normal signals which the brain misinterpreted.
DAVID: My first wife inherited depression from her grandmother who was severely ill and had intensive treatment. Her cousin has it also, and my sun fought it all of his adult life. Wife and cousin both were treated. Familial depression.dhw: This is very sad, but if the condition was inherited and treated, it sounds as if the cause was a malfunction in the brain. Can you inherit a separate, wise consciousness that sends messages telling you not to worry, together with a brain that tells you to worry?
DAVID: Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
dhw: Genes creating consciousness is the materialist view. The exact opposite of a separate, immaterial consciousness sending messages to the material brain.
The brain/consciousness interface: brain is material the consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown by NDE's.
dhw: And what is the separate consciousness doing all this time? Helplessly twiddling its metaphorical thumbs as it sends messages the patient ignores? These are clear cases of brain malfunction being the source of the depression.DAVID: Agreed as brain damage. A moral consciousness fighting with an amoral self doesn't exist
dhw: As above, then: the brain is the source of consciousness, which = materialism.
DAVID Your brain on idle is still conscious. […] The messages are anything you wish to create. Your consciousness is you in constant control. Not an instructive parent or doppelganger.
dhw: Yes, the brain is conscious. The brain is not the receiver of consciousness. And that is why the first category of depression – caused by brain malfunction – supports the case for materialism. I don’t know why you refuse to give examples of “messages” to counter those that I have given, but you and your brain and your consciousness are all one, and in cases of depression, it appears to be the brain that is in control of you, your thoughts and your behaviour. I don’t know what gives you the idea that materialism = parent or doppelgänger. If anything it’s dualists who propose a doppelgänger, in the form of a you who thinks independently from your brain.
DAVID: No! We make our immaterial consciousness from birth. We form it. It exists separate from the brain as NDE's show. I'm a dualist as you describe.
dhw: You are still refusing to give any examples of the messages your immaterial self (consciousness) is supposed to be sending to your material self (brain), and now you are introducing a third party: “we”. Who/what are “we”? Materialists say we are our cells, which create our consciousness and hence our behaviour. Dualists say we are our cells which obey the instructions of our immaterial self. So what is it that “makes” our consciousness from birth? Our various cells, with all their different functions: perceiving, processing, taking decisions etc.? Or an inborn “soul” which learns from all the experiences it undergoes in life? I know you opt for the latter. But I’m pointing out to you the extent to which you unwittingly side with materialism. As I wrote before, I remain neutral.
My immaterial soul, from birth, is my soul/me interface developing the content of my consciousness. A distorted brain, from birth, creates a distorted consciousness. Your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.
Introducing the brain: addressing noveltydhw: All these experiments are conducted on mice, from which scientists extrapolate information that might be relevant to the human brain. What strikes me here is how whenever we fiddle with mouse brains, we change their behaviour. Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? (See “dualism versus materialism” for further discussion.)
DAVID: To be consistent, I would think so.
dhw: Yes, to be consistent, you would have to think so. Do you personally believe that mice have an eternal soul?
My religious background says so. Yes.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: Still avoiding my question. These are two different examples: 1) obsessive behaviour – nothing to do with ethics; 2) violent behaviour. If behaviour is “obsessive”, what message is the separate consciousness sending to the brain? If behaviour is violent, you say the damaged brain creates the violent behaviour, so what message is the separate consciousness sending to the brain, which misinterprets it? The materialist view is that the damaged brain is the source of the violent thoughts/behaviour.
DAVID: You are still avoiding the theory that the brain is like a receiver.
And later:
DAVID: Your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.
I am absolutely not avoiding the theory. This is YOUR concept, and I’m explaining your blatant self-contradictions! Here are your two statements which started this discussion:
DAVID: A sick receiver will offer a damaged message […] The brain garbled the incoming consciousness message.
I keep asking you what sort of messages your dualist’s immaterial consciousness sends to your material “receiver” brain. If the brain is normal, then according to you it is the independent consciousness which is running me, as the brain is only a receiver! But now you tell me that the whole concept is absurd!
Next you tell me this:
DAVID: That OCD can be fixed means a sick brain bbbcreatedbbb a distorted consciousness. The consciousness did not independently become psychopathic and send signals to a normal brain, nor did it send normal signals which the brain misinterpreted.
(Contrast this with “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”!)
And later:
DAVID: A distorted brain, from birth, creates a distorted consciousness.
And sadly, concerning your own family:
DAVID: Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
If the sick brain creates the consciousness, then it is not a receiver, and is not garbling messages. It is the source of consciousness – which is the materialist view.
DAVID: The brain/consciousness interface: brain is material the consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown by NDE's.
Yes, that is dualism, and you claim that the separate consciousness sends messages to the brain (as per dualism), which is only a receiver. But when the brain garbles the message, suddenly you say that concept is absurd, because the brain is the creator of consciousness (as per materialism).The brain as creator of consciousness is the exact opposite of the dualism you believe in.
I should repeat here that I remain neutral. There are psychic phenomena, of which NDEs are only one, which defy explanation. But these are counterbalanced by the all too obvious fact that our behaviour and indeed our whole identity can be changed by what goes on in the material cell communities of the brain and indeed of other organs, too. You consider yourself to be a dualist, and have effectively put the case for materialism.
Introducing the brain: addressing novelty
dhw: All these experiments are conducted on mice, from which scientists extrapolate information that might be relevant to the human brain. What strikes me here is how whenever we fiddle with mouse brains, we change their behaviour. Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]
DAVID: To be consistent, I would think so.
dhw: Yes, to be consistent, you would have to think so. Do you personally believe that mice have an eternal soul?
DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
And so your religious background has convinced you that every individual mouse, ant, weaverbird, elephant, gudgeon, whale etc. etc. that ever lived will go on living for ever. What the heck are they going to do with themselves? Ah well, maybe your immaterial God had the same problem, until he had the brilliant idea of creating material life.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Sunday, February 11, 2024, 17:24 (284 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.
dhw: I am absolutely not avoiding the theory. This is YOUR concept, and I’m explaining your blatant self-contradictions! Here are your two statements which started this discussion:
DAVID: A sick receiver will offer a damaged message […] The brain garbled the incoming consciousness message.
dhw: I keep asking you what sort of messages your dualist’s immaterial consciousness sends to your material “receiver” brain. If the brain is normal, then according to you it is the independent consciousness which is running me, as the brain is only a receiver! But now you tell me that the whole concept is absurd!
I'll repeat my concept: a newborn must develop its consciousness. At birth brain and consciousness coexist. As it develops it becomes a side-by-side mechanism in that the material brain's activities are all constantly reflected in the immaterial consciousness. As below:
Next you tell me this:
DAVID: That OCD can be fixed means a sick brain bbbcreatedbbb a distorted consciousness. The consciousness did not independently become psychopathic and send signals to a normal brain, nor did it send normal signals which the brain misinterpreted.(Contrast this with “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”!)
And later:
DAVID: A distorted brain, from birth, creates a distorted consciousness.And sadly, concerning your own family:
DAVID: Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
dhw: If the sick brain creates the consciousness, then it is not a receiver, and is not garbling messages. It is the source of consciousness – which is the materialist view.
DAVID: The brain/consciousness interface: brain is material the consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown by NDE's.
dhw: Yes, that is dualism, and you claim that the separate consciousness sends messages to the brain (as per dualism), which is only a receiver. But when the brain garbles the message, suddenly you say that concept is absurd, because the brain is the creator of consciousness (as per materialism).The brain as creator of consciousness is the exact opposite of the dualism you believe in.
No, what I have said is dualism as above.
dhw:I should repeat here that I remain neutral. There are psychic phenomena, of which NDEs are only one, which defy explanation. But these are counterbalanced by the all too obvious fact that our behaviour and indeed our whole identity can be changed by what goes on in the material cell communities of the brain and indeed of other organs, too. You consider yourself to be a dualist, and have effectively put the case for materialism.
See above, no I haven't. Brain/consciousness interface start as blanks and constantly reflect each other as they grow/develop. NDE's prove it.
Introducing the brain: addressing noveltydhw: All these experiments are conducted on mice, from which scientists extrapolate information that might be relevant to the human brain. What strikes me here is how whenever we fiddle with mouse brains, we change their behaviour. Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]
DAVID: To be consistent, I would think so.
dhw: Yes, to be consistent, you would have to think so. Do you personally believe that mice have an eternal soul?
DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
dhw: And so your religious background has convinced you that every individual mouse, ant, weaverbird, elephant, gudgeon, whale etc. etc. that ever lived will go on living for ever. What the heck are they going to do with themselves? Ah well, maybe your immaterial God had the same problem, until he had the brilliant idea of creating material life.
I'm stuck with nepheshes and neshamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.
Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: Your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.
dhw: […]. This is YOUR concept, and I’m explaining your blatant self-contradictions! Here are your two statements which started this discussion:
DAVID: A sick receiver will offer a damaged message […] The brain garbled the incoming consciousness message.
dhw: I keep asking you what sort of messages your dualist’s immaterial consciousness sends to your material “receiver” brain. If the brain is normal, then according to you it is the independent consciousness which is running me, as the brain is only a receiver! But now you tell me that the whole concept is absurd!
DAVID: I'll repeat my concept: a newborn must develop its consciousness. At birth brain and consciousness coexist. As it develops it becomes a side-by-side mechanism in that the material brain's activities are all constantly reflected in the immaterial consciousness.
As usual, you simply avoid the blatant contradictions by repeating one of your theories and ignoring the rest. Dualists believe that the brain and consciousness are separate entities, and you tell us here how they interact. You totally ignore your statements (a) that when things go wrong “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”, which means consciousness sent a correct message to the brain (i.e. is supposed to “run” the brain), whereas when I ask what message could have been sent, you reply: (b) “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. So now apparently it is absurd to argue that consciousness sends messages to the brain which the brain garbles. Stop dodging your self-contradictions!
dhw: Next you tell me this:
DAVID: That OCD can be fixed means a sick brain created a distorted consciousness.
The consciousness did not independently become psychopathic and send signals to a normal brain, nor did it send normal signals which the brain misinterpreted.
(Contrast this with “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”!)
And later:
DAVID: A distorted brain, from birth, creates a distorted consciousness.
And sadly, concerning your own family:
DAVID: Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
dhw: If the sick brain creates the consciousness, then it is not a receiver, and is not garbling messages. It is the source of consciousness – which is the materialist view.
DAVID: No, what I have said is dualism as above.
We know what dualism says, and it does not say that the brain creates consciousness. You have said it does in all the above quotes, but that is materialism, not dualism. Hence another of your self-contradictions.
dhw: I should repeat here that I remain neutral. There are psychic phenomena, of which NDEs are only one, which defy explanation. But these are counterbalanced by the all too obvious fact that our behaviour and indeed our whole identity can be changed by what goes on in the material cell communities of the brain and indeed of other organs, too. You consider yourself to be a dualist, and have effectively put the case for materialism.
DAVID: See above, no I haven't. Brain/consciousness interface start as blanks and constantly reflect each other as they grow/develop. NDE's prove it.
As I said above, NDEs are among the phenomena which support dualism, and what you say here makes dualistic sense. But you have forgotten your theory that the brain can “garble” messages from your consciousness, which you subsequently withdraw and replace with the theory that the brain creates a defective consciousness – a theory which is 100% materialistic. You believe in dualism, but have inadvertently supported the case for materialism.
Introducing the brain: addressing novelty
dhw: […] Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]
DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
dhw: And so your religious background has convinced you that every individual mouse, ant, weaverbird, elephant, gudgeon, whale etc. etc. that ever lived will go on living for ever. What the heck are they going to do with themselves? Ah well, maybe your immaterial God had the same problem, until he had the brilliant idea of creating material life.
DAVID: I'm stuck with nepheshes and neshamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just [be?] us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.
Immortal souls don't need brains, according to NDEs. At this rate, even bacteria could have an afterlife! Again, I can't help wondering what all the mice and ants etc. are going to do in an immaterial world! No suggestions from you? As for the OT, you do not have to be stuck with it. If you were, then you should read Deuteronomy and start killing people like me.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Monday, February 12, 2024, 18:24 (283 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'll repeat my concept: a newborn must develop its consciousness. At birth brain and consciousness coexist. As it develops it becomes a side-by-side mechanism in that the material brain's activities are all constantly reflected in the immaterial consciousness[/i].
dhw: As usual, you simply avoid the blatant contradictions by repeating one of your theories and ignoring the rest. Dualists believe that the brain and consciousness are separate entities, and you tell us here how they interact. You totally ignore your statements (a) that when things go wrong “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”, which means consciousness sent a correct message to the brain (i.e. is supposed to “run” the brain), whereas when I ask what message could have been sent, you reply: (b) “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. So now apparently it is absurd to argue that consciousness sends messages to the brain which the brain garbles. Stop dodging your self-contradictions!
We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood. When I think of a normal adult person who develops a sick brain, does the consciousness sicken also? Or can the consciousness remain normal and its connection to the brain become scrambled? There is no answer I can choose when you want me to give one. I lean toward the latter. An immortal soul/consciousness might wish to resist the abnormality. Then the brain garbles the message.
dhw: Next you tell me this:
DAVID: That OCD can be fixed means a sick brain created a distorted consciousness.
The consciousness did not independently become psychopathic and send signals to a normal brain, nor did it send normal signals which the brain misinterpreted.(Contrast this with “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”!)
And later:DAVID: A distorted brain, from birth, creates a distorted consciousness.
And sadly, concerning your own family:
DAVID: Each of the family had defective genes creating a defective consciousness.
dhw: If the sick brain creates the consciousness, then it is not a receiver, and is not garbling messages. It is the source of consciousness – which is the materialist view.
DAVID: No, what I have said is dualism as above.
dhw: We know what dualism says, and it does not say that the brain creates consciousness. You have said it does in all the above quotes, but that is materialism, not dualism. Hence another of your self-contradictions.
See above as to how I see problem.
Introducing the brain: addressing noveltydhw: […] Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]
DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
dhw: And so your religious background has convinced you that every individual mouse, ant, weaverbird, elephant, gudgeon, whale etc. etc. that ever lived will go on living for ever. What the heck are they going to do with themselves? Ah well, maybe your immaterial God had the same problem, until he had the brilliant idea of creating material life.
DAVID: I'm stuck with nepheshes and Nehamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just [be?] us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.
dhw: Immortal souls don't need brains, according to NDEs. At this rate, even bacteria could have an afterlife! Again, I can't help wondering what all the mice and ants etc. are going to do in an immaterial world! No suggestions from you? As for the OT, you do not have to be stuck with it. If you were, then you should read Deuteronomy and start killing people like me.
I know the impression of a nasty God of the OT. Currently the interpretations have softened the impression.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: Dualists believe that the brain and consciousness are separate entities, and you tell us here how they interact. You totally ignore your statements (a) that when things go wrong “the brain garbled the incoming consciousness message”, which means consciousness sent a correct message to the brain (i.e. is supposed to “run” the brain), whereas when I ask what message could have been sent, you reply: (b) “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. So now apparently it is absurd to argue that consciousness sends messages to the brain which the brain garbles. Stop dodging your self-contradictions!
DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.
In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.
DAVID: When I think of a normal adult person who develops a sick brain, does the consciousness sicken also? Or can the consciousness remain normal and its connection to the brain become scrambled? There is no answer I can choose when you want me to give one. I lean toward the latter. An immortal soul/consciousness might wish to resist the abnormality. Then the brain garbles the message.
The latter is your theory that “the brain garbles the incoming consciousness message”, which means that consciousness is sending the right message, which in turn means that consciousness normally runs the brain, but in your own words: “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. Welcome to materialism. As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know. We did discuss a possible compromise some years ago, but I don't have time now to resurrect it.
Introducing the brain: addressing novelty
dhw: […] Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]
DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
And:
DAVID: I'm stuck with nepheshes and Nehamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just [be?] us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.
dhw: Immortal souls don't need brains, according to NDEs. At this rate, even bacteria could have an afterlife! Again, I can't help wondering what all the mice and ants etc. are going to do in an immaterial world! No suggestions from you? As for the OT, you do not have to be stuck with it. If you were, then you should read Deuteronomy and start killing people like me.
DAVID: I know the impression of a nasty God of the OT. Currently the interpretations have softened the impression.
Yes, your God is whatever you wish to make him. But I was only referring to the fact that your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and nehamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 13, 2024, 16:50 (282 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.
dhw: In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.
But the created consciousness is an immaterial form separate from the brain. That is dualism.
DAVID: When I think of a normal adult person who develops a sick brain, does the consciousness sicken also? Or can the consciousness remain normal and its connection to the brain become scrambled? There is no answer I can choose when you want me to give one. I lean toward the latter. An immortal soul/consciousness might wish to resist the abnormality. Then the brain garbles the message.dhw: The latter is your theory that “the brain garbles the incoming consciousness message”, which means that consciousness is sending the right message, which in turn means that consciousness normally runs the brain, but in your own words: “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. Welcome to materialism. As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know. We did discuss a possible compromise some years ago, but I don't have time now to resurrect it.
No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.
Introducing the brain: addressing noveltydhw: […] Do dualists believe that every mouse has a separate, immaterial consciousness that sends messages to the mouse brain? […]
DAVID: My religious background says so. Yes.
And:
DAVID: I'm stuck with nepheshes and Neshamas in the OT. My dog thinks. I see him do it. It can't just [be?] us with a separate immaterial consciousness. We evolved from animals all of whom had brains.dhw: Immortal souls don't need brains, according to NDEs. At this rate, even bacteria could have an afterlife! Again, I can't help wondering what all the mice and ants etc. are going to do in an immaterial world! No suggestions from you? As for the OT, you do not have to be stuck with it. If you were, then you should read Deuteronomy and start killing people like me.
DAVID: I know the impression of a nasty God of the OT. Currently the interpretations have softened the impression.
dhw: Yes, your God is whatever you wish to make him. But I was only referring to the fact that your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and neshamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)
I believe souls are in brained animals.
Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.
dhw: In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.
DAVID: But the created consciousness is an immaterial form separate from the brain. That is dualism.
And:
DAVID: No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.
They are “irretractably bound together”, whether you are a materialist or a dualist, and the question is what creates consciousness. If the brain creates it, then it is the workings of the brain that determine our behaviour. As you have said: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” That is materialism: consciousness is created by the brain, produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas, dreams etc., and they and it die with the brain.
Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.
dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.
Immortal souls
dhw: your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and neshamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)
DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.
But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 16:21 (281 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We both understand dualism. A psychopath is an example of improper development of brain and consciousness from childhood.
dhw: In your own earlier words: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” The brain as creator of consciousness is materialism.
DAVID: But the created consciousness is an immaterial form separate from the brain. That is dualism.
And:
DAVID: No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.dhw: They are “irretractably bound together”, whether you are a materialist or a dualist, and the question is what creates consciousness. If the brain creates it, then it is the workings of the brain that determine our behaviour. As you have said: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” That is materialism: consciousness is created by the brain, produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas, dreams etc., and they and it die with the brain.
But in NDE's the consciousness is sending messages to a non-functioning brain, indicating its
separate position.
dhw: Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.
My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed. But it is a separate entity from the brain. When the brain gets sick what is in its consciousness gets garbled, since the concept is the brain is a receiver of consciousness.
dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism. It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.
I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul. My belief in an immaterial consciousness and soul makes me a dualist who sees a material origin in the brain making the consciousness form by attaching to the immaterial universal consciousness from God.
Immortal soulsdhw: your faith in the OT (you are “stuck with its nepheses and neshamas”) leads you to believe that mice etc. have immortal souls. Now apparently you can pick and choose what parts of the OT you accept or don’t accept. Do you also believe that bacteria have immortal souls? (The question is not frivolous. It's fundamental to the concept of dualism.)
DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.
dhw: But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?
Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: No question brain and consciousness are irretractably bound together. What results is the material brain and an immaterial consciousness, dualism.
dhw: They are “irretractably bound together”, whether you are a materialist or a dualist, and the question is what creates consciousness. If the brain creates it, then it is the workings of the brain that determine our behaviour. As you have said: “A distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” That is materialism: consciousness is created by the brain, produces its immaterial thoughts, ideas, dreams etc., and they and it die with the brain.
DAVID: But in NDE's the consciousness is sending messages to a non-functioning brain, indicating its separate position.
I know. That is part of the case for dualism, as I wrote yesterday. And NDEs are used as evidence that the conscious soul can live on without the material body. See the bold below:
dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism.It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.
dhw: Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. [I’ve bolded this, as you bring God in later.] You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.
DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.
We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver, as you say next:
DAVID: But it is a separate entity from the brain. When the brain gets sick what is in its consciousness gets garbled, since the concept is the brain is a receiver of consciousness.
Not quite, because your dualism tells you that there is no consciousness in the receiver brain: it is the soul, not the brain that has consciousness. Hence your talk of consciousness (the soul) sending messages which get garbled – although you then dismissed that concept as absurd, which is what I would expect a materialist to say. (And also you ignored my request about what sort of messages the soul would send, e.g. do not wash your hands/do not kill your wife, which do indeed sound absurd.)
DAVID: I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul.
Yes, that is dualism.
DAVID: My belief in an immaterial consciousness and soul makes me a dualist who sees a material origin in the brain making the consciousness form by attaching to the immaterial universal consciousness from God.
I find this incomprehensible. “A material origin in the brain” – origin of what? Consciousness originates in the non-conscious brain by attaching what to God’s consciousness? Please explain. As I said above, some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.
Immortal souls
DAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.
dhw: But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?
DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22: dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?
DAVID: Yes.
dhw: Thank you. I will note this down for future reference.
Sure enough, three weeks later you have stripped them of their autonomy, and hence of the abilities listed above which are among the basic features of consciousness. And if you and mice, and moles and mosquitoes have a conscious soul which does not need a brain in the afterlife, why shouldn’t conscious but brainless bacteria have immortal souls as well? (Of course I’m not saying they have. I’m simply questioning the logic of your beliefs.)
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Thursday, February 15, 2024, 17:59 (280 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But in NDE's the consciousness is sending messages to a non-functioning brain, indicating its separate position.
dhw: I know. That is part of the case for dualism, as I wrote yesterday. And NDEs are used as evidence that the conscious soul can live on without the material body. See the bold below:
dhw: As with most of the problems we tackle, there are good reasons for both sides: brain trouble creating consciousness trouble = materialism; NDEs and other psychic phenomena = dualism.It’s only if you try to adopt one theory and dismiss the other that you come up with all these self-contradictions. There's nothing to be ashamed of if we admit we just don't know.
dhw: Dualism itself leaves open the question of what creates consciousness, but some advocates would say that it is given to us by the immaterial conscious mind we call God. [I’ve bolded this, as you bring God in later.] You said earlier that any false behaviour is the result of the physical brain “garbling” the messages sent by the immaterial consciousness. That would be dualism. The next moment, however, you announced that “your concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd”. You rubbished your own dualistic concept.
DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.
dhw: We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver, as you say next:
DAVID: But it is a separate entity from the brain. When the brain gets sick what is in its consciousness gets garbled, since the concept is the brain is a receiver of consciousness.
dhw: Not quite, because your dualism tells you that there is no consciousness in the receiver brain: it is the soul, not the brain that has consciousness. Hence your talk of consciousness (the soul) sending messages which get garbled – although you then dismissed that concept as absurd, which is what I would expect a materialist to say. (And also you ignored my request about what sort of messages the soul would send, e.g. do not wash your hands/do not kill your wife, which do indeed sound absurd.)
The question is when the brain is sick does that make the soul sick. Or, the soul remembers the proper past and tries to correct the brain. I favor the latter.
DAVID: I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul.dhw: Yes, that is dualism.
DAVID: My belief in an immaterial consciousness and soul makes me a dualist who sees a material origin in the brain making the consciousness form by attaching to the immaterial universal consciousness from God.
dhw: I find this incomprehensible. “A material origin in the brain” – origin of what? Consciousness originates in the non-conscious brain by attaching what to God’s consciousness? Please explain. As I said above, some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.
Simply, the brain attaches to God's provided consciousness mechanism, as you note, so that a material form starts the process which then becomes a dualism setup.
Immortal soulsDAVID: I believe souls are in brained animals.
dhw: But you believe that brainless bacteria have an autonomous ability to observe their environment, process the information, and make decisions with regard to altering their own DNA. Observation, interpretation, decision-making are not material, but they most certainly entail a form of consciousness. You might say that they are evidence for consciousness without a brain. So if you think mice have a separate consciousness that can live on after death without a brain, why shouldn’t bacteria also have an independent “soul” that can do the same?
DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.[/b]
dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22: dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?
DAVID: Yes.
dhw: Thank you. I will note this down for future reference.
dhw: Sure enough, three weeks later you have stripped them of their autonomy, and hence of the abilities listed above which are among the basic features of consciousness. And if you and mice, and moles and mosquitoes have a conscious soul which does not need a brain in the afterlife, why shouldn’t conscious but brainless bacteria have immortal souls as well? (Of course I’m not saying they have. I’m simply questioning the logic of your beliefs.)
Please remember: "]Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.[/i][/b]. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells!
Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.
dhw: We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver [...]
DAVID: The question is when the brain is sick does that make the soul sick. Or, the soul remembers the proper past and tries to correct the brain. I favor the latter.
That is not the question. We know that when the brain is sick, behaviour is abnormal. The obsessive woman can’t stop washing her hands; the drunkard kills his wife. In some cases, people are born with sick brains; in others the “sickness” may be caused by curable diseases, or by temporary interference, e.g drugs or alcohol. All of this suggests that there is no separate “soul”: as you repeatedly pointed out, “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” It’s all evidence for materialism. But NDEs and other psychic and psychological experiences suggest that there is a separate form of consciousness we call the soul. If so, I’ve described the different roles above. However, “tries to correct the brain” goes back to your theory of messages: you have the soul telling the obsessive woman not to wash her hands, and telling the drunkard not to kill his wife. Then you dismiss that idea as “absurd”. I agree. That is why the two theories are incompatible.
DAVID: I'll admit we do not know the true answer. What fits for me is the separate consciousness is also part of my soul.
dhw: Yes, that is dualism.
dhw: some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.
DAVID: Simply, the brain attaches to God's provided consciousness mechanism, as you note, so that a material form starts the process which then becomes a dualism setup.
I didn’t note it. I asked what your “attachment” meant, and I still do. Are you now saying that at some point the foetus or the baby reaches out its brain to an immaterial consciousness and grabs hold of it? I reckon it would make more sense if your God designed the brain as a mechanism that would produce consciousness. But I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!
Immortal souls
DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22: dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?
DAVID: Yes.
You forgot to include the word "Yes" when you quoted the above. "Yes" means you agree.
DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells![/i]
Please remember that in January you unequivocally agreed that bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA code. Your "yes" meant that they do have autonomy, which in turn means they must have the conscious intelligence to know when and how to respond to new conditions. So if intelligent mice and mosquitoes have a soul, why can’t intelligent bacteria have a soul?
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Friday, February 16, 2024, 17:59 (279 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My consciousness does not govern me. I made its contents from infancy, using my brain as it developed.
dhw: We’re back to the question what is “me”? Your dualism proposes that “you” are your material body and your immaterial “soul”. Your immaterial soul includes your consciousness, and yes indeed, it uses the brain and body, which provide it with information to process and with the means of physically implementing its decisions. Of course your dualist’s soul governs you. That’s why you reduce the role of the brain to being a receiver [...]
DAVID: The question is when the brain is sick does that make the soul sick. Or, the soul remembers the proper past and tries to correct the brain. I favor the latter.
That is not the question. We know that when the brain is sick, behaviour is abnormal. The obsessive woman can’t stop washing her hands; the drunkard kills his wife. In some cases, people are born with sick brains; in others the “sickness” may be caused by curable diseases, or by temporary interference, e.g drugs or alcohol. All of this suggests that there is no separate “soul”: as you repeatedly pointed out, “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” It’s all evidence for materialism. But NDEs and other psychic and psychological experiences suggest that there is a separate form of consciousness we call the soul. If so, I’ve described the different roles above. However, “tries to correct the brain” goes back to your theory of messages: you have the soul telling the obsessive woman not to wash her hands, and telling the drunkard not to kill his wife. Then you dismiss that idea as “absurd”. I agree. That is why the two theories are incompatible.
I'm left with a brain/consciousness interface, a material brain attached to an immaterial consciousness. Still dualism, no matter how it works.
dhw: Yes, that is dualism.dhw: some dualists regard God as the source of consciousness, though it’s not clear how it gets inserted into us.
DAVID: Simply, the brain attaches to God's provided consciousness mechanism, as you note, so that a material form starts the process which then becomes a dualism setup.
dhw: I didn’t note it. I asked what your “attachment” meant, and I still do. Are you now saying that at some point the foetus or the baby reaches out its brain to an immaterial consciousness and grabs hold of it? I reckon it would make more sense if your God designed the brain as a mechanism that would produce consciousness. But I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!
Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
Immortal soulsDAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22: dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?
DAVID: Yes.
dhw: You forgot to include the word "Yes" when you quoted the above. "Yes" means you agree.
DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells![/i]
dhw: Please remember that in January you unequivocally agreed that bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA code. Your "yes" meant that they do have autonomy, which in turn means they must have the conscious intelligence to know when and how to respond to new conditions. So if intelligent mice and mosquitoes have a soul, why can’t intelligent bacteria have a soul?
Yes, bacteria can automatically edit DNA following instructions from God in their DNA. No brains, no souls.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: We know that when the brain is sick, behaviour is abnormal. The obsessive woman can’t stop washing her hands; the drunkard kills his wife. In some cases, people are born with sick brains; in others the “sickness” may be caused by curable diseases, or by temporary interference, e.g drugs or alcohol. All of this suggests that there is no separate “soul”: as you repeatedly pointed out, “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” It’s all evidence for materialism. But NDEs and other psychic and psychological experiences suggest that there is a separate form of consciousness we call the soul. If so, I’ve described the different roles above. However, “tries to correct the brain” goes back to your theory of messages: you have the soul telling the obsessive woman not to wash her hands, and telling the drunkard not to kill his wife. Then you dismiss that idea as “absurd”. I agree. That is why the two theories are incompatible.
DAVID: I'm left with a brain/consciousness interface, a material brain attached to an immaterial consciousness. Still dualism, no matter how it works.
You are simply using terms that indicate separation! If consciousness is created by the brain, and is changed by changes in the brain, it is not ”attached” to the brain, and there is no interface! The brain is its source, it is always within the brain, and it dies with the brain! That is materialism.
dhw: I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!
DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.
Immortal souls
DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22:
dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?
DAVID: Yes.
"Yes" means you agree.
DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells!
dhw: Please remember that in January you unequivocally agreed that bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA code. Your "yes" meant that they do have autonomy, which in turn means they must have the conscious intelligence to know when and how to respond to new conditions. So if intelligent mice and mosquitoes have a soul, why can’t intelligent bacteria have a soul?
DAVID: Yes, bacteria can automatically edit DNA following instructions from God in their DNA. No brains, no souls.
Discussion is becoming pointless. In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Saturday, February 17, 2024, 17:20 (278 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, February 17, 2024, 17:27
dhw: We know that when the brain is sick, behaviour is abnormal. The obsessive woman can’t stop washing her hands; the drunkard kills his wife. In some cases, people are born with sick brains; in others the “sickness” may be caused by curable diseases, or by temporary interference, e.g drugs or alcohol. All of this suggests that there is no separate “soul”: as you repeatedly pointed out, “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” It’s all evidence for materialism. But NDEs and other psychic and psychological experiences suggest that there is a separate form of consciousness we call the soul. If so, I’ve described the different roles above. However, “tries to correct the brain” goes back to your theory of messages: you have the soul telling the obsessive woman not to wash her hands, and telling the drunkard not to kill his wife. Then you dismiss that idea as “absurd”. I agree. That is why the two theories are incompatible.
DAVID: I'm left with a brain/consciousness interface, a material brain attached to an immaterial consciousness. Still dualism, no matter how it works.
dhw: You are simply using terms that indicate separation! If consciousness is created by the brain, and is changed by changes in the brain, it is not ”attached” to the brain, and there is no interface! The brain is its source, it is always within the brain, and it dies with the brain! That is materialism.
That is not my view. The consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown in NDE's. Yes, the brain forms the contents, but imagine as if an on-land radio sends info to a ship, which may be God's consciousness mechanism.
dhw: I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
dhw; Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.
I don't think the materialist view is correct!
Immortal soulsDAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22:
dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?DAVID: Yes.
dhw: "Yes" means you agree.
DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells!
dhw: Please remember that in January you unequivocally agreed that bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA code. Your "yes" meant that they do have autonomy, which in turn means they must have the conscious intelligence to know when and how to respond to new conditions. So if intelligent mice and mosquitoes have a soul, why can’t intelligent bacteria have a soul?
DAVID: Yes, bacteria can automatically edit DNA following instructions from God in their DNA. No brains, no souls.
dhw: Discussion is becoming pointless. In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
I believe souls, like consciousness are related to the presence of a brain. My soul arrived when I did. My future shaped it. I don't change positions. It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
Dualism versus materialism again
The following exchange illustrates precisely why I didn’t want to reopen this thread. You keep repeating what dualists believe, and I accept parts of the argument, and I then explain the argument for materialism. We agree that nobody knows the true answer, but you then repeat your arguments for, and continue to ignore the arguments against.
DAVID: I'm left with a brain/consciousness interface, a material brain attached to an immaterial consciousness. Still dualism, no matter how it works.
dhw: You are simply using terms that indicate separation! If consciousness is created by the brain, and is changed by changes in the brain, it is not ”attached” to the brain, and there is no interface! The brain is its source, it is always within the brain, and it dies with the brain! That is materialism.
DAVID: That is not my view. The consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown in NDE's. Yes, the brain forms the contents, but imagine as if an on-land radio sends info to a ship, which may be God's consciousness mechanism.
I know that is your view. NDEs are evidence for dualism. But your receiver image is completely muddled. At first your separate consciousness told your brain what to do, but your sick brain “garbled the message”. Then YOU said the “concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.” Yes indeed, the idea of “messages” from a separate consciousness to the obsessive woman, telling her not to wash her hands, or to a drunkard not to kill his wife, is absurd. So how do we explain all the cases in which normality is restored by treatment of the BRAIN (diseases cured, drugs and alcohol removed)? The obvious conclusion is precisely what you said yourself: “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” There is no separation. The brain as the creator of consciousness with all its decisions, right or wrong, is materialism. However, that doesn’t remove NDEs and other psychic and psychological factors from the argument, and so – next comment:
dhw: I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!
DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
(In your ship image, you have consciousness as the receiver - all part of the great muddle.)
dhw: Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.
DAVID: I don't think the materialist view is correct!
I know you don’t. You always think your views are correct. But you had the good grace to recognize that “we do not know the true answer”. The same applies to most of the subjects we discuss. If we knew the truth, there would be nothing to discuss!
Immortal souls
DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.
dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22:
dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?
DAVID: Yes.
dhw: "Yes" means you agree.
DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells! […]
dhw: Discussion is becoming pointless. In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
DAVID: I believe souls, like consciousness are related to the presence of a brain. My soul arrived when I did. My future shaped it. I don't change positions. It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
“Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Sunday, February 18, 2024, 18:04 (277 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: That is not my view. The consciousness is immaterial and separate from the brain as shown in NDE's. Yes, the brain forms the contents, but imagine as if an on-land radio sends info to a ship, which may be God's consciousness mechanism.
dhw: I know that is your view. NDEs are evidence for dualism. But your receiver image is completely muddled. At first your separate consciousness told your brain what to do, but your sick brain “garbled the message”. Then YOU said the “concept of an independent consciousness running me with messages is absurd.” Yes indeed, the idea of “messages” from a separate consciousness to the obsessive woman, telling her not to wash her hands, or to a drunkard not to kill his wife, is absurd. So how do we explain all the cases in which normality is restored by treatment of the BRAIN (diseases cured, drugs and alcohol removed)? The obvious conclusion is precisely what you said yourself: “a distorted brain CREATES a distorted consciousness.” There is no separation. The brain as the creator of consciousness with all its decisions, right or wrong, is materialism. However, that doesn’t remove NDEs and other psychic and psychological factors from the argument, and so – next comment:
dhw: I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!
DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
dhw: (In your ship image, you have consciousness as the receiver - all part of the great muddle.)
dhw: Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.
The NDE's refute your now bolded statement. Consciousness exists somewhere outside the brain perhaps as part of God's supplied universal consciousness. The brain sends as receives from it is my guess.
DAVID: I don't think the materialist view is correct!dhw\: I know you don’t. You always think your views are correct. But you had the good grace to recognize that “we do not know the true answer”. The same applies to most of the subjects we discuss. If we knew the truth, there would be nothing to discuss!
Yes, all theory.
Immortal souls
DAVID: Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls.dhw: They can’t have “brain choices” if they have no brains, but they can certainly make choices, as you agreed last month:
January 21/22:
dhw: May I assume that you unequivocally believe bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention?DAVID: Yes.
dhw: "Yes" means you agree.
DAVID: Please remember: "Bacteria are automatic as they strictly follow DNA code. No brain choices. No souls. I never find autonomy where you do; you must have your intelligent cells! […]
dhw: Discussion is becoming pointless. In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
DAVID: I believe souls, like consciousness are related to the presence of a brain. My soul arrived when I did. My future shaped it. I don't change positions. It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
dhw: “Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.
I'll then concede cells look as if autonomous as above.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: I agree completely with you: “We do not know the true answer”. You can make out a case for either theory, but not by having silly messages or silly processes of materials attaching themselves to immaterials!
DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
dhw: (In your ship image, you have consciousness as the receiver - all part of the great muddle.)
dhw: Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.
DAVID: The NDE's refute your now bolded statement. Consciousness exists somewhere outside the brain perhaps as part of God's supplied universal consciousness.
We are going round in circles. NDEs etc. provide a case for dualism. Distorted brains that create distorted consciousness provide the case for materialism. Nobody knows the truth. End of discussion (which is why I didn’t want to reopen it).
DAVID: The brain sends as receives from it is my guess.
Total confusion: at first, according to you, the brain was only a receiver which garbled messages from consciousness, the sender. Then (in the ship image) consciousness became the receiver. But now you have it sending and receiving, which is exactly the way the materialist brain works: parts of the brain send information to other parts, which process it and send decisions back to other parts of the brain, and these implement the decisions. If any of these brain parts are diseased or affected by drugs etc., this will affect behaviour. Hence your own materialist observation: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” But NDEs etc. offer a different version, and we do not know the true answer.
Immortal souls
dhw: In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
DAVID: […] It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
dhw: “Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.
DAVID: I'll then concede cells look as if autonomous as above.
In January you unequivocally believed that “bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention”. So back in January, when you unequivocally believed in bacterial autonomy, did you believe bacteria had immortal souls. If not, why not?
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Monday, February 19, 2024, 16:56 (276 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, February 19, 2024, 17:06
DAVID: Back to van Lommel, the brain receives the consciousness.
dhw: (In your ship image, you have consciousness as the receiver - all part of the great muddle.)
dhw: Back to materialism: the brain produces consciousness, which does not exist if there is no brain. You agree that we don’t know the answer, so all you do is repeat the dualist version and ignore the materialist version. “We do not know the true answer.” You said it.
DAVID: The NDE's refute your now bolded statement. Consciousness exists somewhere outside the brain perhaps as part of God's supplied universal consciousness.
dhw: We are going round in circles. NDEs etc. provide a case for dualism. Distorted brains that create distorted consciousness provide the case for materialism. Nobody knows the truth. End of discussion (which is why I didn’t want to reopen it).
DAVID: The brain sends as receives from it is my guess.
dhw: Total confusion: at first, according to you, the brain was only a receiver which garbled messages from consciousness, the sender. Then (in the ship image) consciousness became the receiver. But now you have it sending and receiving, which is exactly the way the materialist brain works: parts of the brain send information to other parts, which process it and send decisions back to other parts of the brain, and these implement the decisions. If any of these brain parts are diseased or affected by drugs etc., this will affect behaviour. Hence your own materialist observation: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” But NDEs etc. offer a different version, and we do not know the true answer.
If the brain both sends and receives consciousness, where is the consciousness? Outside the brain as in NDE's. Brain material, consciousness immaterial, dualism. Now, sick brain distorts sending and receiving. But still dualism. My 'own materialist observation' is still really dualism.
Immortal soulsdhw: In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
DAVID: […] It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
dhw: “Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.
No mockery. Your definition is for persons with a mind/brain! Bacteria are coded to act independently with their DNA. Their autonomy is their ability to recognize when to use the ability. And even that ability may be coded for automaticity.
DAVID: I'll then concede cells look as if autonomous as above.dhw: In January you unequivocally believed that “bacteria have the autonomous ability to alter their DNA when necessary, and without divine programming and/or intervention”. So back in January, when you unequivocally believed in bacterial autonomy, did you believe bacteria had immortal souls. If not, why not?
I have not used 'autonomous' as you do. God's DNA instructions create that ability for bacteria. I believe the consciousness mechanism needs a brain.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: NDEs etc. provide a case for dualism. Distorted brains that create distorted consciousness provide the case for materialism. Nobody knows the truth. End of discussion (which is why I didn’t want to reopen it).
DAVID: The brain sends as receives from it is my guess.
dhw: Total confusion: at first, according to you, the brain was only a receiver which garbled messages from consciousness, the sender. Then (in the ship image) consciousness became the receiver. But now you have it sending and receiving, which is exactly the way the materialist brain works: parts of the brain send information to other parts, which process it and send decisions back to other parts of the brain, and these implement the decisions. If any of these brain parts are diseased or affected by drugs etc., this will affect behaviour. Hence your own materialist observation: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” But NDEs etc. offer a different version, and we do not know the true answer.
DAVID: If the brain both sends and receives consciousness, where is the consciousness? Outside the brain as in NDE's. Brain material, consciousness immaterial, dualism. Now, sick brain distorts sending and receiving. But still dualism. My 'own materialist observation' is still really dualism.
How can the brain send consciousness if consciousness is outside the brain??? You lurch from one absurd contradiction to another, as listed above. There’s no point in repeating what I wrote, as it sums up all the arguments. You agreed that nobody knows the truth, so what is the point in you continuing to twist yourself in knots?
Immortal souls
dhw: In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
DAVID: […] It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
dhw: “Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.
DAVID: No mockery. Your definition is for persons with a mind/brain!
It’s not “my” definition. Find me a definition of “autonomous” that says it means working and making decisions by following instructions.
DAVID: Bacteria are coded to act independently with their DNA. Their autonomy is their ability to recognize when to use the ability. And even that ability may be coded for automaticity.
If they act independently, they act autonomously! Their autonomy is their ability to act independently, and of course part of their autonomy is knowing what to do and when to do it! Do please stop all this obfuscating. In January, bacteria were able to act autonomously/independently. In February you’ve decided they only act under instructions.
DAVID: I have not used 'autonomous' as you do. God's DNA instructions create that ability for bacteria.
I am quite happy to accept the possibility that your God created the autonomous ability to work and make decisions. But I cannot accept that an autonomous ability in January suddenly becomes dependent on God’s instructions in February.
DAVID: I believe the consciousness mechanism needs a brain.
But in January you believed that brainless bacteria had the autonomous ability to recognize changing conditions and to alter their own DNA accordingly, both of which demand a level of consciousness. And you believe in an immortal soul which has consciousness without a brain, although consciousness needs a brain. As logic has you believing that antelopes, anteaters and ants have an immortal soul which lives on without a brain, I think it’s most undemocratic of you not to grant the same privilege to bacteria.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 20, 2024, 18:35 (275 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If the brain both sends and receives consciousness, where is the consciousness? Outside the brain as in NDE's. Brain material, consciousness immaterial, dualism. Now, sick brain distorts sending and receiving. But still dualism. My 'own materialist observation' is still really dualism.
dhw: How can the brain send consciousness if consciousness is outside the brain??? You lurch from one absurd contradiction to another, as listed above. There’s no point in repeating what I wrote, as it sums up all the arguments. You agreed that nobody knows the truth, so what is the point in you continuing to twist yourself in knots?
The knots are yours. How does a radio receive signals? The brain is the same!!! If NDE's show the separation, the relationship is as I describe it. Does the EEG show electrical activity? That activity can be seen outside the brain!!
Immortal soulsdhw: In February you completely reverse the view you took in January. Why should I believe a word you say today, if tomorrow you’re going to jump the other way? In January, when you firmly believed that bacteria had the autonomous ability to edit their DNA without instructions from God, did you believe they had souls? If not, why not?
DAVID: […] It is your constant effort to drag in intelligent cells. Remember, when cells act intelligently, they are following instructions in DNA code. Cells can be seen as 'autonomous' only under that rule, which is my use of the word.
dhw: “Autonomous” means "having the ability to work and make decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Your definition appears to be that autonomy means working and making decisions by following God’s instructions. You make a mockery of language.
DAVID: No mockery. Your definition is for persons with a mind/brain!
It’s not “my” definition. Find me a definition of “autonomous” that says it means working and making decisions by following instructions.
DAVID: Bacteria are coded to act independently with their DNA. Their autonomy is their ability to recognize when to use the ability. And even that ability may be coded for automaticity.
dhw: If they act independently, they act autonomously! Their autonomy is their ability to act independently, and of course part of their autonomy is knowing what to do and when to do it! Do please stop all this obfuscating. In January, bacteria were able to act autonomously/independently. In February you’ve decided they only act under instructions.
DAVID: I have not used 'autonomous' as you do. God's DNA instructions create that ability for bacteria.
dhw: I am quite happy to accept the possibility that your God created the autonomous ability to work and make decisions. But I cannot accept that an autonomous ability in January suddenly becomes dependent on God’s instructions in February.
The problem is our difference in thinking about the word 'autonomous'. I have always felt that God created the exact instructions in bacterial DNA to allow bacteria to sense their environment and recode DNA accordingly following instructions. With no brain this allows bacteria to originate autonomously. Or with your definition, as if autonomous.
DAVID: I believe the consciousness mechanism needs a brain.dhw: But in January you believed that brainless bacteria had the autonomous ability to recognize changing conditions and to alter their own DNA accordingly, both of which demand a level of consciousness. And you believe in an immortal soul which has consciousness without a brain, although consciousness needs a brain. As logic has you believing that antelopes, anteaters and ants have an immortal soul which lives on without a brain, I think it’s most undemocratic of you not to grant the same privilege to bacteria.
I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.
Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: If the brain both sends and receives consciousness, where is the consciousness? Outside the brain as in NDE's. Brain material, consciousness immaterial, dualism. Now, sick brain distorts sending and receiving. But still dualism. My 'own materialist observation' is still really dualism.
dhw: How can the brain send consciousness if consciousness is outside the brain??? You lurch from one absurd contradiction to another, as listed above. There’s no point in repeating what I wrote, as it sums up all the arguments. You agreed that nobody knows the truth, so what is the point in you continuing to twist yourself in knots?
DAVID: The knots are yours. How does a radio receive signals? The brain is the same!!! If NDE's show the separation, the relationship is as I describe it. Does the EEG show electrical activity? That activity can be seen outside the brain!!
It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:
DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.
You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism. However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 15:13 (268 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If the brain both sends and receives consciousness, where is the consciousness? Outside the brain as in NDE's. Brain material, consciousness immaterial, dualism. Now, sick brain distorts sending and receiving. But still dualism. My 'own materialist observation' is still really dualism.
dhw: How can the brain send consciousness if consciousness is outside the brain??? You lurch from one absurd contradiction to another, as listed above. There’s no point in repeating what I wrote, as it sums up all the arguments. You agreed that nobody knows the truth, so what is the point in you continuing to twist yourself in knots?
DAVID: The knots are yours. How does a radio receive signals? The brain is the same!!! If NDE's show the separation, the relationship is as I describe it. Does the EEG show electrical activity? That activity can be seen outside the brain!!
dhw: It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:
The bold is an assertion that is an unknown factor. Perhaps the soul and consciousness exist as a dualism, outside the body.
DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.dhw: You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism. However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.
Good stopping point. Note my objection above.
Dualism versus materialism again
dhw: It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:
DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.
dhw: You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism.
DAVID: […] Perhaps the soul and consciousness exist as a dualism, outside the body.
You don’t seem to have grasped the basic principle of dualism, which is that there are TWO entities: 1) the mental, which is soul/mind/consciousness, and 2) the physical, which is the body, including the brain. So how can the brain (physical) send the mental to the mental? It’s nonsense. Materialism claims that consciousness is created by the materials: or as you have just stated so bluntly: no brain, no consciousness.
dhw: However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.
DAVID: Good stopping point. Note my objection above
.
Objection dealt with. Of course it’s a good stopping point, and it’s the reason why I was reluctant to go over the same ground as we’ve been over before, but maybe there are some folk out there who will still be interested!
Dualism versus materialism again
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 28, 2024, 20:58 (267 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It's all "ifs"! If consciousness is confined to the soul, then the brain cannot send consciousness to consciousness! NDEs provide evidence that consciousness can exist without the brain – hence evidence for dualism. Diseases, drugs, alcohol etc. provide evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain and is part of the brain, as vividly illustrated by your own comment: “a distorted brain creates a distorted consciousness.” Your insistence that sentient, cognitive, but brainless bacteria cannot have a soul - despite their independent, autonomous ability to change their own DNA, and despite your desperate attempts to change the meaning of the word “autonomous” into “dependent on God’s instructions” - has led you to make the following comment:
DAVID: I'll stay with no brain, no consciousness.
dhw: You could hardly have a more conclusive expression of support for materialism.
DAVID: […] Perhaps the soul and consciousness exist as a dualism, outside the body.
dhw: You don’t seem to have grasped the basic principle of dualism, which is that there are TWO entities: 1) the mental, which is soul/mind/consciousness, and 2) the physical, which is the body, including the brain. So how can the brain (physical) send the mental to the mental? It’s nonsense. Materialism claims that consciousness is created by the materials: or as you have just stated so bluntly: no brain, no consciousness.
I fully grasp van Lomel's point. Teh brain receives the soul/consciousness from outside the brain!!
dhw: However, we have both agreed that NDEs and other psychic experiences support dualism. We both know what dualism means and what materialism means, and so a few days ago you wrote: “I’ll admit we do not know the true answer.” There is no need to keep repeating the different sides of the case. You believe in dualism, and I remain neutral.DAVID: Good stopping point. Note my objection above
.
dhw: Objection dealt with. Of course it’s a good stopping point, and it’s the reason why I was reluctant to go over the same ground as we’ve been over before, but maybe there are some folk out there who will still be interested!
Fine.