Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, February 10, 2024, 08:26 (286 days ago) @ David Turell

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?