Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by dhw, Sunday, February 11, 2024, 08:32 (285 days ago) @ David Turell

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.