Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, February 12, 2024, 13:40 (283 days ago) @ David Turell

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.