Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 10:27 (281 days ago) @ David Turell

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?