Dualism versus materialism again (Humans)

by David Turell , Friday, February 16, 2024, 17:59 (71 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 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: 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.